User talk:Freakshownerd: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:50, 22 August 2010

Wildside Press Removing an author

I need a little bit more justification than what you put in the edit summary. You essentially removed the only mention of the Wildside Gaming System on an article that is a mid-importance stub in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games, removing him detracts from the article. I think that it deserves a passing mention in light of that. The reason I didn't add a reference is because the relevent third party publication since it's readily verifiable on the Author page. (Hidden gecko (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Common Language Deletion

The article is not scheduled for deletion, rather it is scheduled for movement to the Wiktionary site, as the article you have submitted appears to be more of a dictionary definition. If you plan to expand the article, you may remove the {{Copy to Wiktionary}} tag and place {{underconstruction}}. --ANowlin: talk 22:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be an article on Wickedpedia about moral compass?

Proposed deletion of Floor (legislative)

The article Floor (legislative) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I can't see this as being an encyclopaedic topic.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Claritas (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Freakshownerd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Cgingold (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Floor (legislative)

The article Floor (legislative) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Claritas (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

I saw your post on ANI. Um, my involvement in this situation this far has included my urging that he be unblocked twice, which is exactly what happened. In that light, I do not understand what it is that you are criticizing me for. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are an Arbcom member, yet you have done nothing to actually fix the situation. The damage from the blocks was already done, and Richard now has at least 4 entries in his block log because of the abusive admin actions that came on top of his being harassed and harangued, including by socks, with mass deletion nominations, threats, and censorship even of his ability to protest. The fact that you don't see a problem in this situation is proof positive that you are a major part of the problem. Or do you think being aware of abuse and supporting the victim's being unblocked after the fact is enough? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole situation is being reviewed by multiple administrators per the ANI thread. If not resolved there, it should go to some reasonable form of dispute resolution. As for the blocks, I was not aware that anyone was thinking of blocking until the blocks were already in place and I commented that I thought both were unwarranted, which was the opinion of other admins as well and the blocks were lifted. Since time only runs forward rather than backward, I had no way of undoing the blocks before they occurred. And that suggestion that a process be created for expunging unjustified blocks from block logs has been made from time to time, but never attained consensus to be implemented, so I do not understand what you are suggesting I should do regarding this aspect of the matter.

Please also note that arbitrators have no special authority beyond other administrators, except when they are actually either dealing with arbitration cases, or perhaps in dealing with situations where they are privy to confidential or sensitive information not known to other admins. It is highly frowned upon for arbitrators to wander around the wiki throwing our weight around and demanding that situations be resolved as we dictate by dint of our arbitrator positions, and in fact even my having opined as an administrator that these were questionable blocks would be disfavored by some. If you believe that I should have been more pro-active in trying to resolve this dispute because I am an arbitrator, I could consider changing my future behavior accordingly, but I fear that would meet with major objections from many of your fellow editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a lot of good excuses for your failure to properly address a problematic situation and your refusal to help get it fixed. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mario's Cafe

A tag has been placed on Mario's Cafe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Template:Do not delete Codf1977 (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marios

See User:Freakshownerd/Mario's Cafe. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, being a world's record holder isn't a guarantee of notability. Getting coverage for being the world's record holder may make someone notable (although possibly not), so it's ultimately a matter of passing the general notability guideline. Nyttend (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of San Francisco Creamery

The article San Francisco Creamery has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Creamery.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Herostratus (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I move a page? I don't see any button at the top despite the instructions. But I think my account should be autoconfirmed by now? Freakshownerd (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

change in lead to Gaza flotilla raid

Hi Freakshow,

Your recent change of the first paragraph of the lead repeats wording that is later in the same paragraph. The wording is also not fantastic. I recommend you undo the change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366122755&oldid=366121247

Zuchinni one (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix it up in follow-up edits, but I understand that it may be reverted entirely. It seems to me that the article's lede (an introduction to the subject) should provide context to the novice reader. As it was written I didn't think it was clear under what circumstances the convoy was sent or why it was disrupted. That's what I was trying to clarify. Thank you kindly for your courteous message. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could see trimming the "imposed to put pressure on Hamas and keep weapons out" if that's overly simplistic and redundant to the link regarding th blockade that's there, but I do think it's helpful to note the general circumstances ie. that there was a blockade and that the convoy was seeking to land good in spite of it, right at the outset. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, since it seems to be OK with you I will remove the "imposed to put pressure on Hamas" bit. You are correct that it is important information, but the lead has been a subject of much frustration due to lots of well meaning people adding to it for context, balance etc ...

Cheers! Zuchinni one (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I comment

To whom was this addressed? --John (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Matthew Hoh

A tag has been placed on Matthew Hoh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You created an article with not content other than {{Delrev}}. What is anyone supposed to make of that? Please do not remove speedy deletion notices. If you would like to contest the speedy deletion, place the {{hangon}} tag on the article and explain in the talk page why you think the article should not be deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Featherlite Coaches"

A page you created, Featherlite Coaches, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how it is important or significant, and thus why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for companies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Jusdafax 17:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. [1] ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 17:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I move a page? I don't see any button at the top despite the instructions. But I think my account should be autoconfirmed by now? Freakshownerd (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add things to my watchlist? For instance Featherlite needs to be disambiguated and the article that's there moved.

Refactoring talk pages

This edit: I understand the sentiment (WP:NOTAFORUM etc) but it's generally best not to totally remove other editors' comments.

I'd suggesting "collapsing" off-topic threads, with {{hat|reason=[[WP:NOTAFORUM]]}} and {{hab}}, for example:

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is off-topic, but...

This way editors can't argue that they've been censored, and they're gently nudged towards policy.

Cheers, TFOWR 16:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That sounds reasonable. I will try to remember to collapse those type of comments in future. Thanks for the suggestion. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scot BLP

Your edits to this biography of a lving person seem a bit POV, please don't add similar content without discussion on the talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific? That article has been plagued by vandalism and the addition of innaccurate information. I've done my best to make sure it stays clean. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rachel Sussman

A tag has been placed on Rachel Sussman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/may/02/rachel-sussman-oldest-plants
New York Mag blog.

External links

http://www.rachelsussman.com/ website
http://www.oltw.blogspot.com/ blog
http://www.escapeintolife.com/artist-watch/rachel-sussman/ older show of work

Speedy deletion nomination of Mario's Cafe Bar

A tag has been placed on Mario's Cafe Bar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Template:Do not delete Codf1977 (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles

Which article do you want moved? Let me know and I can try and help, or show you how. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer! I wanted to move User:Freakshownerd/Sandbox to Rachel Sussman and also User:Freakshownerd/Mario's Cafe to Mario's Cafe Bar, but I couldn't figure out how so I cut and pasted. Preserving the full history (even though there wasn't much there) would have been better. Anyone who contributed should be credited. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - look at the bottom of each page. See the link that says "Move this page"? Click on that, and it will give you a form that allows the move. It will turn the sandbox page into a redirect, but you can tag that for deletion. Make sense? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any link at the bottom of the page or anywhere else that says "move this page". Freakshownerd (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. It shows up for me. What skin are you using? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I guess I will just have to ask when I need something moved. Care to volunteer for this assignment? :) Freakshownerd (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin mentioned an older version of the interface and I hit the "take me back" tab. Low and behold I can now move sutff and easily add things to my watchlist. Hallelujah. Whoever is in charge of these "updates" really needs a good talking to. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Freakshownerd. You have new messages at Codf1977's talk page.
Message added 22:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Freakshownerd. You have new messages at Codf1977's talk page.
Message added 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Freakshownerd. You have new messages at Codf1977's talk page.
Message added 10:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

References

Rachel Sussman

I have moved your sandbox into this article to merge the history and for good measure undeleted the revisions that were deleted earlier so everything you have done on her should all be in the same place. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Per a discussion with IronGargoyle I figured out a way to change my interface to an older version and I am now able to move pages. So that should help a lot. Thanks. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Iowa School for the Deaf

A tag has been placed on Iowa School for the Deaf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Timneu22 · talk 18:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Excellent article on Iowa School for the Deaf and on Long. I like the articles that aren't available anywhere else and have to be put together a few facts at a time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richard. I appreciate your help with the article. Finding the puzzle pieces and putting them together is indeed a pleasure. Take care. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Selsko meso

A tag has been placed on Selsko meso requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. --moreno oso (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Mario's Cafe Bar

I have nominated Mario's Cafe Bar, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario's Cafe Bar. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation

Hi. Please can you read my comment here and then retract your (I'll assume incorrect) accusation. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 15:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please can you remove your accusation against me as soon as possible? ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 07:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threat?. Thank you. CIreland (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Rick Scott (businessman)

I just saw you had posted a request for others to weigh in on the Rick Scott article, asking whether it should be moved to simply Rick Scott. I definitely agree. Out of 4 weighing in, there is a pretty strong consensus of 3 of us who believe it should be moved. You gave clear reasons why that we agreed with, and the only person who said no did not give any reason, but did say maybe it should be in a month or two. I would move it myself now, but I want to be extra careful because I do have a financial relationship to Rick Scott and I want to see the article improved, but I don't want to edit out of turn. But I would like to encourage you to make the move. The current setup actually makes no sense. Thanks, Thirteenth Florida (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Scott and Iran

Hi there, Freakshownerd. Just a few minutes ago, I proposed to delete the section "Other corporate involvements" on the Rick Scott Wikipedia page, which I see you have recently worked on. (Also, regarding my comment on this page just above, someone else has already taken care of it.) I have done some research to get to the bottom of the situation, and posted what I found on the Talk page (see here). The upshot is that Iran apparently stole the software, so it's simply unfair to imply that Scott was in any way involved with Iran's censorship. If you agree with the points made, I'd like to request that you remove it, because while I could do so based on its negligible sourcing, I also do have a WP:COI relationship (noted above, of course) with Scott and do not wish to make any edits without consensus. If you do agree, please make that change. If you don't disagree, I'll be WP:BOLD and remove it myself, assuming there are no objections. Thanks. Thirteenth Florida (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add that bit originally and I have no objection to it being removed. It's a tenuous connection at best and I don't think it's worthy of inclusion or notable. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know you didn't add it, just that you had worked on it. So I am going to remove it now. Thanks. (Edit: Never mind, I see you already did! Thanks again.) Thirteenth Florida (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Ray's Hell Burger

I have nominated Ray's Hell Burger, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray's Hell Burger. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 23:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.washingtonian.com/restaurantreviews/1906.html

July 2010

Thank you for your recent contributions, such as ‎Withlacoochee River Park. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus ^{(signs his posts)} 04:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McCollum

I feel silly. You are quite right - the gay adoption case was tainted when the testifying minister got caught with the rent boy. When the title was changed from "sex" to "adoption," the only thing I could think of was that someone was alleging the preacher tried to adopt the boy. Cheers! Blue Rasberry 03:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will be interesting to see how much media coverage that case gets as campaigning continues and the elections near. I wasn't aware of it until seeing it covered here, but it certainly raises some interesting issues. I suspect Scott will win the Republican nomination, but we'll see what happens. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cypress Creek Preserve

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cypress Creek Preserve, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/recreation/areas/cypresscreek.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Townsen Regional Park

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lake Townsen Regional Park, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.hernandocounty.us/parks_rec/Parks/Park_detail.asp?Key=13. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Lake Townsen Regional Park

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Lake Townsen Regional Park, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.hernandocounty.us/parks_rec/Parks/Park_detail.asp?Key=13, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Lake Townsen Regional Park and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Lake Townsen Regional Park, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Lake Townsen Regional Park with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Lake Townsen Regional Park. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Lake Townsen Regional Park saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Acather96 (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Hoh refs

http://www.rferl.org/content/US_Seeks_New_Balance_In_Afghan_Intelligence/1930910.html

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/27/afghanistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8565517.stm

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/16-Dec-2009/We-have-the-time/1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8565517.stm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/01/matthew-hoh-interviewed-b_n_341553.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2010/02/201028910504706.html

http://www.ridenhour.org/recipients_03h.shtml

Susan Gaddy liberal Democrat and lawyer http://free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992209084141467&act=post&pid=11861006100935349

http://www.rferl.org/content/US_Seeks_New_Balance_In_Afghan_Intelligence/1930910.html

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/27/afghanistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8565517.stm

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/16-Dec-2009/We-have-the-time/1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/01/matthew-hoh-interviewed-b_n_341553.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2010/02/201028910504706.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/16/taliban-indistinguishable-enemy-afghanistan

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Afghanistan/us-civilian-surge-afghanistan-decade/story?id=9971367
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html
interviews of by Fareed Zakaria, Al Jazeera
award http://www.ridenhour.org/recipients_03h.shtml he just received in April
ABC News story
http://vimeo.com/8129340?

Speedy deletion nomination of F Project

A tag has been placed on F Project requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Prestonmag (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring that article so it can properly be considered at the Deletion Review by admin and commoner editors alike. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous articles deleted speedily that need reviewing

Here: [2] Freakshownerd (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this is not an appropriate use of another user's editing history...following someone around and checking all of their deletion nominations...as it verges on wiki-stalking. You may wish to reconsider how you're going about this. Tarc (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what a contribution history is for. I've come across a series of bad deletion decisions and I'm seeking to have them rectified. In fact I even asked for suggestions on how to proceed at the DRV where I put up a few of them. If you have suggestions you're welcome to offer them. Judging from your misguided input at DRV and the Ray's Hell Burger deletion discussion it appears you may have your own problem with stalking and disruption. Only a fool would vote to delete those two subjects even after their notability has been well establisehd by substantial coverage in reliable sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what it is for; doing as you are doing now is failing to assume good faith on the part of Codf1977. He is not vandalizing or disrupting, especially seeing how an admin agreed with his nominations and actually deleted the articles. DRV is to review the closing admin's actions, not the nominator's. As for you and your Ray's Burger jab...no, you over-estimate yourself. I regularly participate in many, many XfD and DRV discussions, and my weighing in both here and in this are wholly unconnected to you. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't impugned anyone's good faith. I'm simply trying to improve the encyclopedia. Again, if you have suggestions on the best approach to fixing a long series of bad deletion decisions then let me know. Otherwise, don't bug me. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jasmine Records

A tag has been placed on Jasmine Records requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F Project Deletion Appeal

For what reason was the F Project page first deleted? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laziness. :) Freakshownerd (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On whose part? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add _Categories_ to your new articles.

Greetings, I notice you've added quite a few new articles that do not have Categories. Please ensure that your articles have clear, precise categories at the end, otherwise they are dumped into WP:UNCAT and hard to access. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

You have new messages (last change).

—fetch ·comms 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improper deletions

Here: [3].; Backlinks also need to be restored.

Celtic Heartbeat Records Obvious merge candidate with sources at Google Books

Fox ex. http://books.google.com/books?id=iQ4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48&dq=Celtic+Heartbeat+Records&hl=en&ei=5vM9TI_IMsH98Abw5cGRBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Celtic%20Heartbeat%20Records&f=false

Urban Dubz Records (does not appear to be notable)

Hardleaders several sources indicating notability [4]

Hokey Pokey Records several sources indicate notability [5] (History needs to be restored) "This collection from Hokey Pokey Records in England holds a mirror to Thompson's recent three-disc retrospective, showing the brilliance and the deceptive fragility of Thompson's songs." Option, Issues 54-58 1994

Silkheart Records strong indications of notability [6]

Vacuous Pop Recordings (does not appear to be notable)

Victory Garden Records (does not appear to be notable)

Phantasm Records [7] (lots of backlinks need restoring)

Zone 6 Records (does not appear to be notable)

Pigeon Hole Records [8]

Akarma Records [9] [10] [11] (numerous backlinks need restoring)

Blues Matters! Records (numerous backlinks need restoring) should at least be Blues Matters if affiliated

The RISC Group deleted at AfD. Hard to find sources since name shared with other meanings of name. (may not be notable. Seems to be mostly a store now?)

O.T. Recordings doesn't appear notable

Noise Records (UK) Should probably go to AfD.

Liquid Asset (label) Discog: [12] Difficult to serach for sources because of name

Kalophone Records (appear to be pretty obscure German label that released LPs)

Levelsound

Blues Matters! Records (numerous backlinks need restoring) should at least be Blues Matters if affiliated. As seems obvious from this edit [13]. (and backlinks need to be restored)

The RISC Group deleted at AfD. Hard to find sources since name shared with other meanings of name. (may not be notable. Seems to be mostly a store now?)

O.T. Recordings doesn't appear notable

Removals from List of electronic music record labels, List of record labels: I–Q and List of record labels: 0-9 also need reviewing.

Already preserved: Nitto Records (AfD deemed unserious), Silvertone Records (1930), Isadora Records, Silkheart Records, Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Trust, Voiceprint Records

Removals from List of electronic music record labels, List of record labels: I–Q and List of record labels: 0-9 also need reviewing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMG_International,_N.V. ](although a BMG subunit)

Mass unhelpful taggings also unconstructive.

up to 07:34, 6 July 2010

Sippy hole

"Sippy hole called the Sippy hole? According to local legend, a driver in the early days of Swamp Buggy racing named Sippy Morris (a name he was given because he hailed from Mississippi) was known to just about always get stuck in the track's signature depression." http://www.swampbuggy.com/swamp-buggy-track.html

User:Freakshownerd/Sippy hole

http://books.google.com/books?id=pWvSXSDHqFUC&pg=PA124&dq=sippy+hole&hl=en&ei=5eIjTLyrJ8T68AaE_Lm0BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sippy%20hole&f=false page 124

watering hole

rope swing

Copyright Violation

I've left a message at Talk:Cypress Creek Preserve exp laing why I removed the material and why it is inappropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Heartbeat Records

Since you challenged the the deletion of Celtic Heartbeat Records I have restored it. Can you please add some more text to the article, as it is so minimal at the moment that it is not worth merging. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and merged it, and added a referenced bit. I suspect it may be independently notable, but at least it has a home again. Thanks for your assistance. Much appreciated. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

You have new messages (last change).

—fetch ·comms 21:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debrahlee Lorenzana

FYI, sadly this one has already been to DRV, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_14. I also blogged about this deletion and the related time wasted on Rachel Uchitel, see [14] if you are interested. cheers.--Milowent (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion needed

User:Freakshownerd/Reelin' in the Years Productions [15]

Copy-edits

Please specify which information needs to be copy-edit.-Smile1234smile (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article. Hence the tag. Note also that Tvoz made a similar observation in his edit summary. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip E. Johnson

Thank you for your interest in this article. I have begun a discussion at the Fringe Theories noticeboard. It may be of interest to note that, according to WP:FRINGE, a fringe theory should be balanced by accurate, verifiable information, even if sources for such information do not directly address the subject of the article him/her/itself. This is not a BLP violation; rather, it is a mechanism to prevent Wikipedia being overrun with promotional fringe material without the perspective of "mainstream" views. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of David Drake (chef)

A tag has been placed on David Drake (chef) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_n26_v28/ai_16073552/

Three revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Phillip E. Johnson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the 3RR noticeboard, as you're now up to six reverts. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, for your helpful edits, to the article Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant. I had considered merging those 2 subsections, so that was a welcome copyedit. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cirt. It's always a pleasant surprise to get a kind note. A section on the menu (or maybe food and wine?) might be nice. I think more trimming and tightening might be good, but maybe it's best to wait for the clamoring to die down a bit. Good luck and thanks again for your consideration. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to work on your suggestions, they are good ones. :) However, unfortunately, you are quite right, it might be best to wait until the "clamoring" has died down. :( -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Duesberg

The use of the term AIDS denialism is well established and the subject of considerable consensus (see the history at AIDS denialism, Duesberg and related articles. May I suggest that you avoid viewing our disagreements over Phillip E. Johnson as the pretext to edit warring on other fringe-related subjects? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term AIDS denialism is right there in the opening sentence. It appears, as usual, that you either don't know what you're talking about or are purposefully distorting reality for some ulterior motive. Either way, I can only ask that you cease your abuse and disruption. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have modified "AIDS denialism", the accepted term for this fringe movement, with "so-called"; you have also added the term "HIV skeptics". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored he term HIV skeptics in parentheses (after you removed it) as a point of clarification. Not everyone knows what AIDS denialism is. Also, while people within the movement were and are known as AIDS delialists, which seems to be quite pejorative, distinguishing that they don't identify themselves that way is probably helpful. Again, the nomenclature AIDS denialism is noted right at the onset so it's not clear to me what you are objecting to other than continuing to try and pick a fight. Your misrepresentations of what's in the sources is being discussed at the BLP/N and I'm hoping you'll restore the dispute tag as I suggested to you on your talk page so readers realize that the Johnson page is in contention. It's unfortunate that you've chosen to make this personal and to cast false aspersions on me, but you have only to look in the mirror to realize that dishonest smears are corrupting no matter what our perspective and beliefs. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When making changes to an article that has existed in its current version, more or less, for multiple years, it's the prerogative of the changing editor to propose controversial changes on the talk page. If you have read the talk history for Peter Duesberg or for any related article, you understand that the nomenclature issue has been contentious in the past and that extensive discussions have led to the current consensus, namely, that AIDS denialism is the accepted term in the scientific community and thus for Wikipedia. You are not the first person to object, nor will you be the last, but you will need substantial additional support to make the changes you desire. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have not removed the terminology, I have only added clarification so it's meaning is not misunderstood. Clarifications are useful, while distortions, lies and misrepresentations like those you've undertaken at the Philip E. Johnson article are not. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[16]

Clarifications that serve to cast doubt on the accepted terminology are not clarifications at all; they're a means to promote a fringe POV. As for making this personal, I don't recall calling you a liar, a grotesque distorter of reality, a slanderer, dishonest, or any of the various things you've attributed to me. May I kindly suggest that you stop the name-calling while you're ahead? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying that those labeled AIDS denialists (which is clearly perjorative terminology to begin with) are skeptical of the HIV-AIDS connection does not cast doubt on anything. It merely identifies the core of their objection which might be misunderstood by readers unfamiliar with the very loaded terminology being used, in some cases by POV pushers who resort to distortions and misinformation as you have clearly done on the Johnson article. Why haven't you restored the disputed tag? And why are you allowing innaccuracies you introduced to remain even after it's been pointed out to you that they are not supported by the citations provided? Freakshownerd (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out...OK, what I'm gathering from this is that you, personally, consider the term AIDS denialist to be pejorative. That's fine. The problem is that your views (and mine) don't matter. It's what the reliable sources say that matters; it's the consensus of Wikipedians that matters. The reliable sources use the term denialist, and discussions have led to consensus on the matter. Have you found these discussions? Would you like a link to them? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you resort to despicable lies and distortions. The sources clearly note the connection between the AIDS denialist terminology and the phrase Holocaust denial. That you would suggest that the descriptor is not pejorative is utterly dishonest. You've also ignored my questions regarding your ongoing BLP violations, so it's clear you are not willing to engage in respectful discussion and seek only to disrupt the encyclopedia building efforts of good faith contributors. Please do no post here again other than to provide me with required notifications. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cats

categories and working up the talk

:) Thanksl santry (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A simple link back to a subject's home page is not a reliable source nor one that asserts notability Kudpung (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take anything I've created to AfD. Everyone else does. Or you can help expand the content with whatever sourcing you choose (as long as it's suitable). Have a happy every day. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no intention of taking anything you do to a notice board, nor PRODDING or AfDing your creations, although it's true that your work seems to get involved in crossfire and attract flak. Some of your stuff is good and all I am suggesting is that you provide it with propper references according to WP:RS. However, mass creating new stubs and then suggesting that others come by and clean up after you is probably not a very social way to contribute to this encyclopedia.--Kudpung (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You threatened to block me for creating articles cited to information from the Southwest Florida Water Management District. I asked you to take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard if you objected to that source as being unreliable. I haven't mass created anything, and if you think any of the articles I've created are on subjects that aren't notable or that the articles need to be deleted or modified for any reason please follow the appropriate procedure to get them changed or expunged. I don't appreciate your threats or lack of assistance, and you come off to me as a bully. If you want to help please do so, if not, that's fine too. But please don't bug me any more. I have work to do. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please don't bug me anymore I have work to do.... hilarious, this account has been here about a month, have you contributed with other accounts? Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm being kind of mean, and I would like to be a better person, but I'm only human. Ugh. Oh well. Some day perhaps I will be blessed with infinite patience and kindness no matter how frustrating the circumstances. :( It's not really Kidpung's fault I'm pissed off about the malicious attacks on BLPs that go on here, aided and abetted by a subset of admins, but unfortunately he bore the brunt of my disgust at the lack of collegiality and good faith cooperation. Sorry Kudpung, I hope you have a terrific summer and a wonderful life. Don't ever let grumpy people get you down. Nice to see you Off2rio. Your friendly humor is always welcome. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does get me down also (when it affects me I have to step back or I would speak my mind which policy prevents) , the POV pushers and the people who just don't like the subject of an article and so on, such is the human race (apparently) and if I had a block button I would just block them all. What you have there with KCANDCON is really just a content dispute, KCACO is some kind of claimed expert or something and was editing from a university with other users on the same IP, on aids drugs, sometimes I cant be bothered and I just walk away laughing, I have found that works quite well and it is good advice to remember that due to such POV editing , no one in the world believes anything written in wikipedia...I find it is good to keep that in mind when editing...shame but there you go. Take it off your watchlist and leave them to it..is one option, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes are one thing, but saying someone said something they didn't is clearly wrong. If the BLP policies and enforcement pages are insufficient to get even obvious distortions fixed, then I believe the editors, admins, and operators of this site should be held liable for the misinformation they are willfully spreading, whether by direct action or failure to respond when these distortions and misrepresentations are pointed out to them. And o fcourse I know I must disclaim any intent or threat of legal action, but I would certainly be cheered by it if that's what's needed to bring accountability to the dishonest thugs maligning living people or the admins and site operators standing by and letting them do so. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss -- representation of a living subjects opinions using selected and poorly reflected citations, yes. awful, but administrators are not really able to deal with or responsible for that. We do do our best at the BLPN and admins also and other editors, it is hard and imo awful when such additions occur. In my experience presently the only way to remove them is through endless terminal circular discussion on the talkpage and noticeboards, again you have to ask yourself, is my expenditure worthy of the likely outcome and many many times, in my experience the answer is no. I agree with you this if a couple of users were taken to court for misrepresentation and libel it would be a real good thing, as users come here thinking wikipedia would protect them but as I have seen in discussions, wikipedia would place all responsibility on the user that added the content, if a couple of them were sued and and left to pay costs it would stop all POV pushers from editing here.this is why as an editor it is good idea never to replace anything that is doubtful. In my experience, when living subjects write to OTRS with issues of libel and misrepresentation action is quickly taken, personal responsibility is to me what it is all about, but try explaining that to a first year university or college student or a twelve year old boy on a school politics project. Stand back take a deep breath and feel the laughter arise from deep in your belly and allow it to rise up and be released in a great big loud belly laugh. Regards.Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I have reverted this edit[17] to your user talk page, since the edit constituted a blatant WP:NPA violation; the user who made it has just been indef blocked. Nsk92 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please stop using the word "vandalism" (or variants thereof) to describe edits that you disagree with. Per WP:NOTVAND, the edits you're referring to are explicitly and unequivocally not vandalism. Repeatedly calling other editors "vandals" simply because you don't agree with their edits is a bit grating. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, Keepcalmandcarryon continues to engage in vandalistic attacks on article content and to engage in deception. He falsely accused me of making statements about Islamic terrorism and he needs to be reined in. Removing descriptions of the working areas of a man's career from his article looks very much like vandalism as does adding "AIDS denialist" every other sentence. It's totally unnecessary and it violates numerous editing policies. The BLP violations need to stop as do you your threats against me. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you said you would correct the misinformation Keepcalmandcarryon added to the Philip E. Johnson article, but have failed to do so to this point. BLP is clear policy and dishonest content and misrepresentations simply cannot be allowed to stand. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this isn't a "threat" against you. I'm asking you to stop misusing a term. If you ignore me, there's no "or else". I mean, I'll be that much less inclined to bother to try reasoning with you in the future, and perhaps less inclined to continue sifting through your stream of verbal abuse looking for valid concerns, but that's about it.

What I actually said was that I think we can reach a better wording, but that I'm not willing to stick my oar in while you're on a self-righteous tear. I don't want to be part of the ongoing edit wars you're participating in, and based on your general tone and approach I personally don't feel that efforts at calm, rational discussion with you are likely to be rewarding at this point. I'm a volunteer here, like everyone else, which means that I can choose how I spend my time here. Listening to constant hectoring from someone who shows no apparent interest to date in calm, rational discussion isn't high on my list. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it self-righteous to try and stop the string of BLP violating edits and distortions engaged in by Keepcalmandcarryon (something I see as being clear vandalism)? No one has yet come forward to suggest that he accurately described Duesberg's views, or that his misquotation of Johnson wasn't inappropriate. I am very open to rational discussion, if there's a reason why someone's work as a poet and author shouldn't be included in the opening paragraph or why the term AIDS denialist should be repeated again and again in the same three paragraphs I am happy to consider those arguments. I haven't edit warred anywhere. I've compromised on lots of text and allowed numerous modifications. Constrast that with the spate of reversions this editor has pursued my work with, without providing any policy based arguments. Is every single change I've made to those articles wrong? How so? Again, if we stick to discussing the content and rein in the vandalism and BLP violations I don't think there will be a problem. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone drives by your home and spray paints "jerk" on your walls is that vandalism? That's the equivalent of what he's doing. The meaning of the word vandalism is quite clear and neither you nor Wikipedia has the right redefine the English language. Although I can't stop you from consulting with Webster's or Oxford if you think their work needs revision. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had you read WP:VAND as MastCell originally suggested, you'd realize you are wrong. On wikipedia, vandalism is a deliberate attempt to make wikipedia worse. It is manifestly not edits made in good faith that you disagree with.

Also, it's not against BLP to accurately describe a subject or their activities. AIDS denialism is indeed a pejorative label but it's an accurate one, verifiably so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one repeatedly inserts misinformation (data that is, on checking sources, self-evidently different from those sources) that is a deliberate attempt to make Wikipedia worse. That kind of activity is labelled as "sneaky vandalism" in the relevant policy. If editors were at least sticking to the sources in their ~~'tarring/feathering of the bad guys'~~ 'accurately describing a subject or their activities' that would be less despicable, but they are not, they are fabricating and synthesising.163.1.147.64 (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, vandalism is replacing pages with profanity, gay jokes, and simply removing all information. Your comment is best addressed by providing quotations from the source on the relevant talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check what it says in the policy about sneaky vandalism. Over the years I've spent countless hours fighting vandalism, with white list access on the official irc en-vandlism channel, I've dealt with more vandals than you've had hot dinners - check my old admin bloking log - User:Wiki alf - I think I know what I'm talking about, your idea of vandalism is myopic.163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I gave you a barnstar. Vat is dat? (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worthy. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are worthy for dealing with thugs like MastCell and Tarc. I would have left long ago due to their constant trolling and harassment. Vat is dat? (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think MasCell is a thug, but I do think his approach to editing here according to his preferred POVs and in order to advance those same POVs by standing by the abuses of others is damaging. Take care. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at MastCell's apathy when Wikipedia's core policies are being violated and living people are being disparaged, I salute you and your patience in dealing with Keepcalmandcarryon's disruption and vandalism. You take care, too. Vat is dat? (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I did learn a bit about dissidents/AIDS denialists/contrarians and their AIDS research, so my efforts and investigations haven't been without benefit. :) It's an interesting subject. And I was just reading about the savior of mothers. I do think the level of emotion and rage from those seeking to censor and censure anyone and everything they disagree with is a bit frightening. But on the other hand, I'm looking forward to a nice dinner and a swim. So ying and yang are perhaps as balanced as ever. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

denialism

A couple of days ago I copied the comments on my page to talk:Denialism#Lead July 2010 and it includes a reply from me.

I think that this post my well go some way to explaining why I think that our description of denialism is an accurate description of what people mean when they use it. -- PBS (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism and fanatics

It appears that you are unfortunately stuck in an revert war with that ass, WLU. She tears out pertinent fact about the careers of people she doesn't like, puts her own opinions and interpretations of "reliable"sources into articles. She thinks she's not a vandal because she's doing it all "in good faith". Worse of all, I don't think we can defeat someon who has nothing to do with her life but thought-police her favorite WP pages. But I applaud your efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReasonsAdvocate (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I keep reverting is because of the numerous reliable sources that demonstrate, vividly, repeatedly and consistently that Peter Duesberg's views on HIV/AIDS are pseudoscience, as are Phillip Johnson's views on evolution. Anyone advocating for Phillip Johnson or Peter Duesberg to be taken seriously is not working from reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're advocating on the safety of poppers now [18]? Better hope the condom is sturdy if you're using drugs to relax your bung hole to make it easier to access by multiple partners. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really, really, really need to chill. I'm getting increasingly concerned that you can't be can't be talked down from the Reichstag. MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going so far as to suggest that poppers are pretty safe and that recreational drug use isn't immunosuppresive, as you and WLU have now done, is really a step too far. Stop propagandizing your preferred view. This isn't a pamphleteering project, this is an effor tto build an encyclopedia. I get that you think Duesberg is wrong on HIV-AIDS, I do too. But that doesn't mean we should trash him in his article and misrepresent all of his work and opinions. (Same goes for Philip E. Johnson). Your attempts at advocacy have now crossed the line and gone beyond grotesque BLP violations so that you're spreading dangerous misinformation about drug use and risky sexual behavior. That's outrageous and despicable. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If those are your honest conclusions, I think you are worked up to the point that you're not reading carefully, if at all. Which makes it a waste of time to discuss further until you've calmed down. I'd like to believe that will happen, at some point, because I'm getting tired of the constant stream of unjustified invective. MastCell ^Talk 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny stating that "men who are HIV-negative do not develop anything resembling AIDS, nor opportunistic infections, nor immunodeficiency" in a discussion about drug use and its effects? I certainly hope you don't believe that drugs are safe and don't affect the immune system. That seems absurd to even suggest.

The HIV-AIDS connection is very well established so there's no need do engage in distortions or ridiculous assertions. Clearly drug use is damaging to the immune system. Perhaps you just misspoke? Meanwhile WLU is trying to sanitize the dangers associated with poppers. This is a troubling development and I hope you'll assist me in making clear that illicit party drug use and risky sexual behavior is extremely dangerous, especially in putting individuals and society at greater risk of HIV infection. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<Placeholder> I may return to this conversation at some point, when I'm convinced it will be a good use of time, but for now, I'm not interested. MastCell ^Talk 23:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pitiful but typical, the way WLU hides her personal campaign behind the guise of quoting "legimate" and "respected" sources. They're legitimate and respected by HER because they happen to purport HER personal opinion. And her opionion is so far above question that anyone who disagrees should be silenced. She's the kind of person who would imprison or shoot anyone who spoke in disagreement with her, if only she had the power. ReasonsAdvocate (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly planty of fanatics and lunatics running around. But spreading misinformation and carrying out smears of people who have different perspectives doesn't seem very constructive to me. Maybe some of these jokers are just immature and will grow up some day soon. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I followed this conversation from WLU's talk page and I see poppers mentioned, an article that I did a lot of editing to. I was responsible for the initial edit which said that poppers had less overall harm compared to other recreational drugs, which is a true statement. In most, if not all countries poppers is a legal drug which is sold over the counter. If it was as dangerous as other drugs it would be a scheduled substance and more tightly controlled, it is not; it is universally accepted throughout the world that poppers poses a relatively low risk of harm. That does not mean that it is completely safe and it does not mean that it is socially or morally right to use poppers recreationally and I am sure most parents wouldn't be too happy if their kids were sniffing it but that is besides the point. The source used which determined it's harm was done by interviewing a large number of experts in drug harm, including addiction psychiatrists, expert psychopharmacologists, professionals involved in criminal justice etc and asking them to rank drugs according to their harm and poppers was found to be the least harmful of all recreational drugs. Recreational drug use does not cause AIDs. Infact many recreational drugs are used in medicine, such as opiates, including diamorphine (heroin) [sometimes at very high doses due to tolerance in chronic pain patients], amphetamines, benzodiazepines, AIDs is not seen, nor mentioned in side effects of these drugs. Drug abuse can lower immunity but not to the point of AIDs and besides which, cessation of substance abuse would lead to a gradually improving overall health picture, including immunity, whereas with AIDs, it is a typically gradually deteriorating clinical picture, the opposite. There are some pharmacological drugs which suppress immunity significantly and have side effects such as neutropenia for example but when these side effects occur, discontinuation of the drug leads to a return of immunity, with AIDs the opposite is the case, the disease progressively gets worse. The amount of research that has been churned into recreational drug use is phenomenal, but yet AIDs has never been correlated with recreational drug use. I cannot and will not comment on who is right with regard to the content dispute as I have not reviewed the edits in detail and I am not familar with the people in the BLP article(s). I don't know if my post will help resolve this dispute by trying to enlighten you to the fact that recreational drug abuse does not cause AIDS. It can indirectly increase the risk of AIDs through, needle sharing and increased risky sexual behaviour while intoxicated etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are grossly mistaken. Poppers increase the risk of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases directly by lowering immunity and dilating blood vessels, poppers also impair judgment, putting people in dangerous situations and at greater risk for engaging in unprotected sex, and poppers are dangerous in combination with many other drugs. This is all very well established. The use of poppers also appears to promote cancerous growths. I don't believe that any sensible or responsible editor would be advocating the safety of this intoxicant or fail to fully disclose the dangers. AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases may be treatable, but they're not life enhancing. And let's not even get into the role of gateway drugs, which by impairing judgment and providing a starting point for experimentation with illicit substances often lead to much more damaging and life destroying pursuits, including drug use where needles are shared. Recreational drug use is absolutely 100% involved in the spread of AIDS, and it's shocking that anyone would argue otherwise. Needle sharing, impaired judgment, multiple partners, weakened immune systems, incarceration, etc. etc. etc. Are you kidding me? Wake the fuck up. [19] Freakshownerd (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the sex in the world, gay or straight, won't give you AIDS unless you are having it with someone who is HIV+. The fact that poppers and risky sex make it more likely for you to be infected if exposed does not eliminate the fact that exposure is 100% necessary. No-one is advocating for the "safety" of poppers - they're still drugs with risks - but they are relatively safe as exhibited by their over the counter status. Neither is anyone saying AIDS is life-enhancing, that's a gross charicature that's simply beyond being wrong and all AIDS treatments are recognized to have risks - just fewer risks than untreated infection. Recreational drug use has been shown to be associated with HIV status, but it's certainly not a cause. And again, hemophiliacs and mother-infected infants who are HIV+ probably didn't get it from poppers. The fact that reducing popper use may reduce HIV infection is certainly worth noting, but it's secondary to reducing risky sex overall. Sniffing poppers doesn't cause AIDS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And drinking and driving doesn't kill people directly, it's the metal car body smashing into and crushing human bodies into lifelessness as a result of the impaired judgment that's a problem. The article espouses the view that poppers are "relatively" safe despite all the evidence to the contrary. Please don't espouse dangerous and ridiculous denialism on my talkpage. If you want to be ignant go sniff glue, I'm sure it's relatively safe compared to taking a sledgehammer to your head. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the response to drinking and driving is neither to ban alcohol nor cars. The proper way to note this in the poppers page is to state that poppers have been established as relatively safe, but are associated with other risky behaviour. Again, poppers don't cause AIDS, they are associated with HIV infection as a correlational factor. The statement in the poppers article is that poppers - on their own and in association with other drugs - are relatively safe. But then it notes that they are associated with risky sex (a fact no-one tried to remove) and also notes very appropriately that they are not causal for AIDS infections and also that the poppers-AIDS causal myth is a frequent canard of AIDS denialism. How else would you suggest this topic be dealt with? Should we lie or misrepresent the sources? If you are going to prevent AIDS, you don't do it by prohibiting the sale of poppers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but drinking and driving is outlawed in many jurisdictions. The proper approach is to note all the risks associated with popper use and not to downplay them because they are "relatively" safe compared to hard core iv drug abuse and crack cocaine. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Freakshownerd, I clearly said that poppers was not safe, and I clearly said that substance abuse increases the risk of aquiring HIV and I clearly stated that drug abuse can lower the immune system (but not to the point of causing AIDS), please don't misquote me. Your reply basically agrees with me, but acts as if you are disagreeing with me. You sound like someone who just enjoys recreational debating and giving other people abuse, for your own recreational pleasure. Addiction/habituation to poppers is almost unheard of, compare that to say alcohol, cocaine, tobacco etc. Are you really arguing that poppers causes as much, drug related harm, physically, mentally and socially as say alcohol, tobacco, heroin etc? Why does no government agree with you, why is poppers not scheduled? I stated that drug abuse increases the risk aquiring AIDs, so again more twisting people's words and playing mind games, please see WP:DISRUPT. Oh and that link you gave does not say drug abuse causes AIDs. Infact the first part of it says "modest immunosuppression followed by gradual recovery after cessation of drug", which is what I was saying. Why did you send a a link that agreed with what I said but acted like it disagreed with me? What is your problem? You need to read WP:CIVIL as well and learn how to interact with your fellow wikipedians.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I made it clear that I agreed that inhalants are not as bad as some other drugs like crack and heroin. Shooting yourself in the leg is also safer than shooting yourself in the head. I never suggested that drugs themselves cause AIDS, just as drinking and driving is perfectly safe unless the driver's impaired judgment causes them to plow into another vehicle or a pedestrian in which case the outcome can be bad. But it's all relative. It's not nearly as dangerous as flying an airplane into a building or using heavy explosives in a crowded and confined space. So the immunodepression, increased risk of acquiring AIDS, possible complications, impaired judgment, and cancer risks mut be put in appropriate context. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what is all the arguing about then? Wikipedia is not a forum for debating. It is a reference work, so if you think articles are biased, why not add references? I would urge you to read WP:MEDRS though before sourcing medical articles or medical facts.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we do have to represent findings as found in reliable sources, proportionate to their representation. Those sources seem pretty clear in stating that poppers aren't really a big health risk (and again, for AIDS it is HIV infection that is important, poppers are a correlation relationship - really it's a third variable, risky sex is the factor that unites HIV and AIDS). You may think that poppers are a substantial health risk, but until there are sources to substantiate this point, it's rather moot. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for later

[20]

Talk:Douglas Haig (disambiguation)

There is a Request for Comment here, you might be interested in the discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I will comment there. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kary Mullis

Please note what you're actually reverting on Kary Mullis. In addition to integrating (not deleting) portions of the text in to the single paragraph, I also embedded Kalichman's books into <ref></ref> tags that you keep reverting. It was not a simple delete, I put two sections together and included relevant information. Keep in mind my overarching principle is WP:UNDUE - though we can describe what his views are in general, we should not include details since they're pseudoscientific and clearly so. Also, AIDS denialism is an accurate title for the section, not merely "AIDS". He doesn't "have a view on AIDS", he denies the scientific consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What policy indicates that removing a biographical subject's notable views from their article is appopriate? Please be specific. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE, as I've indicated before, which is referenced in WP:BLPSTYLE. Also note WP:COAT - the pseudoscientific views of people are not an excuse to explore them in detail. It is sufficient to note that HIV causes AIDS, that Mullis incorrectly believes it doesn't, and move on. Definitely unwarranted is a detailed examination of his views. This is a general principle. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note MOS:CAPS in general. Polymerase Chain Reaction should not be capitalized unless it starts a sentence, and even then only the first letter. This is particularly important when talking about wikilinked terms, as they are case sensitive and you're better off not bypassing through a redirect. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrespresenting that policy just as you misrepresent sources and engage in BLP violations. It says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The subject of these article is an individual, so obviously their notable views should be represented while criticisms and context should be included, but not given undue weight. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I read UNDUE as impacting issues such as these - lengthy discourses on the erroneous beliefs of individuals and entities is an UNDUE issue in my mind, in addition to being a COAT problem, in addition to presenting OR issues if you are going to do a good job of dealing with the topic. If you spend a lot of text dealing with the incorrect ideas on a topic page, irrespective of the topic or page, the impression is given that the incorrect ideas actually have merit. In cases where this is clearly incorrect (AIDS denialism, intelligent design/creationism and flat-earthers for three nonrandom examples), it presents the conundrum of having a detailed, lengthy discussion of wrong beliefs, followed by a brief and generic statement that they are in fact wrong. This is the bad way to build an accurate encyclopedia. It doesn't matter what the incorrect ideas are - only that they are indeed incorrect. To give proper balance and weight in terms of depth of analysis and volume of text, you'd need to incorporate a lengthy set of references that don't mention the subject of the page - which presentes OR and SYNTH issues. Therefore, the preferred approach is to mention only briefly the generalities of the incorrect idea, and an equally brief statement that they are incorrect. Specifics should be avoided. We are supposed to be writing a serious encyclopedia, not acting as a mouthpiece for incorrect, pseudoscientific concepts. We can seek the input of the greater community if you would prefer, via a WP:RFC or WP:3O, though if KCCO has expressed a preference, the latter option is probably not preferred. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits to Poppers

Hi there,

I've just reverted your edits to the Poppers article, since they make substantial changes in tone from the existing article. If you wish to make such radical changes, please ensure there is consensus first in the talk page.

--me_and (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The contents I added are well sourced. If you have citations to reliable sources disputing those findings please include them. I am also concerned that those editing th article may have a conflict of interest. The article was overly promotional and it's been noted in reliable sources that there are spammers active on the net trying to promote the safety of these drugs despite the studies indicating the serious risks. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the sources you cited relied primarily on information from a single individual, Hank Wilson, in a single source, and so I am unconvinced that they are "well sourced".

Secondly, I reiterate: Wikipedia works on consensus. There was (and, I believe, remains) a consensus for the previous wording of the article ("Poppers have a low risk of harm to society…"). If you wish to show that the consensus has changed, please do so on the talk page before making edits that may be controversial

--me_and (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the current editing you appear to be engaged in, I'd like to remind you of the policy on edit warring. Since I'm lazy, here's a template version…

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Poppers. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. me_and (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed well cited content without explanation.

Your assertions about the cites are totally untrue. Numerous sources were cited including a plethora of scientific studies, AIDS treatment weekly, and the views of medical doctor who are experts in the relevant fields. If you don't think those sources are reliable please take them to the appropriate noticebaord. And if you have sources establishing the safety poppers, please feel free to include them. Do you have any financial interest in the promotion and sale of these inhalants? Freakshownerd (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[21]

integrated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[22]

iUniverse is a self-publishing company, making this one look like a self-published AIDS denialist tract along the "gay people are icky!" vein. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/466849 (already used in article)

Yup, to source the statement that the correlation is to high-risk behaviour, not to direct. Poppers do not cause HIV/AIDS, high-risk sexual behaviour does. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[23]

Again, the link is not to poppers, it's to poppers being used with viagra. Plus, that's a news story - we shouldn't place much weight on it until there's a pubmed article. Per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Drugs, we should include this information in a separate section on "interactions". This isn't a direct risk from poppers, it's a combination of poppers and another vasodilator. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[24]

This is from the medically unreliable Spin music magazine. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, poppers were originally thought to have been the cause of AIDS because of the strong correlation between those suffering the disease and popper use. [25] + [26]

[27]

...and that link is both noted, and has since been debunked, which is also noted in the article. The first book concludes the "poppers" section with a note that a) few scientists think poppers are even a cofactor for AIDS and b) even if there is a connection, antiretrovirals have made it essentially a moot point. The second and third books are from 1998. We do insist on summarizing the most recent and accurate information, not any link we can make. Honestly, much of the information you appear to be advocating for based on these sources is either already included, or now demonstrated wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is now ongoing discussion on the article talk page, I'll reply to your comments there. --me_and (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Poppers

Someone has complained about your recent edits: WP:AN3#User:Freakshownerd reported by User:Meand (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please don't call other editors, in particular me a "jackass". You reverted my edit claiming "per policy", without linking to an actual policy. My original comment at removing the unnecessary disambiguation page was "no need for DAB page to red link". Your reply was "feel free to create an article to replace the redlink". My reply was "why? You don't seem driven to, and there's no need to disambiguate between two almost nonnotable prizes" followed by a posting on the talk page where I cite WP:REDLINK. Next was your "per policy" revert, which didn't actually refer to a policy and seemed to ignore my mention of REDLINK - a policy that supported my edit. Next is my revert with an ES of "per talk, and what policy would that be? I link to mine" with a link to redlink. Then you created the Texas A&M prize page, and I haven't reverted to the redirect since. So a) please don't insult other editors, and b) if you're going to cite policy to support your edits, please ensure it's actually a policy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was "best not to be a jackass don't you think" after a series of disruptive edits from you. Please stop stalking me and vandalising the encyclopedia to push your personal biases. And please don't post here again. You've demonstrated you aren't interested (or perhaps are incapable) of carrying on a constructive and intelligent dialogue. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Trotter Prize (Texas A&M)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trotter Prize (Texas A&M), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trotter Prize (Texas A&M). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility reminder

I've noticed a pattern of communication coming from you consisting of extremely rude and insulting comments directed towards other editors, and this is contributing to a battlefield attitude. Please think of your fellow editors as friendly colleagues and not as enemies you must run through with your sword. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very polite to friendly colleagues. When editors engage in slander, vandalism, and disruption, as well as trolling, I don't treat them as saints. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you feel that way. The problem is that any time an editor disagrees with you, you charge them with engaging in slander, vandalism, and disruption. If you can't be at least remotely civil to people who civilly disagree with you, then this may not be the best venue for you. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, when I disagree with editors I explain my position and they explain theirs. I try to find common ground, an accomodation, or a compromise. When editors engage in slander, vandalism, disruption, and trolling, I try to spend as little time with them as possible because they aren't engaged in anything constructive. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to see the issue from the POV of the person on the other side of the dispute? Could you try to look out from the eyes of the person you are arguing with instead of making accusations and attacking the editor? Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm well aware that there are people who hold onto their personal beliefs strongly they want to convince everyone else of their viewpoints and to denigrate and dismiss any other ideas and opinions. That kind of editor has no place building an encyclopedia. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in reading the article on splitting. Black and white thinking isn't helpful here. As an international encyclopedia that attracts people from every corner of the planet with a plethora of different belief systems, you have to accept a priori that you will edit with others who are quite different from yourself. Has it occurred to you from reading this discussion, that you seem to be holding on to strong personal beliefs yourself, such that you are trying to convince others of your viewpoint and attack, denigrate, and dismiss others who don't agree with you? I'm only saying this because you don't seem to be aware of it. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inventing the AIDS virus

Hi. I appreciate you don't agree with WLU's edits, and I understand your reasons, but it is not appropriate to call them vandalism. Can you please look at the proposal I have made on the talk page rather than just reverting back and forth with WLU? Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. His edits are clearly damaging, many of them are BLP violations, and he refuses to stop misrepresenting sources and continues to remove opinions he doesn't agree with. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly mischaracterizing the subject of a BLP and misrepresenting their views to smear them is vandalism of the worst kind. The problem has been pointed out to WLU repeatedly by several editors and admins. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not vandalism. Vandalism on wikipedia has a very specific meaning. I have never called your edits vandalism, because they are not. You are sincerely attempting ot improve wikipedia, even I believe your edits are misguided and not based on correct interpretations of policies, guidelines and most particularly sources. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to worsen wikipedia. POV-pushers are POV-pushers, not vandals, and I believe I am neither. I am certainly not a vandal.
Which admins and editors? And what was my reply to them? I do take critcisms and suggestions, but as I indicate in my edit notice and on my user page, I strongly adhere to the policies and guidelines as I believe they are meant. I certainly disagree with others on many topics, but I make every effort to substantiate my edits with the highest-quality sources I can find, to represent the scientific consensus. Sometimes that consensus is clear (HIV causes AIDS, ID is not science) and sometimes it is not (acupuncture may have an independent effect of placebo). For the pages we have mutually been disagreeing on, the scientific consensus is substantially clear. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I myself said that WLU 'vandalized' the Peter Duesberg page, but I have to admit that he's really not vandalizing it according to WP's very specific definition. But he certainly is deliberately biasing the article to smear and dismiss an idea he feels very strongly is wrong. PD is not some clown building perpetual motion machines in his garage, he's a well credentialed biomedical scientist; holding an opinion that is very unpopular does not suddenly make him a 'crank' or 'unreliable'. I'm not clear on WP's guidelines for situations where a strongly opinionated editor is (granted, in good faith) systematically removing information he happens to disagree with--and declaring sources 'unreliable' or 'crank' on the bases of being unpopular and contradict his own views. I think that's the core of disagreement here, calling a well-credentially scientist 'unreliable' merely for holding a minority opinion. Geoff and Margaret Burbridge are two of the 20th century's most noted astrophysicists; should we declare them a couple of 'cranks' for disputing the Big Ban Theory?

ReasonsAdvocate (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine Waters

In regards to this edit, information you keep inserting despite the protests of other editors, your summary doesn't address the point. No one is denying that the riots were notable--the point is that Ms. Waters' commentary is not notable. The article in question is about what to call the riots, and Ms. Waters' "rebellion" is only one of the examples mentioned. The way you present the information makes her out like some nut who doesn't know a riot when she sees one. Sorry, but this is undue weight, it's trivial in the Waters article, and I am removing it again. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see the massive number of substantial changes you made today to the Maxine Waters page before checking in on the discussion page with other editors. The article is quite different now. Normally, changes of that scope--not all of which were made to conform with BLP guidelines--are discussed prior to being made. I agree that the structure of the page was a bit odd (I still have no idea why the "Controversies" section was ever re-named "Hot Debates"), but you've excised a great deal of well-sourced information instead of finding ways to better integrate it into her entry. Sometimes it's infinitely more productive to sculpt the data into a better picture than take a cleaver to it, especially when citations are included. Her comment regarding the riots, I think, are a great example of this. Rather than simply cutting the remark, why not flesh out the surrounding text to briefly note that a significant historical event took place (partly) in an area she represents, and then provide her reaction to it? It was a very brief quote (one that has migrated over time from the Controversies/Hot Debates section), really, not a danger to unduly weight her entry, but perfect for providing illustration (alongside other positions/reactions to other events) for Rep. Waters' service. Just a heads-up that I'm going to be restoring much of the material you've cut. Cheers. ThtrWrtr (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree mostly, but not wholly, with your remarks, ThtrWrtr--surely Waters had more exciting and meaningful things to say, things that do not have to be pulled out of context (in this case, "what do we call it?") to make them fit. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The riots and her opinion of them are relevant and notable. That Drmies doesn't like how she described the situation is irrelevant. More and better sources would be useful throughout the article as her career needs more fleshing out. I tried to integrate the events into her career and to remove trivialities. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freakshow, I don't think you understand how this works. That you think her remarks are notable is of no consequence. They are only notable if secondary sources find them notable, and all you have to offer is the factual statement that she said what she said. You pull that out of context and dump that in the article, together with a laundry list of "incidents" that are obviously intended to incriminate the subject. I don't think this is the end of it; I don't think that ThtsWrtr, Anthonyhcole, ScottMacDonald and I are the only ones who view your edits that way. You might find a warmer reception at Conservapedia. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, the remarks were reported on in the Los Angeles Times. That is generally considered a reliable secondary source. Despite your claims to the contrary, I attempted to add context to the remarks as well as other bits that were included in the article. I have also repeatedly suggested that additional sources and content be included to flesh out her career, soemthing that would be far more useful than coming here to restate your opinion that her comments don't portray her in a flattering light. Please note that I didn't add the content about the riots originally so your opinion on my "intent" is irrelevant, but the L.A. riots were a pretty big deal and her comments on them are properly sourced. You're welcome to look for other sources discussing her response and actions taken in regard to that event, I'm sure she said other things as well, but that source provided includes a quotation of her take on the event, and whether you think her comments were outlandish or reasonable has nothing to do with their notability. It does appear you may have a limited worldview. The LA Times article reported that people had various takes on the event based on where they were sitting (so to speak) and their background. Waters is an African American and an elected official, so her viewpoints and opinions on an event in an area she represents are noteworthy. But again, don't take my word for it, it's in the LA Times. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times reported what she said in the context of a discussion on what those riots could or should be called. You need to argue, with the help of secondary sources, that a. her remarks were notable outside of the context of the original article in the paper and that b. they were relevant in her political career--since that is where you saw fit to put them. I've responded at length on the article talk page, precisely about your inability or unwillingness to separate fact from commentary: fact, she said that; your commentary, it's important one way or another. That's not my opinion on your intent. But I'm talking to a brick wall here. Good day to you. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her comments are notable BEACAUSE they were reported on by a reliable secondary source (and not one but many many if you would only bother to have a look for yourself). If you need to better establish why they are relevant and important you easily could have looked for additional sources and expanded on the context, as I have now done. You seem to be quite unfamiliar with Los Angeles, its history, and this individual. Are you some sort of foreigner? You need to base your opinions on what's in reliable sources, not your personal feelings and whims about what is an isn't relevant in her career. That you don't like what she had to say on the riots might be an appropriate topic for a blog entry (perhaps you have already started one?) but your opinion on her views isn't relevant to encyclopeida building. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might not have made my position clear, as I believe I lie somewhat between what I understand to be the positions of Freakshownerd and Drmies. In general, I believe details such as Rep. Waters' remarks regarding the riots, when properly integrated and contextualized, lend entries a helpful nuance. Drmies, we don't need secondary sources labeling her remarks notable to include them, only a consensus by editors that the utterance is verifiable and relevant to the entry. By so incorporating such material, we create detail and texture. Otherwise, instead of simply quoting a source, editors would always need to find the quote and then find another source saying, "Yeah, it was important she said that." (When we would need to take that extra step is if we wanted to claim that the remark was particularly notable--as with, say, JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner"). For example, a couple of years ago I added Rep. Waters' statement that Democrats needed to "better [challenge] the administration's false rhetoric about the Iraq war" to the article. The remark got no play in the news. It didn't pertain to a given piece of legislation. Really, it was a liberal Democrat issuing a fairly general warning about a conservative Republican. In fact, it was so unnoticed by the press that I found it only after reading through the Congressional Record on-line. Yet it did provide us with a public servant's position on her party's interaction with the Executive branch. In other words, while unremarkable by most standards, it more fully outlines Waters, the point of the entry. The L.A. riot quote, I think, does the same thing: it's a fairly new congresswoman speaking about the signal piece of domestic unrest in her district during the 1990s. The article is the lesser for its absence. We can't worry about how her words make her look; that's up to the reader's inference and judgment. What we can do is ensure, as Drmies rightly notes, that we don't simply drop it in out of nowhere. As well, I am almost always wary of plumping something down in a "controversies" section, precisely because that placement itself is an editorial judgment. It should be worked into her early Congressional career. I do agree that the article has tended toward a "laundry list of 'incidents,'" though I think this exists for three reasons. First, Rep. Waters stirs up partisian passions, and her entry attracts editors seeking to both impugn and defend her. We should certainly be on guard for that. Second, she has (unarguably, I think) a history of being in the news for comments, ethics concerns, potential problems with her family vis a vis her congressional career, etc. That may be because of her personal ethical failings or because certain elements of the right are invested in compromising an African American woman from California. No matter. There's just a lot of grist. And third, the entry, like many congressional entries, is at an evolutionary point. Does it have a bit too much weight toward elements that don't favor the congresswoman? I think so, but those elements are informative and sourced. Finding a fair weight isn't always about cutting great chunks out with a cleaver--that's easy. It's about researching, sourcing, and writing new material to balance the article. What we need to do--and see the older elements of her discussion page for this being an ongoing problem--is write more about other stuff. She's on the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit--why isn't there anything about her position on recent banking reform? About last year's credit reform? Where was she on the healthcare reform? How did her district poll on any of this? If we keep cutting, we end up with a WP entry like that for Shirley Chisholm, a lamentably brief and uninformative entry for one of the most significant American political careers of the last half-century. If we keep writing, we get the entry for Hillary Clinton, a fantastically broad and deeply textured piece. ThtrWrtr (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Central

(reposted from Drmies page)

Describing South Central as "the scene of the Los Angeles riots of 1992" is a bit of an undue weight problem. I don't think that's all or even mostly what it's known for. I'll leave you to sort out the redundancies and grammatical issues in that section as well, as you seem to be quite captivated by those events. I'm not sure where the 2002 date came from? My suggestion would be to note that she represented South Central, that she rose to national attention in the wake of the riots, and to provide her quite notable take on those events. If you want to expand on why her comments were controversial that would be fine too. Good luck! Please let me know if you need any assistance in navigating the area, the issues, or the content guidelines. I'm here to help. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a BLP violation on William Dembski

Stating that ID is pseudoscience is not a BLP violation against Dembski. Both you and WLU are brushing up against WP:3RR, and need to cool it for a while. I've warned WLU as well.—Kww(talk) 17:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His edits are BLP violations and he should be blocked for repeatedly instituting them. We aren't here to smear biographical subjects based on our personal opinions. As I advised Drmies above, content is based on reliable coverage in secondary sources. WLU's synth, smears, and slanders, don't have any place here. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very curious about how my edits are BLP violations. I am sincerely confused that you can consider my edits to be problematic per BLP specifically. Perhaps under other policies, particularly UNDUE where judgement is important, but per BLP I don't see what parts I am apparently in violation of. I don't see any smears, since it is well-documented that the scientific consensus is HIV causes AIDS, and intelligent design is creationism is pseudoscience is religion. Nothing I have put up on any main page is my opinion and in fact most of it is sourced to extremely reliable, top-tier academics, academic books and academic publishers - the highest-quality sources available. All of my edits, all of my content changes are based on reliable coverage in secondary sources. All of them. If you believe that BLP means we can not note independent criticisms, particularly those that are the unambiguous scientific consensus, I believe your reading of BLP is incorrect. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you re: Dembski

Thank you for your self-revert to Dembski's page. If that ends up being a 3RR violation, I'll put in my voice against a block on the basis of the self-revert.

Please note on the talk page what is the one edit you still think problematic, I will reply there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hello, Freakshownerd. You have new messages at Basket of Puppies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Basket of Puppies 23:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for edit warring on William Dembski. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 00:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For this reversion [28]? It appears to me that you are being a moron, dishonest, or both. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave off the personal attacks. I misread the edit history, and did not see that it was a self revert. I will undo the block.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should be good to go again. I lifted the autoblock, but sometimes those cause problems. Leave a message here if it does.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm still blocked. Please note that you blocked me hours after my edit, you were involved in a related editing dispute with me, and BLP violation are exmpt from the 3RR rule. If you don't think it's a BLP violation you should have asked asked for comment at the BLP/N noticeboard instead of going off half-cocked. Your failure to abide by policy, your incompetence and the lack of an apology is not appreciated. My block log is now tarnished by an act of stupidity. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Autoblock finder looks clear, sometimrs takes a few minutes to clear back. I wouldn't worry about having a sullied block log, as some users don't trust users with a clean log. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I can tell I am still blocked. It says there is an autoblock and suggests I cut paste some text including my IP address. Apparently my privacy isn't a high priority. It's certainly not the end of the world, maybe I'll be able to edit again after it expires. Who knows. But it is sort of awesome that editors and admins can go around acting like assholes and then preach to others about civility. We have an editor systematically denigrating BLPs he doesn't agree with, misrespresenting citations, using bad citations (including a usenet forum in the above edit), and ranting about how they're "right" and the notable individuals whose articles they are editing are wrong so we shouldn't include their opinions at all, but only the criticisms of them and their views. A rein of ignorance and intolerance is upon us. I will do my best to keep hope alive. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockList&ip=%232032583

is that the autoblock, where is user Kww to sort it out? Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't expose your IP address for that. Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the blocking Admin involved in a dispute with you? Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

Yes. He was trying to downplay Dembski's being a mathemetician. Apparently they feel if they hide a person's credentials it makes them look less credible. We also disagreed over whether denigrating an article subject is a BLP violation (see section above) although he never replied to my comment.

Well, it is what it is. Anyway, have a good morning/ evening. I saw on the news that the campaign season is going strong in Australia. Something about red speedos (and something about bungies, budgies, or maybe it was bungoes?). Seems a perfectly valid approach! Freakshownerd (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He should not be blocking you if he is involved in the dispute. I left him a note asking him to sort it out, but he seems to have gone...you could always amuse yourself reading his four RFA attempts until he returns. Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh RfAs? I was looking for AfDs and all I came across was Jack Casper Styles. :) I'm sure Kww is a decent bloke and no one's perfect. But the lack of courtesy and collegiality here is pretty staggering. Just read my talkpage. Here I am creating articles and doing my best to improve what's already here, and yet 90% of what I get are warnings threats and attempted deletions. I especially enjoy the templated civility reminders. Wickedpedia at its worst. I suppose I should cultivate friendships with the various crocs, but I can't be bothered. I'd rather walk on their backs to avoid stepping in the swamp (I don't have my snorkel on me). I haven't gotten very many polite notes explaining a disagreement or asking for clarification on one of my edits. Mostly just trolling from POV pushing turds. Groan. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I was thinking you need to keep in mind that it is not so important what is written in the articles is a good thing to keep in mind, we try but it is massively far from perfect (and actually is not really meant to be or thought of as such by anyone that reads it). keep looking out of your window and see that nothing changes. It can be a slippery slope here is you have no cultivated friends. Off2riorob (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but if it is not so important what is written in the articles, then why bother. :) Freakshownerd (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is that we can improve things a little and that feels good when you do that, but some articles have POV and such that is a reflection of the POV that exists in the real world also, I get overly involved as well sometimes as you have been appearing to also do recently, but I enjoy editing more when I remember these truth. Off2riorob (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I am off to bed, take it easy, you will be un auto blocked soon. Take it easy, you're a smart guy and a good editor. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good night. I thought you were in Australia for some reason, but perhaps I ma mistaken or confused. Take care. Nice talking with you. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've lifted the autoblock again. I have no idea why the first lift wasn't effective. You do need to understand that there was no BLP violation in WLU's edits. ID is a pseudoscience, and there's no avoiding that fact. If WLU has tried to ascribe some kind of nefarious motive (i.e " pushing pseudoscience to trick people") or personal flaw (i.e. "not smart enough to understand evolution") to Dembski, that would have been a BLP violation. As for the "mathematician" issue, you can see that my last edit described him as a mathematician.—Kww(talk) 03:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Some comments

Lack of collegiality goes both ways. I find it just as frustrating to interact with you as you do to interact with me.
I am still waiting to see what problems my edits create with BLP, and expect that until this is addressed, we will probably continue to but heads on articles about people.
Dembski may be trained in mathematics, but his use (and particularly abuse) of math has been soundly criticized. He is currently a professor of philosophy, not mathematics. In my mind, expertise plus current position is the best way of conveying his controversial relation to modern scholarship.
The TalkOrigins Archive is, as I have said here, an award-winning website easily adequate as a parity source for intelligent design claims. Your comment also ignores the three other very reliable sources I added when you objected to this point.
I appreciate that you self-reverted, even if your first was an effort to prepare for a more nuanced revert. Even a nuanced revert is something I appreciate. If the goal of editing is to improve the wiki, then that means even if a vicious, POV-pushing actual vandal adds citation templates throughout while changing every other word to profanity, that action can still be used to improve the page. Even moving a comma should be retained if it makes the page better.
Please, please respond to my substantive points. I make a very strong effort to adhere to my interpretation of the policies and guidelines. I adhere to consensus when established. I get irritated when people ignore them. I am very willing to discuss policy and guideline interpretations; though I am confident I am well within the consensus of the community, I know I have been wrong in the past. The only way to figure out the appropriate interpretation is to discuss on the talk page. You currently have no postings on the Dembski talk page, and that's a key area of dispute. We can't navigate it using edit summaries. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you insist on denigrating BLP subjects and remove the views of those article subjects you disagree with, you obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia. I have repeatedly attempted to engage you in discussion, but I am not willing to go round and round in circles as you pretend that our policies support actions such as misrepresenting sources and removing notable viewpoints that you don't happen to agree with. I consider you a troll and a vandal based on your actions and your refusal to abide by policy. Your willfull attempts edit content so that it is inconsistent with what is in the reliable secondary sources is destructive. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of which deals with any of my comments and questions about what parts of WP:BLP I am violating, my earlier comments about what vandalism is and now the accusation that I'm misrepresenting secondary sources. In many cases I rewrite content I find already on the page - suggesting that if there is a problem in the text it was placed there by a different person. I have quoted the parts of BLP I believe support my edits, I have pointed out that though I may personally disagree with Peter Duesberg and William Dembski, those opinions are irrelevant since it is easily and well-documented that both people are practicing pseudoscience and the scientific consensus is clear they are both wrong. Never have you addressed the fact that BLP actually supports the use of well-documented criticisms, or the scientific consensus condemning intelligent design, the Duesberg hypothesis or the activities of both these parties. I am not denigrating any of these people, I am demonstrating, with reliable secondary sources, that their beliefs, activities, publications and statements are considered spurious and outright wrong. I see this as improving the encyclopedia because readers should know just how bad these ideas are. Further, more than a couple people have agreed with me, and engaged in productive dialogue to try to improve the page. I am perfectly willing to admit I've made mistakes, but I do not believe my errors are in my policy interpretation - even if there may be factual ones as well. So please, suggest improvements rather than only criticizing, and indicate what parts of BLP and UNDUE are being misapplied. There are noticeboards that could be used, policy talk pages, dispute resolution mechanisms, many, many ways of dealing with this beyond edit warring and attempting to deal with things through edit summaries. I am happy to use them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you understand that removing well sourced content because you don't agree with the opinions expressed in it is vandalism? Don't you understand that misrepresenting sources, intentionally denigrating biographical subjects you disagree with, and smearing article subjects is both a BLP violation and vandalism? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to point me at where WLU is doing that. I'm actually fairly even-handed when it comes to use of my tools: if you can show me that WLU is intentionally misrepresenting sources or smearing article subjects, that will get him blocked extremely quickly. Bear in mind that ID is pseudoscience, though: representing it that way in Wikipedia articles is what is expected of any editor.—Kww(talk) 16:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't believe you. Here are a couple of quick examples anyway. In William Dembski the statement that "The theory of intelligent design in general and Dembski's "specified complexity" in specific are pseudoscientific arguments for creationism that the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected as a narrow set of religious beliefs attempting to portray itself as science." is a grotesque misrepresentation of the sources and what's in the sources used: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4].

In Peter Duesberg WLU wrote that Duesberg said HIV tests don't test for HIV, which is not in the sources which he completely misrepresents. In fact, Duesberg says that HIV tests looked for the antibodies, which Duesberg believes are left over from initial infection and don't demonstrate an active or dangerous infection (if I understand his argument correctly).

Also in Duesberg he wrote the Science found Duesberg's arguments withoutmerit. But that's not in the source which says "This investigation reveals that although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive." That's just not the same thing. It's a dishonest misrepresentation. And I could go on and on.

WLU engages in dishonest editing and has shown that he holds our editing policies in disregard. He insists that he has to edit out viewpoints that are "wrong" so that only content he agrees with is represented. He insists on vandalising articles and engaging in BLP violations despite the problems being pointed out to him repeatedly by mnyself and others including admins. Since the people and positions he is attacking are not popular and he has the Mainstream Science Cabal with him, no one has done anything and I don't expect anything to change. But his BLP violations, his vandalism, and the damage he is doing to the encyclopedia are there for anyone to see. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the sources, and in particular are familiar with the intelligent design-science debate, particularly after the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, this is pretty clear scientific consensus. Which source is misrepresented, I can type out some quotes since I did find them pretty quickly.

The Duesberg point could be rather easily addressed again with sources. But if Duesberg says HIV tests look for the antibody rather than the virus, he is indeed saying the tests do not look for HIV itself (or in this case, HIV RNA). Newer HIV testing uses two tests, for antibodies and actual RNA I believe. Duesberg may have changed his tune since PCR revolutionized biology and viral RNA testing became cheap and easy. I've never read Duesberg's book, mostly I'm going off of other (more reliable sources). This seems like a minor point, not something to edit war over. The point about the Science exchange could be adjusted, but the other thing is Duesberg's hypothesis hasn't aged well, particularly as the evidence for HIV causing AIDS accumulated. It's also worth looking at Goertzel, 2010 for context on this, and the quote from Cohen, 1994: "although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive. Mainstream AIDS researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments are constructed by selective reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses, requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by inconsequential weaknesses." Thus though "without merit" is not verbatim in there, to say the main point of Cohen and subsequent criticisms is that Duesberg raises only interesting questions is far, far less correct. Scientific literature is polite, so the authors are unlikely to conclude "and he's a douchebag liar" but everything after "Mainstream AIDS researchers..." seems to substantiate the "without merit". Perhaps it could be altered to something else, or simply quoted - but the overall thrust of the paper isn't that Duesberg is helping AIDS research and post-1994 it got worse. I can see how you could object to "without merit" given the "provocative questions" point; my intent for "without merit" was to convey that his overall hypothesis and interpretation of the literature is rejected; "without merit" doesn't capture the kernel of possible good ("provocative questions") in the review itself and I would agree to a different wording that gives equal weight to the fact that Duesberg is wrong, but avoids the absolutism of "without merit". Note that based on this very accurate point that I did not understand before, I have adjusted the lead. Note how I altered the strictly-speaking inaccurate wording while retaining the original sense that his theories are unfounded, biased and wrong.

Please go on and on if you've got more. Wikipedia can't be a set of quotations, and the choice of specific words is important and nuanced. But more important is capturing the essence of the sources. You've demonstrated some specific issues that do need addressing, please continue to list more.

My view that "wrong" viewpoints should be edited out is supported by policies and guidelines governing fringe theories, notably WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. I still see this as disagreements over wording, interpretation and judgement rather than me being fundamentally incorrect. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Some comments

Lack of collegiality goes both ways. I find it just as frustrating to interact with you as you do to interact with me.
I am still waiting to see what problems my edits create with BLP, and expect that until this is addressed, we will probably continue to but heads on articles about people.
Dembski may be trained in mathematics, but his use (and particularly abuse) of math has been soundly criticized. He is currently a professor of philosophy, not mathematics. In my mind, expertise plus current position is the best way of conveying his controversial relation to modern scholarship.
The TalkOrigins Archive is, as I have said here, an award-winning website easily adequate as a parity source for intelligent design claims. Your comment also ignores the three other very reliable sources I added when you objected to this point.
I appreciate that you self-reverted, even if your first was an effort to prepare for a more nuanced revert. Even a nuanced revert is something I appreciate. If the goal of editing is to improve the wiki, then that means even if a vicious, POV-pushing actual vandal adds citation templates throughout while changing every other word to profanity, that action can still be used to improve the page. Even moving a comma should be retained if it makes the page better.
Please, please respond to my substantive points. I make a very strong effort to adhere to my interpretation of the policies and guidelines. I adhere to consensus when established. I get irritated when people ignore them. I am very willing to discuss policy and guideline interpretations; though I am confident I am well within the consensus of the community, I know I have been wrong in the past. The only way to figure out the appropriate interpretation is to discuss on the talk page. You currently have no postings on the Dembski talk page, and that's a key area of dispute. We can't navigate it using edit summaries. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you insist on denigrating BLP subjects and remove the views of those article subjects you disagree with, you obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia. I have repeatedly attempted to engage you in discussion, but I am not willing to go round and round in circles as you pretend that our policies support actions such as misrepresenting sources and removing notable viewpoints that you don't happen to agree with. I consider you a troll and a vandal based on your actions and your refusal to abide by policy. Your willfull attempts edit content so that it is inconsistent with what is in the reliable secondary sources is destructive. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of which deals with any of my comments and questions about what parts of WP:BLP I am violating, my earlier comments about what vandalism is and now the accusation that I'm misrepresenting secondary sources. In many cases I rewrite content I find already on the page - suggesting that if there is a problem in the text it was placed there by a different person. I have quoted the parts of BLP I believe support my edits, I have pointed out that though I may personally disagree with Peter Duesberg and William Dembski, those opinions are irrelevant since it is easily and well-documented that both people are practicing pseudoscience and the scientific consensus is clear they are both wrong. Never have you addressed the fact that BLP actually supports the use of well-documented criticisms, or the scientific consensus condemning intelligent design, the Duesberg hypothesis or the activities of both these parties. I am not denigrating any of these people, I am demonstrating, with reliable secondary sources, that their beliefs, activities, publications and statements are considered spurious and outright wrong. I see this as improving the encyclopedia because readers should know just how bad these ideas are. Further, more than a couple people have agreed with me, and engaged in productive dialogue to try to improve the page. I am perfectly willing to admit I've made mistakes, but I do not believe my errors are in my policy interpretation - even if there may be factual ones as well. So please, suggest improvements rather than only criticizing, and indicate what parts of BLP and UNDUE are being misapplied. There are noticeboards that could be used, policy talk pages, dispute resolution mechanisms, many, many ways of dealing with this beyond edit warring and attempting to deal with things through edit summaries. I am happy to use them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you understand that removing well sourced content because you don't agree with the opinions expressed in it is vandalism? Don't you understand that misrepresenting sources, intentionally denigrating biographical subjects you disagree with, and smearing article subjects is both a BLP violation and vandalism? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to point me at where WLU is doing that. I'm actually fairly even-handed when it comes to use of my tools: if you can show me that WLU is intentionally misrepresenting sources or smearing article subjects, that will get him blocked extremely quickly. Bear in mind that ID is pseudoscience, though: representing it that way in Wikipedia articles is what is expected of any editor.—Kww(talk) 16:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't believe you. Here are a couple of quick examples anyway. In William Dembski the statement that "The theory of intelligent design in general and Dembski's "specified complexity" in specific are pseudoscientific arguments for creationism that the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected as a narrow set of religious beliefs attempting to portray itself as science." is a grotesque misrepresentation of the sources and what's in the sources used: ^[5]^[2]^[6]^[7].

In Peter Duesberg WLU wrote that Duesberg said HIV tests don't test for HIV, which is not in the sources which he completely misrepresents. In fact, Duesberg says that HIV tests looked for the antibodies, which Duesberg believes are left over from initial infection and don't demonstrate an active or dangerous infection (if I understand his argument correctly).

Also in Duesberg he wrote the Science found Duesberg's arguments withoutmerit. But that's not in the source which says "This investigation reveals that although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive." That's just not the same thing. It's a dishonest misrepresentation. And I could go on and on.

WLU engages in dishonest editing and has shown that he holds our editing policies in disregard. He insists that he has to edit out viewpoints that are "wrong" so that only content he agrees with is represented. He insists on vandalising articles and engaging in BLP violations despite the problems being pointed out to him repeatedly by mnyself and others including admins. Since the people and positions he is attacking are not popular and he has the Mainstream Science Cabal with him, no one has done anything and I don't expect anything to change. But his BLP violations, his vandalism, and the damage he is doing to the encyclopedia are there for anyone to see. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the sources, and in particular are familiar with the intelligent design-science debate, particularly after the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, this is pretty clear scientific consensus. Which source is misrepresented, I can type out some quotes since I did find them pretty quickly.

The Duesberg point could be rather easily addressed again with sources. But if Duesberg says HIV tests look for the antibody rather than the virus, he is indeed saying the tests do not look for HIV itself (or in this case, HIV RNA). Newer HIV testing uses two tests, for antibodies and actual RNA I believe. Duesberg may have changed his tune since PCR revolutionized biology and viral RNA testing became cheap and easy. I've never read Duesberg's book, mostly I'm going off of other (more reliable sources). This seems like a minor point, not something to edit war over. The point about the Science exchange could be adjusted, but the other thing is Duesberg's hypothesis hasn't aged well, particularly as the evidence for HIV causing AIDS accumulated. It's also worth looking at Goertzel, 2010 for context on this, and the quote from Cohen, 1994: "although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive. Mainstream AIDS researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments are constructed by selective reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses, requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by inconsequential weaknesses." Thus though "without merit" is not verbatim in there, to say the main point of Cohen and subsequent criticisms is that Duesberg raises only interesting questions is far, far less correct. Scientific literature is polite, so the authors are unlikely to conclude "and he's a douchebag liar" but everything after "Mainstream AIDS researchers..." seems to substantiate the "without merit". Perhaps it could be altered to something else, or simply quoted - but the overall thrust of the paper isn't that Duesberg is helping AIDS research and post-1994 it got worse. I can see how you could object to "without merit" given the "provocative questions" point; my intent for "without merit" was to convey that his overall hypothesis and interpretation of the literature is rejected; "without merit" doesn't capture the kernel of possible good ("provocative questions") in the review itself and I would agree to a different wording that gives equal weight to the fact that Duesberg is wrong, but avoids the absolutism of "without merit". Note that based on this very accurate point that I did not understand before, I have adjusted the lead. Note how I altered the strictly-speaking inaccurate wording while retaining the original sense that his theories are unfounded, biased and wrong.

Please go on and on if you've got more. Wikipedia can't be a set of quotations, and the choice of specific words is important and nuanced. But more important is capturing the essence of the sources. You've demonstrated some specific issues that do need addressing, please continue to list more.

My view that "wrong" viewpoints should be edited out is supported by policies and guidelines governing fringe theories, notably WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. I still see this as disagreements over wording, interpretation and judgement rather than me being fundamentally incorrect. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the source doesn't say his arguments are without merit then you can't write that. You add lots of sources that don't support the content you include, and writing articles based on your personal interpretation and views is WRONG. It's inappropriate and it's been enormously damaging. Duesberg did not say that HIV tests don't test of HIV in those sources, in one of them he says HIV tests look for antibodies and explains why he thinks that's significant. Instead of including refutations you remove his position and arguments even when they are notable and reliably sourced, and include smears and misrepresentations. I understand you think he's wrong, I happen to share that opinion, but it's irrelevant. The article isn't about the mainstream science on AIDS, it's about Peter Duesberg. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice, take both those Users and the article off your watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply and edit to Peter Duesberg. We are not limited to solely using quotations (WP:SS). In fact, we are supposed to accurately summarize the mainstream viewpoint whenever possible (WP:UNDUE). The overall thrust of Cohen's piece is not that Duesberg is an interesting scientist proposing novel ideas about AIDS - it is that he does propose provocative questions as part of a lengthy and inaccurate set of opinion pieces about HIV/AIDS that misrepresents, ignores or quote mines the actual papers.

Opinions are not notable, they are reliable or not. Even on Duesberg's page, the minority position, we must contextualize. See WP:UNDUE, specifically "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." At this point Duesberg's opinion is only notable for being a significant factor in the AIDS denialism world; it shouldn't be mentioned in AIDS at all, and really only appear as part of the controversy regarding AIDS denialism (which it does). I'm not smearing him, but I am giving due weight by citing and summarizing sources that were written by other scientists (or scholars or what have you) published in reliable sources that criticize Duesberg's opinions and approach. Again, though Cohen politely noted the one place where Duesberg had a valid use (provocative questions) the most accurate overall summary of the article is a critical one dismissing his assertions. And again, it has only gotten worse since then. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misrepresent what the sources say. You add cites that don't support the content. And you use smears instead of the langauge that's actually in the sources. It's dishonest. If you're willing to stop doing it and to avoid soapboxing and wikilawyering I can go through and point out the problems to you. But I'm not going to go round and round on a merry-go-round reading your diatribes about how we shouldn't include content that is "wrong". If it's substantially covered and discussed in reliable secondary sources then it is notable. If there are refutations then please include them appropriately. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore them and the article, take them all off your watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? How are they misrepresented? How are they better represented? How is my interpretation of policy incorrect? When have I said we shouldn't include content that is wrong? My actual statements are more along the lines that incorrect content should not be as detailed or lengthy as the mainstream opinion, and should immediately be juxtaposed with the appropriate correct opinion. In fact, by including mainstream sources I am providing the very refutations you request. I've done so on Duesberg and Dembski both. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and text in article

I'm sorry that you don't believe me. I'll have to look into Duesberg, as I'm not familiar with that area. I think his summary of the ID sources represents them fairly. There's no requirement that a summarization of a source should quote it directly. If you want to change the wording, feel free, but his summarization is pretty much what the sources I could check say. Where do you think there's a contradiction?—Kww(talk) 17:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's accurate you should have no problem providing the text from each of those sources that supports the statements that "The theory of intelligent design in general and Dembski's "specified complexity" in specific are pseudoscientific arguments for creationism that the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected as a narrow set of religious beliefs attempting to portray itself as science." I look forward to seeing where you think that is stated and to your explanation of whether those are appropriate sources to maintain that assertion. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for "intelligent design in general", that's clearly supported by http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_1.html, which explicitly states "the ID movement is motivated by and inseparable from a narrow religious viewpoint", "Intelligent design is explicitly religious", "The ID movement attempts to hide its religious basis in order to give the appearance of secular objectivity (Branch 2002). Their attempt is dishonest propaganda. "The trend among many Christian groups these days is to camouflage their creationism as 'Intelligent Design' or 'Progressive Creationism' " (Morris 1999). And despite their claims, the movement has no science. " The text "has no science" links to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html, which specifically states "Irreducible complexity also fails as science because it, too, is an argument from incredulity that has nothing to do with design." The linked article supports linking the material to "irreducible complexity". Using that source alone would be sufficient to state that ID has no basis in science, a somewhat stronger claim than describing it as "pseudoscience". A WP:SYNTH argument might be used against linking "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity".

http://books.google.ca/books?id=cV8h1NqNwksC&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false explicitly states "There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution", "The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the product of scientific reasoning", and "creationist ideas fall outside the realm of science".

http://books.google.ca/books?id=AsJDTq2wTQEC&pg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=false certainly deals with Dembski's work directly.

The only issue I can see you might have is the explicit use of the word "pseudoscience", but that can be repaired by refering to an earlier page in Why evolution works (and creationism fails), such as page 37, which uses the term directly.

How would you summarize this set of sources differently?—Kww(talk) 20:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to state specifically what content in the articles you think supports the content as written in Wikipedia.

The text you selected from the first source includes:

the ID movement is motivated by and inseparable from a narrow religious viewpoint
Intelligent design is explicitly religious
The ID movement attempts to hide its religious basis in order to give the appearance of secular objectivity (Branch 2002)
Their attempt is dishonest propaganda.
The trend among many Christian groups these days is to camouflage their creationism as 'Intelligent Design' or 'Progressive Creationism' " (Morris 1999).
despite their claims, the movement has no science.
Irreducible complexity also fails as science because it, too, is an argument from incredulity that has nothing to do with design.

I don't see how any one or combination of these sources can be claimed to say "The theory of intelligent design in general and Dembski's "specified complexity" in specific are pseudoscientific arguments for creationism that the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected as a narrow set of religious beliefs attempting to portray itself as science." I don't even see anything about the scientific community or pseudoscience in the source.

There is also the problem that the source is one author's opinion. And the other sources (except the National Academy source) have similar problems. Does a usenet forum and an author's opinion provide adequate sourcing for sweeping statements that are unattribbuted? Of course not.

The National Academy of Sciences source is the best one, and I was having difficulty accessing from the article but was able to link to from the link you posted here. Again though, there are some problems with accuracy.

Saying something isn't scientific isn't the same as saying it is pseudoscience. Theology and philosophy are not scientific in the sense of following the scientific method, but I don't think it would be fair to label them pseudosciences, at least not based on a source that doesn't state that explicitly. Intelligent Design seems very much to be a theological and philosophical position, and these sources certainly suggest that it is tied in with religious concepts. But again, the content has to be based on the sources. So feel free to make attributed criticisms, but don't misrepresent the sources.

The best source of the bunch is the one from the National Academy of Sciences, and the content based on it should stick closley to what that article actually says. Even saying the "scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected" seems dubious because I can't find it in the source. Are we assuming that the arguments of the National Academy of Sciences represents an overwhelming consensus of the scientific community? That seems a bit synthy, and I'm not sure it's fair, but perhaps that's a gray area. It seems to me that it would be better to say that The National Academy of Sciences said XYZ in a report. There are many many scientists who believe in God and are Christian or Muslim, so suggesting that they all reject an intelligent designer is a bit preposterous, which is probably why that's not what the sources says. It says ID is not SCIENTIFIC. These are not small distinctions. And these problems are in many articles.

So remove the bad cites, or use them for attributed criticisms, and make the content consistent with what the National Academy of Sciences source actually says. Another example of this bad editing is in the ID article itself where it says it's a new concept "developed" by various people and organizations, based on a source that is quoted in the cite itself as saying that it is NOT a new theory, but that it dates back at least to Thomas Aquinas. People are doing too much interpretation and putting in too much personal opinion instead of sticking to what's in the best sources and accurately reflecting what the sources say. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I now see that the National Academy source doesn't seem to mention Dembski? So what we have is a stringing together of sources, some about Dembski, some about ID, to make an argument that isn't represented any one of the sources. <rolls eyes> In fact, it's not even accurate to a combination of those sources, if such a synthesis were allowed. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't defend the current phrasing as perfect, but it certainly doesn't strike me as having vandalistic intent. The paragraph does conflate "intelligent design in general" and Dembski's contributions in specific. However, [29] does specifically deal with Dembski, and earlier the same book ([30]) describes the entire field as pseudoscience. You are in some ways grappling with an issue common to all articles related to pseudosciences: most reputable scientists won't bother discussing individual points or perspectives for things that are obviously false. That the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected ID is apparent from the fact that no secular university includes it as a portion of their biology program, which would tend to support using the National Academy of Science reference. WLU is guilty of some flamboyant language at worst.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't defend it as perfect either, but neither is it worth a blanket revert. Also, we are enjoined to summarize the scientific and expert consensus as a whole and that consensus is that intelligent design is, like all creationism (which it is) a religious argument (currently seen as emerging from a narrow interpretation of Protestantism and Biblical literalism) that masquerades as science, and is pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience may not be used by all sources, but it is the best summary and is well supported. I did say in my post below that it was not done and all sources are not present and analyzed. Plus, there is many, many sources that substantiate this, from straight-up google to google books to google scholar to google news (and google news archive in which the use of the term peaks in 2005, the year of Dover v. Kitzmiller). Speaking of Dover v. Kitzmiller, you should read the judgment, as it is insightful and quite clearly supports ID being pseudoscience, though it may not use that exact word. There's even a series of videos featuring Barbara Forrest on the whole topic, which I wouldn't normally use for sources - but could be used. Similar wealths of sources arise for "specified complexity" and pseudoscience [31], [32], [33], [34], but what also must be remembered is that this is a fringe issue where WP:PARITY applies, thus the standard for sources is lower for the critical arguments and higher for the noncritical (i.e. Dembski's) arguments. Further, there are whole books devoted to this concept, in which the history, theology, alleged scientific content, analysis, criticism, claims and weaknesses are discussed, as well as chapters in specialist books. I am quite familiar with the debate and individual concepts. I've read many sources, both pro and con about it. I know, based on these sources, that ID is nonsense and Dembski's arguments are little but hand-waving and self-justification. I know what the scientific consensus is, and I can summarize it relatively easily given a bit of time. Again, I suggest becoming familiar with the field - read the pages on wikipedia on intelligent design, the talk.origins archive index to creationist claims, the DvK verdict, the series of videos featuring Forrest, and also have a look at the Sternberg peer review controversy and Michael Behe#Behe and Snoke article. Intelligent design isn't science, though it purports to be. No arguments have been published. Those arguments that are "alleged" to support ID that are published in the peer-reviewed press are both dishonest because they deliberately avoid the use of the term, and heavily, heavily criticized for being bad science. Despite this, the Discovery Institute, which supports, funds and maintains a stable of "scientists" - scare quotes deliberate - lists these publications as "supporting intelligent design" without acknowledging a single criticism.

The NAS publication doesn't mention Dembski but does point out ID is pseudoscience. Again, scientific consensus, as a whole, is important. Though all four of those citations are at the end, each could be repositioned to refuse specific points, and still be perfectly appropriate.

“

The theory of intelligent design in general^[8]^[9]^[2] and Dembski's "specified complexity"^[10]or this source in specific are pseudoscientific arguments for creationism that the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected as a narrow set of religious beliefs^[9] attempting to portray itself as science.

”

Wordsmithing can certainly improve this, more and better sources will also help, but the essence is certainly there, and is certainly accurate. The whole of the criticisms should be summarized, and the whole of the consensus is that the notion is bunk. My last edit yesterday was a start, not a finish, and as Kww says - the whole of the scientific community has rejected it. I'm not saying "believe me, I'm an expert" but I am saying that if you have reviewed the whole of the matter, the scientific consensus is clear. Dembski himself is a bit of a pickle because he changes his terms rather frequently and defines them poorly. But he's never produced a piece of ID "science" that has stood up to criticism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ID is not science

@FSN - Certainly. There are four sources to that point, I'll start a list but it may take me a bit longer to finish it. I've started a sub-section for this point.

Note this edit. Young & Edis verifies all of these points. It's a book, but I've pointed to the specific chapters within it. The refutation of ID in general is the point of the entire book, but there is text to verify this in the introduction, pages 1-19. Those pages also contextualize ID as creationism and the narrowness of its base in Conservative Christianity. That it is pseudoscience is verified on pages 185-9. Dembski's specific claims are refuted in chapters 9 and 10 (pages 107-138). The rejection of ID by the scientific community is a running theme, but appears in both pages 1-19 and 185-9.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEED school

Hi, please take a look at WP:FIXDABLINKS, regarding SEED School. It saves a lot of work for us at WP:DPL. Thanks! –[[::User:Schmloof|Schmloof]] (talk · contribs) 09:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there would be a bot to deal with that. I would have just moved th earticle, but then it would have been moved back if I hand't diambiguated. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Raheel Raza, you may be blocked from editing. There is nothing objectively "offensive" in calling her a Muslim Canadian, which is consistent with the RSs. Please stop deleting it, as that is both edit warring and removal of appropriate content -- which constititutes vandalism. Plus -- saying she was born in Pakistan and has Pakistani roots is simply redundant, which makes it quite an odd thing for you to edit war over Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Kudpung (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Fox Distillery

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Copper Fox Distillery, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.copperfox.biz/press.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Michael E. Mann, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Francis

this edit is almost blockworthy for its combination of a misleading edit summary with the reinsertion of a BLP violation. The discussion on talk is not such that you can say "per talk" to justify reinsertion of it. In a previous revert I'd also explicitly requested you not reinsert the BLP violation without further discussion - which you have not even participated in. Seriosuly - this close to a block. (What is it about this conservative meme that induces editors to ignore courtesy, logic, and policy?) Rd232 ^talk 07:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary said "per talk. well sourced content". Another editor already explained there why this content is appropriate and you ranted on about how you didn't like it without basing your arguments on any policies. It's been noted widely in the media and was the subject of an entire interview by a major media source. Freakshownerd (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor made no such explanation - they asked a question about why it should be removed. Which I answered. On what planet does that little exchange justify reinsertion? Rd232 ^talk 13:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent behaviour at Diane Francis prompted me to skim your recent contributions, and this edit jumped out because of the edit summary ("dishonest misrepresentation of source and BLP violation. Article should be checked for others"). Checking the source, I find no misrepresentation of the source whatsoever (I've reinserted it with slightly greater clarity) and no BLP violation either. This is a statement from the man's own campaign, as cited by AP; you'll have some explaining to do if you want to identify a BLP violation. At any rate, that you did that a couple of days ago makes your 3-fold reinsertion of the Francis BLP violation even more egregious, since it demonstrates familiarity with the concept. Rd232 ^talk 07:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I was a little off because in reading the article I didn't at first realize that the person who made the comments was a spokesperson for the candidate. But it's still a shoddily constructed and inappropriate bit for a BLP. Freakshownerd (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was easily misread. That is why you shouldn't but assumptions of bad faith in an edit summary. Rd232 ^talk 13:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only human. That the source is poorly written is certainly not my fault (I later looked up who that person was and was considering restoring it in some form although it's still a bit gossipy and smeary). But the content that was there was still a misrespresentation of the source. I see you fixed it up and I trimmed it up a bit. I think the AP source would be good to find as using a source that mentions what was said in another source gets a bit gossipy. But I think the content is accurate now as far representing the guy's positions (based on that source anyway). Freakshownerd (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the AP. Look at the byline. Rd232 ^talk 13:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see you created several WP:BLPs without adding Category:Living people. Please don't forget, since it's important to identify these. Plus, Winslow Sargeant I've AFD'd on notability grounds. Rd232 ^talk 08:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add categories to any of the articles I create. Building Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative enterprise. You also might want to work on your civility. Freakshownerd (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a key category, and I said "please". Rd232 ^talk 13:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

If you reinsert the BLP violation again, you'll be breaching WP:3RR. Rd232 ^talk 14:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO. You are way over 3RR and reverted against two editors. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Winslow Sargeant

I have nominated Winslow Sargeant, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winslow Sargeant. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rd232 ^talk 08:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I had hoped this could be settled neatly by the SPI conclusion which will come shortly and confirm that you are in fact User:Grundle2600. But given your willingness to edit war in a BLP violation rather than discuss it, I've blocked for 24 hours for that behaviour, to prevent further BLP violations. By the time the block expires I expect the SPI to have concluded. I'm signing off now, so if anyone wishes to overturn the block and take responsibility for Diane Francis, fine. Rd232 ^talk 14:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification on Grundle2600 evidence available on request by email. Rd232 ^talk 14:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any SPI filing. This unilateral block over a content dispute is blatant admin abuse. He is also smearing and falsely accusing me of being someone else. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't file an SPI because that would involve revealing the behavioural evidence, and given what a prolific socker Grundle is, it would be unwise to reveal the errors. As the SPI page notes, you can request a CU privately if necessary, and that's what I've done. Rd232 ^talk 15:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232's abuse of admin tools in a content dispute where he was involved and actively edit warring

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Freakshownerd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

RD232 is obviously involved in the editing dispute and has engaged in more reversions than I have. I do not believe I have violated 3RR because I did not simply revert (and my last edit did not even restore the disputed content), but tried to modfy the content so it was appropriate and consistent with BLP rules. I was also actively engaged in discussing the issues. Please note that RD232 has edit warred against 2 different editors and edit warred to his preferred version before blocking. This grotesque violation of admin rules is absolutely glaring. And I also notice he is making false accusation against me. Please block him for edit warring and violating 3RR at the very least.

Decline reason:

Clear violation of WP:3RR. Read WP:GAB, and importantly WP:NOTTHEM for any future unblock requests. Claiming admin abuse is disingenuous to say the least - your own actions led to this block, nobody else's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

He also nominated Winslow Sargeant an article I created for deletion. He's also edit warring to include inflammatory content in a BLP at Dan Maes. If this isn't admin abuse I wonder what is??? But let me guess, I'll stay blocked or something else will be trumped up against me as this vicious and atrocious policy violator gets off despite his longstanding pattern of POV pushing. Disgusting and it's the second abusive block against me. Again, HE made the last TWO reversions and I left the disputed content out in my last edit. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources for the content he is unilaterally removing (and blocking over) against consensus.

More evidence that he was involved in the dispute (against two editors) and had been warned for his edit warring and 3RR violations [35], [36]. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I repeatedly suggested to him, on his talkpage and in edit summaries, that he take it to the BLP noticeboard if he disagreed with the consensus. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact reviewing the history, this block came as such a shock it's hard to rein in my outrage and explain just hoe outrageous it is, he warned me (see above) at 14:14 after which I responded to him and didn't revert anything AT ALL in that article. So this block is totally unjustifiable. RD232 is just an abusive admin and POV pusher. It's disgusting that such a dishonest and abusive character is allowed to carry on this way. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At 14.14 I warned you of 3RR. At 14.18 this edit was clearly mucking about with the same issue, placing the existing information on the matter much more prominently (at the expense of bizarre formatting). Rd232 ^talk 15:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's total bullshit and you know it. You should be stripped of your admin bit. You're a slimey and dishonest POV pusher who abuses his powers to go after those you disagree with. Stay off my page sluggo. Go peddle your garbage elsewhere, I want nothing to do with you and your disgusting dishonesty. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Freakshownerd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

BWilkins is clearly wrong. I was warned at 14:14 and did not revert again, as Rd232 acknowledges. And Rd232 reverted many more times than I did, including instituting the final revert of the disputed content. And obviously he was involved in the dispute. What a pile of dishonest garbage you morons are peddling.

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that contain insults are never granted. Sandstein 16:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Freakshownerd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

BWilkins is clearly wrong. I was warned at 14:14 and did not revert again, as Rd232 acknowledges, and as is clear from the history. And Rd232 reverted many more times than I did, including instituting the final revert of the disputed content. And obviously he was involved in the dispute. What a pile of dishonest garbage that's being peddled here with these abusive actions. Don't quote policy to me Wilkins when an involved admin abuses their tools to engage in an abusive block. Unblocked or not, the facts and history show that Rd232 was wrong. Whether his cohorts do anything about it I have no control over. But this block is a disgusting policy violation and those standing behind it should be ashamed of themselves. You can punish me for being upset, but I'm upset because of the abuse you are all engaged in. Why hasn't Rd232 been blocked for edit warring? Dont' lecture me about bogus policy pages that you want to hide behind when you're engaged in dishonest hypocrisy. Shame shame shame on you disgusting bullies.

Decline reason:

Again, making personal attacks will not get your block lifted. In fact, they may result in the removal of your ability to edit this page. TNXMan 17:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Even in your sock's unblock request you can't help giving yourself away. Give it up Grundle. Rd232 ^talk 16:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked you to stay off my talkpage you dishonest slime ball. I'm not Grundle, but you are a lying sack of shit. Now go away and don't ever come back here. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232 was involved in an edit war with this editor. Should this block really stand? Minor4th 17:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's really bad form, and you know that. If there was a real BLP issue, let another admin pick it up but it looks bad when you block someone you're in an edit war with. Minor4th 17:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232 -- I have reviewed what you're calling a BLP violation, and I see that on the talk page the issue was discussed and you continued to revert over the objections of the only other editors participating in the discussion. This is not a clear BLP violation, and the controversial information appears to be sourced (although there can be argument about how well sourced). This is an edit war over content. Please consider reversing this block yourself, as it is the right thing to do. Freakshownerd has every right to be pissed and acting badly toward Rd232. This block should be overturned. Rd232, please reverse your block or I will seek community input at ANI. Thanks. Minor4th 18:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also really bad form to taunt an editor you just blocked, which is what you have done on this page repeatedly. Minor4th 18:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will look more closely but on the face of it, I'm telling you it looks bad to edit war and then block the person you're edit warring with. If it was protecting a BLP, that is not obvious and at a minimum you should have had another admin look at it and issue the block if that was appropriate. I have no interest in this particular article, and at this point I'm uncertain how I ever arrived here. Anyway, I'll go back through the history but I'm giving you my impressions from a cursory view, and if this is what I'm seeing then it's a safe bet that it looks bad to others too. Just make sure you're on solid ground with the BLP issue because otherwise it looks like you blocked to win a content dispute and the BLP issue is not as apparent as you are indicating. Minor4th 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R -- I'm having a bit of trouble just following the most recent reverts. What BLP violation are you trying to cure in this revert: [37] Minor4th 18:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have researched the issue a bit, and I am going to make a comment on the talk page of the article in question. Again, I strongly encourage you to reverse your block and resume discussion on the talk page until a reasoned consensus is reached. I really do not want to take this to ANI. Please think about it. Minor4th 19:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{tlx|1=unblock|2=reason|Unlike Rd232 I stopped changing the disputed content that he reverted numerous times against two different editors, despite numerous cites being included and a suggestion to take the issue to the BLP noticeboard if he still objected to the consensus. He is stalking me and my contributions, and taunting me along with Tarc, who has also been trolling my contributions and trying to pick a fight also. It's very disheartening to edit in good faith and to have abusive admins engage in such disgusting behavior only to see them backed up by their admin buddies. It's pretty disgusting and foul. But I think I avoided making any "personal attacks" so you'll have to trump up a new reason to decline my unblock request this time while standing by as an admin abuses their tools to block someone they are in a content dispute with. Oh and there's also that little problem with the timing, you know, being "warned" and then blocked despite having made no reverts in the interim. But maybe y'all can point to some other policy pages in support of these despicable abuses? Freakshownerd (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I'm unblocking because Rd232 blocked you while involved with you in a content dispute. The unblock is not a comment on the dispute itself, or the sockpuppetry allegations, which I haven't looked into. I also want to add that insulting people isn't the right way to protest a block, and I almost didn't unblock when I saw those comments. But it's still the case that Rd232 shouldn't have blocked you in the first place, so I'm unblocking after discussion with him. Please give me a few minutes to undo the block and find any autoblocks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I have asked user Slim Virgin to look at the issue, as she has a very good grasp of BLP policy and its application and misapplication. I think it would be in your interest to restore Rd232's comments that you redacted until this discussion has ended. I understand you are mad, but I think it hurts your case to remove his comments, even if they are improper. Hopefully Slim Virgin or someone else with good BLP knowledge will be along soon to review this in more detail. Minor4th 19:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not worth the time. She seems to have her hands full anyway. And ironically I came into dispute with her as well ahile back. :) Hahaha.

Anyway, these dirt bags obviously make up the rules as they go along, so it's probably best not to involve anyone reasonable in their shit slinging and time wasting dishonesty. Bwilkins, Sandstein and Rd232 will just have live with themselves and face up to how abhorrent their dishonesty and hypocrisy is. They have to live with themselves knowing they are abusive and ignorant cretins who have no respect for their fellow humans of for fairness and decency. At the end of the day I am always at peace knowing that I do my best to stand up for what's right and play by the rules. These slimeballs must have very unhappy lives to engage in such slimey, grotesque and immoral behavior. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says there are no autoblocks in place, so you should be good to go. But please don't post anything else that could be seen as a personal attack. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slimvirgin, one of the problems with Wikipedia is that an abused editor is supposed to show groveling respect and admiration for anyone who goes even part way in righting a wrong. And I do thank you, espically in light of our past disagreements (where you were wrong by the way). But the reality is several admins were involved in this issue and not one of them did anything even approaching the right thing until you came along, and even your unblock does not cleanse my block log. And in fact the unblock doesn't even note that Rd232 was not only involved, but was the one with far more reverts against TWO editors, and the who had refused to take it to BLPN as I requested repeatedly, and was the one who reverted to his version after which I had left the disputed content alone.

So while Rd232 editwarred what, 8 or 9 times against two different and unrelated editors (I have no idea who that fellow is and I saw the content removal on my watchlist); and while Rd232 eventually instituted his preferred version before blocking me even though I hadn't engaged in any reversions after being warned, I'm the only one who got blocked, threatened, told not to make personal attacks etc. Well fuck that. The only way to describe Rd232 and his behavior is with the truth: Rd232 engaged in absolutely disgusting dishonesty and abuse as his admin friends looked on and provided tacit support of his actions. Those who facilitate this kind of slimey and grotesque abuse are a big part of the problem, so must be clear about identifying the role Sandstein, Bwilkins, and Tnxman played. They abused our policies by failing to correct a wrong and failing to take action against a bullying and abusive admin who was engaging in the worst kind of corrupt and dishonest activities.

So while I was left blocked, my editing work on an unrelated article lost because it couldn't be saved, Rd232 and other trolls continued to bait and provoke me despite being asked repeatedly in the clearest terms to stay away. Again nothing was done by the seedy and slimey Sandstein, Bwilkins and Tnxman admins. So the only conclusion I can reach is that this place is corrupt and infested with the lowest sort of humanity running the show. If I am to be punished for being honest about how disgusting and abhorrent these cretins are then so be it, but I am not the one abusing my tools, I'm not the one edit warring against consensus, I'm not the one wikilawyering and disrupting the editing process. I had already given up and moved on hopin someone else would come along and help. And yet I was the one punished, perhaps because Rd232 feared I would take his edit warring to a noticeboard. But he need not have feared. I see how corrupt and immoral the admins here are and I know I would have been wasting my time. The rules are not for admins they are only for lowly editsors and content creators.

The POV pushers like Rd232 who propagandize content and engage in relentless BLP violations while invoking non-existent rules and wikilawyering on their own behalf knowing their cohort will stand by their side. These are behaviors of toads and toadies. That's not a personal attack, it's an accurate description of what these characters are and what they are up to here. And yet it is my good faith work that is interfered with and my block log that is sullied. Well so be it. Shame on them and the swamp they came out of. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly frustrated, and it's very common for users who are blocked, especially when they feel it's unjust, to let loose. But you want to be careful it doesn't lead to a reblock, so my strong advice to you is to take some time away from the keyboard until you feel it matters less. I'll put that article on my watchlist in case there are further problems. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say frustrated is an understatement when I'm blocked for something I'm not even editing by an admin who has instituted thire preferred version after edit warring with two different editors (they made 8 or 9 reversions?), harassing me at other unrelated articles, and refusing to take it to the appropriate noticeboard as suggested repeatedly by me. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN - the burden of proof is on editors wanting to add or restore content. See also the Backstory at User talk:Rd232#Backstory on how the consensus on this developed. I didn't remove the text until several months after an OTRS ticket, which was several months after a strong consensus against your content. Rd232 ^talk 21:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Isaak, M (2005-10-14). "Claim CI001.1: Intelligent design (ID) is scientific, not religious". Talk.origins. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference Kitzmiller was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Strode PK: Young M (2009). "Why Intelligent-Design Creationism Fails". Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails). New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. pp. 64. ISBN 0-8135-4550-1.
^ {{cite book |author= [[United States National Academy of Sciences] |title=Science, evolution, and creationism |publisher= National Academies Press |location=Washington, D.C |year=2008 |pages= 52 |isbn=0-309-10586-2 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}
^ Isaak, M (2005-10-14). "Claim CI001.1: Intelligent design (ID) is scientific, not religious". Talk.origins. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
^ Strode PK: Young M (2009). "Why Intelligent-Design Creationism Fails". Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails). New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. pp. 64. ISBN 0-8135-4550-1.
^ {{cite book |author= [[United States National Academy of Sciences] |title=Science, evolution, and creationism |publisher= National Academies Press |location=Washington, D.C |year=2008 |pages= 52 |isbn=0-309-10586-2 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}
^ United States National Academy of Sciences (2008). Science, evolution, and creationism. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press. pp. 52. ISBN 0-309-10586-2.
^ ^a ^b Isaak, M (2005-10-14). "Claim CI001.1: Intelligent design (ID) is scientific, not religious". Talk.origins. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
^ Strode PK: Young M (2009). "Why Intelligent-Design Creationism Fails". Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails). New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. pp. 64. ISBN 0-8135-4550-1.

[1] Isaak, M (2005-10-14). "Claim CI001.1: Intelligent design (ID) is scientific, not religious". Talk.origins. Retrieved 2010-08-11.

[Kitzmiller-2] Cite error: The named reference Kitzmiller was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] Strode PK: Young M (2009). "Why Intelligent-Design Creationism Fails". Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails). New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. pp. 64. ISBN 0-8135-4550-1.

[4] {{cite book |author= [[United States National Academy of Sciences] |title=Science, evolution, and creationism |publisher= National Academies Press |location=Washington, D.C |year=2008 |pages= 52 |isbn=0-309-10586-2 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}

[5] Isaak, M (2005-10-14). "Claim CI001.1: Intelligent design (ID) is scientific, not religious". Talk.origins. Retrieved 2010-08-11.

[6] Strode PK: Young M (2009). "Why Intelligent-Design Creationism Fails". Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails). New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. pp. 64. ISBN 0-8135-4550-1.

[7] {{cite book |author= [[United States National Academy of Sciences] |title=Science, evolution, and creationism |publisher= National Academies Press |location=Washington, D.C |year=2008 |pages= 52 |isbn=0-309-10586-2 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}

[8] United States National Academy of Sciences (2008). Science, evolution, and creationism. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press. pp. 52. ISBN 0-309-10586-2.

[TO-9] Isaak, M (2005-10-14). "Claim CI001.1: Intelligent design (ID) is scientific, not religious". Talk.origins. Retrieved 2010-08-11.

[10] Strode PK: Young M (2009). "Why Intelligent-Design Creationism Fails". Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails). New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. pp. 64. ISBN 0-8135-4550-1.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

@@ Line 976: / Line 976: @@
 :You're clearly frustrated, and it's very common for users who are blocked, especially when they feel it's unjust, to let loose. But you want to be careful it doesn't lead to a reblock, so my strong advice to you is to take some time away from the keyboard until you feel it matters less. I'll put that article on my watchlist in case there are further problems. Cheers, <font color="blue">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 ::I would say frustrated is an understatement when I'm blocked for something I'm not even editing by an admin who has instituted thire preferred version after edit warring with two different editors (they made 8 or 9 reversions?), harassing me at other unrelated articles, and refusing to take it to the appropriate noticeboard as suggested repeatedly by me. [[User:Freakshownerd|Freakshownerd]] ([[User talk:Freakshownerd#top|talk]]) 21:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
+:::[[WP:BURDEN]] - the burden of proof is on editors wanting to add or restore content. See also the Backstory at [[User talk:Rd232#Backstory]] on how the consensus on this developed. I didn't remove the text until several months after an OTRS ticket, which was several months after a strong consensus against your content. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 21:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:50, 22 August 2010

Wildside Press Removing an author

Common Language Deletion

Proposed deletion of Floor (legislative)

Welcome!

Edit summaries

Proposed deletion of Floor (legislative)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Speedy deletion nomination of Mario's Cafe

Your recent edits

Proposed deletion of San Francisco Creamery

change in lead to Gaza flotilla raid

AN/I comment

Speedy deletion nomination of Matthew Hoh

Speedy deletion of "Featherlite Coaches"

June 2010

Refactoring talk pages

Scot BLP

Speedy deletion nomination of Rachel Sussman

External links

Speedy deletion nomination of Mario's Cafe Bar

Moving articles

Talkback

Talkback

Talkback

References

Speedy deletion nomination of Iowa School for the Deaf

New articles

Speedy deletion nomination of Selsko meso

Articles for deletion nomination of Mario's Cafe Bar

Suggested Reading

Accusation

ANI notice

Moving Rick Scott (businessman)

Rick Scott and Iran

Articles for deletion nomination of Ray's Hell Burger

July 2010

Bill McCollum

Copyright problem: Lake Townsen Regional Park

Mathew Hoh refs

Speedy deletion nomination of F Project

Numerous articles deleted speedily that need reviewing

Speedy deletion nomination of Jasmine Records

F Project Deletion Appeal

Please add _Categories_ to your new articles.

Talkback

Improper deletions

Copyright Violation

Celtic Heartbeat Records

Talkback

Debrahlee Lorenzana

Expansion needed

Copy-edits

Speedy deletion nomination of David Drake (chef)

Three revert rule

Thank you

Cats

categories and working up the talk

ANI notice

?

Note

Vandalism

Hello

denialism

vandalism and fanatics

for later

Kary Mullis

Reverted edits to Poppers

Edit warring at Poppers

AfD nomination of Trotter Prize (Texas A&M)

Civility reminder

Inventing the AIDS virus

Maxine Waters

South Central

Not a BLP violation on William Dembski

Thank you re: Dembski

Message

blocked

Comments

Comments