User talk:FeloniousMonk: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:51, 24 June 2006

feloniousmonk

Enforced silence

This is the second time you have been involved in enforcing silence in an effort to keep the Undue weight section vague. Just to prove you are out-of-line I am willing to let the matter rest until yet another user requests the section be clarified. Bensaccount 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which I'm sure is being arranged as we speak... FeloniousMonk 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less than 2 weeks has passed and there is another question -- Does this make you wonder if maybe you can't enforce silence on this issue after all? Bensaccount 23:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in. I've let temptation to continue a pointless argument get the best of me more than I like lately. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Dembski

felonious, you continue to intimidate, insult or ignore those who do not agree with you and don't follow your agenda in the pages you watch. I will not step back from my complaints about this article. The article is extremely POV, and the "response" section is filled with selected quotes and blatant generalizations. I will take this all the way to arbitration, if necessary, and I suggest you compromise. Trilemma 15:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, threatening people is far more likely to be interpreted as "intimidation" than is and edit summary which says "occasionally aggressive is not a reasonable subsitute for being polemical" (with regards to an attempt to subsitute the word "polemic" with "has on occasion been aggressive". Or, in other words: pot, to kettle "black". Guettarda 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With your POV campaigning backed with threats like this spammed across numerous user talk pages, you're likely to end up in arbitration sooner than you expect. FeloniousMonk 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't speak well of your willingness to discuss and/or compromise if as soon as there is an edit dispute you start saying that you are willing to take the matter to arbitration and therefore we should compromise with you. That amounts to saying something like "You should know that I'm really stubborn. You might as well give in now and save yourselves the trouble." This is not a productive attitude. JoshuaZ 17:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested that I would subvert the normal editing process; I only meant to elucidate my conviction of the extreme NPOV violations of the article and that I will follow through with every option, in the proper order, to rectify the situation. Any other interpretation of my statements is a misunderstanding. Trilemma 00:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Kaloogian

Hi there. You protected this about 10 days ago. Since WP:SEMI is for dealing with serious, current vandals, I figure it's been more than long enough to unprotect it now. Can I ask you to check your other recent protections and lift them as necessary, also to remember protections in general? CAT:SEMI is nearly 100 items, most of them seem to have been forgotten by the protecting admin. Thanks. -Splash^talk 21:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your wrong assertions that defy consensus

You need to stop reverting this entry [1]. We have been discussing this issue on the talk page and your viewpoint is false and does not have the consensus. In fact, your viewpoint has been blown out of the water because you haven't been able to prove that OCCM has ever claimed to be an accreditor. So, stop posting your opinions, start heeding to the facts, and submit to the consensus or else you're going to look more and more like a vandal. --JohnDoe5 22:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Referring to ND test

Actually, I believe the truly "fair" name by the way you're using the term would be the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health test". In any case, the section referring to the test is titled "Discovery Channel Appearance". In the interest of making the reference accessible to the mediators, and in the interest of brevity, I chose "Discovery Channel-aired test". - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 00:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've taken it upon yourself to contribute to the RFM, I'm presuming you want to be involved as a party as well? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominionist political parties

Felonious, I think on reflection that there is a fundamental problem with that article, which Rob and JJay have identified. Whether or not the term is valid, or validly applied to these particular parties, I think on balance the best solution is to go with the category, not the list; editors on the individual articles can debate the category on an individual basis. If there are no reputable sources ascribing the label to individual parties, then we should not either. If there are, the category can be included in the articles. The template is fine by me. Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disgree. See my recent comment on the AFD page. Also, there's no shortage of credible sources per WP:V that are available as supporting cites that connect Dominionism to various political parties and movements, starting with National Review, Harpers, PBS: [2] [3] [4] [5]. That some are more interested in deleting the article for personal reasons than in fixing it is no reason to delete it. FeloniousMonk 21:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks.

You cast aspersions on my motives in your edit summaries. You should assume good faith instead of engaging in personal attacks. BTW, you appear to be engaging in original research, by extending dominionism to any Christain religious organization that takes a position on social issues. If you aren't careful, dominionism will just end up as name calling and become as watered down and meaningless as fascism.--Silverback 06:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what personal attacks you're yammering about. The fact is that all of the following groups are all identified as connected to the dominionism movement by both Soldiers of Christ II published May 2005 in Harpers By Chris Hedges and The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party at TheocracyWatch.org, as well as other sources: Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Free Congress Foundation, National Religious Broadcasters, Southern Baptist Convention. Noting what significant and credible observers of the intersecting of politics and religion say about these groups is hardly "meaningless" or "fascism" and necessary for a complete article that covers all notable viewpoints on its topic. FeloniousMonk 15:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to these two personal attacks here in your edit summaries:

10:56, April 15, 2006 (hist) (diff) Political Research Associates (m intentionally misplaced dominionism cat. see: WP:POINT Silverback)

10:55, April 15, 2006 (hist) (diff) Political Research Associates (rm intentionally misplaced dominionism template. see: WP:POINT Silverback)

You are attacking me instead of assuming good faith.--Silverback 05:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominionism movement

Hello FM : ) Maybe these organizations belong in this category. Maybe not. Is Chris Hedges regarded as an unbiased author? I think the Harpers article is a pretty weak source for this type of categorization. Is there something more academic? Doing this type of categorization contemporary to the situation is problematic. To overcome this, the views from all sides of the political spectrum need to be considered. Who else has written on this topic? Is this categorization supported by moderate conservative-leaning thinkers? What has George Will written? Do the groups themselves classify this way? Pat Buchanan is open and honest about these issues. What does he say? You may be correct. Could you point me to better sources to back it up. FloNight ^talk 16:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harper's Magazine is a moderate, widely respected, responsible and critical publication.

Cornell University's Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy is an unimpeachable academic source, and they say the same thing as Hedges did in Harper's and then some: [6], [7]. You may want to also read Frederick Carlson's "Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy."

Additionally, these issues are even being addressed in the mainstream conservative press due to the rift between moderate conservatives and dominionists: The Washington Times Left aims to smite 'theocracy' movement Christian Science Monitor For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America'

Other fair articles on the topic include: WSWS: New York Times columnist David Brooks proposes the 'good crusade', Liberty magazine, and give a listen to Recent NPR coverage of Christian Dominionism FeloniousMonk 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see religioustolerance.org's coverage of the topic. FeloniousMonk 18:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above sources are good with the slightly exception of the last one. Religioustolerance.org has a strong leftwards slant and seems to do little fact-checking. JoshuaZ 18:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Felonious, you keep posting a link to a theocracywatch site to support some text about cornell university. I can see anything about cornell university on that page. You also use it to support the claim that certain organizations are "dominionist", but the text on that page doesn't support that either? If just references scorecards by certain organizations. Perhaps those who track domininism find these scorecards serve their purpose in tracking dominionism, but nothing indicates that these organizations are themselves dominionist. Am I missing something on this page? Can you point me to the specifics on the page that support the specifics in your proposed text?--Silverback 05:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silverback, I was unconvinced by the Harpers article and asked FM for more sources. FM has provided a variety of reliable sources. I listen to the PBS interview and have skimmed most of the sources. As editors, we are responsible for developing an article that presents all valid pov. I still have a few questions but all in all this seems vaild to me. The category reflects the content of the articles and is reasonable. FloNight ^talk 05:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying seems very non-specific. Who exactly were the sources and what exactly did they say? The sources I saw did not say that these various organizations were dominionist organizations, rather they seemed to be citing the congressional scorecards that these organizations kept, presumably considering them good sources. If there were other sources that you deemed authoritative, then they should be making signed statements with footnotes and references and not just appearing for interviews. Even then, the sources should be more than just opinion pieces. After all, the work of MacDonald published in the Occidental Quarterly, a journal of opinion, is well written and well referenced, but we should still be able to reject it for the selective analysis of facts that it is. I argue against it here[8]. So far these soruces appear even less authoritative than this jewish conspiracy theory stuff.--Silverback 20:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silverback, the proper place to put the specifics is in the related articles, right. : ) I noted verifiable reliable sources for indiviuals, religous groups, media organizations, not-for profits, think tanks, and lobbying groups. FM gave us "master" sources that had many more pages of sources. We need to go through them and find the best examples for each article. Each article needs to have obvious relevant content related to dominionism from reliable sources before the dominionism category is added. FloNight ^talk 21:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think FeloniusMonk needs to go through them and to get specific. The best way to get non-academic work to be encyclopedic, is the both cite and quote the source, preferably a person by name, unless it is clear that a document represents the official policy of an organization.--Silverback 21:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silverback, we have a situation where established Wikipedia editors are editing articles about well known people and organizations using reliable sources. I don't think we need to do anything different from normal. FloNight ^talk 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree, but citing anonymous sources looks like original research. Cite the source and quote the source, and if that source is a secondary source, prefer the primary source, unless the person who is being quoted is notable.--Silverback 22:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, did it ever occur to you to look beyond the page, like clicking the "About us" link? [9] FeloniousMonk 16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I did "home" and "contact us" and neither mentioned Cornel, and the pages were not signed with authors taking responsibility for their content, so it did not look like something an academic institution would do. I guess not all academic work is created equal.--Silverback 19:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki

As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. PrometheusX303 20:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich

Head_Like_A_Hole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted the sock tag after you told him not to. Arbusto 09:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arbustoo deleting comments from talk page

Arbustoo is deleting comments and questions from his talk page without replying. Please say something to him about this. It isn't very nice. --Head Like A Hole 09:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Root of all Evil?

Just thought you'd be amused by the quote about how science explains the complexity of life, but "The design hypothesis couldn't even begin to do that, because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves, who made the designer?" from Dawkins in The Root of All Evil?#The God Delusion. ...dave souza, talk 10:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution article revert

Hi, probably just a misunderstanding, but please don't just revert all my hard copyediting work. If you'd like to re-add the school para below, go ahead:

"Among the scientific community, there is no true debate over the existence of evolution. It is only among the public and among politicians is there a debate over what should be taught. This is generally considered to be a result of poor scientific education."

Note, though, that this was added just a couple of hours ago by an anon user -- it's not article "canon". Also, the first paragraph or two in the controversies section state in no uncertain terms that there is no scientific debate about evolution -- I really don't think there's a need to restate it there.

About the "This is generally considered to be a result of poor scientific education" bit: generally considered by whom? One could equally well argue that it's the result of many Americans being more "religiously fervent" than, say, their more secular European counterparts -- and thus that they have a harder time reconciling evolution with their religious beliefs than other well-educated people (despite similar quality of science instruction).

For the record, I am a biologist, and am not trying to insinuate creationist POV into the article or anything like that. Killdevil 18:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel closed

This arbitration case has closed. Agapetos angel et al. are banned from editing Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. The opposing editors (Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk) are warned concerning NPOV and edit warring. Any user banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. For further information, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr Sam Spade

Hiya, FM. I don't know if you've seen the RFAr on Sam Spade. Fred Bauder has rejected it for lacking a "referral from the Mediation Committee". (He's rejecting other requests for the same reason, too; it seems to be a principle of his, perhaps a new one.) The case is looking pretty likely to get accepted anyway, but if you should feel like putting in a statement outlining the community's long history of trying to reason with SS, it could only help. I gathered from your input at the RfC that you were excruciatingly familiar with it. Best, Bishonen | talk 07:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

What was that?

Hi mate, what was that? [10] Have you read the talk page at all? [11] Dr Zak 16:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JJay's concerns for copyrights at Preying from the Pulpit

JJay seems to have a new concern over copyright violations at Preying from the Pulpit. These concerns have led to removing clips of a news program. Despite him being informed that these are merely partial audio clips of a television news program he has continued to revert the links without comment on the talk. Arbusto 23:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'Reilly

There is no source that confirms it but O'Reilly has repeadtly claimed that he misjudged Letterman and has developed a more negative view of him politically then he had before. The reason I put it there is to clarify for the readers that O'Reilly is not a hypocrite on this issue beacause the passage below shows O'Reilly prasing Letterman years earlier which was when he had a different view. I assume if you have seen the Letterman interview, you would change your mind too if someone invited you on their show and then tried to embarass you by attacking your character.But I guess you will insist on removing it if I reverted it back. --Bairdso66 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for butting in, but everything after "There is no source that confirms it" is useless. If there is no source, it is OR, rumor, hearsay, call it what you will - it is useless to the process of editing an encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't want to address your reasons for reverting the O'Reilly passage--Bairdso66 21:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking I already did. Perhaps FM considered the matter already addressed, or perhaps he is doing other things. Guessing, with less than 24 hours since your post, is hardly a useful approach. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category on userpage

Thanks for the disabling the category on my user sub-page. Kind regards, David Bergan 02:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

"...not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." How does this hurt? My goodness it's mind-numbing. Marskell 16:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

I have brought a request for arbitration naming you as an interested party. [12] — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 04:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm neither an interested party nor am I central to your problem. I decline to participate. FeloniousMonk 04:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get a choice whether to participate in an Arbitration; that decision is up to the Arbitration Committee. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would be you there to try to remind me. Very kindly of you, thank you.

But I do have a choice as to whether I contribute to the RFAr or not. Since WCityMike is either confused over policy or has a personal axe to grind against SlimVirgin, and considering his irrational behavior it's becoming more apparent that it's likely the latter, I choose to not assist WCityMike with his baseless disruption of the project. He's caused enough problems and it's looking more and more like the nogoodniks at Wikipedia Review are behind this: [13] Pick your sides... FeloniousMonk 05:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed the substance of the claims he makes, just noting that you were involved in a (rather stupid) edit war on the requests for Arbitration page. You should be better than that. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, but I prefer those of those who haven't had an ax to grind with me in the past. FeloniousMonk 05:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. Keeping grudges isn't very becoming, either. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure everyone puts their cards on the table, that's all. FeloniousMonk 06:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology & Withdrawal

My apology and withdrawal: [14]. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 22:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Zeleny/Min Zhu controversy

Hi, I am a student doing research about the Zeleny/Min Zhu controversy, and I found in some of your postings that you mentioned specific documents that could substantiate the allegations (court docs, etc...). I was wondering if you knew where I could find such documents as they would aid immensely in my research. Thank you! (and let me know if you have any questions/want details about my research- mariejomr@gmail.com) - Marie-Jo

Explain your charges of vandalism

Rather than just throwing accusations about. 71.199.196.105 06:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting. 71.199.196.105 04:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new phrase

Your comments on AN/I just gave me my new catchphrase: "WP:AGF is not a suicide pact". I love it, thanks! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and Neil Lennon

I know and admit that I have reverted the article more than 3 times. However I believe that there is a bit of sockpuppetry involved here that is trying to get me into trouble.

Editors to the page apart from me are:

all I believe are the same person.

TheMadTim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AggieTheTeaLady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
공수 아이는 수음자 이다 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
VeryJollyGood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hahahahahahahaha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
StanTheMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
59.4.230.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
DoctorHooDoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ﺾﺸﻏﻞﻤﻌﻏ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user who reported the 3RR violation has one edit to his name?

LloydEstralondo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user who reported me still has not made any further edits, strange?

Another new user BiII the Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notice the strange characters in his username. Last night made the same changes to the article, then opened a RFC on me after I reverted him.

Christianism

Would you mind checking out the discussion at Talk:Dominionism#Christianism and weighing in with your opinion. Cberlet seems to have larger issues with the Dominionism article and has changed (twice) and deleted (once) the section I added on Christianism. I have proposed some new language which I think will solve the concerns you had and, I hope, Cberlet's concerns, but since he/she is raising other issues with the article I'd love to wrap this up before the discussion goes off on another tangent. Thanks,--Alabamaboy 00:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience v. WP:NPOV

Thanks for adding the voice of reason. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 00:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD nomination: Philip Sandifer

Since you have decided to undelete and list for AFD, would you mind closing the DRV entry accordingly? It will be confusing debating whether the article should be undeleted or not if it already is. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 18:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Henry College

Many thanks for your work on Patrick Henry College. It is much improved. Aplomado ^talk 06:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for adminship

I wanted to alert you to an adminship application I've filed. Given our disagreement that night, I figured it would be fair to alert you to give you an opportunity to vote on this, even if indeed your vote is an oppose. Thanks. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content from Patrick Henry College

Re: Your edits to Patrick Henry College. I'm going to warn you for vandalism if you delete the information again without having a good reason. Aplomado ^talk 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

FM, thank you for your supportive comment. It helped me feel much better about the atmosphere at Wikipedia. We need to find a solution to the harassment coming from Wikipedia Review. I don’t intend to let them win. You must understand that it gets almost unbearable at times. I don't see how SV has lived with it as long as she has. Hopefully after a rest she will be back. Take care, thank you FloNight ^talk 02:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Sorry, I stepped on you at talk:Intelligent design where you tried to write this:

No, please read the archives on this issue. We discussed this at great length and settled on concept as a compromise. FeloniousMonk 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying RTFM isn't always the best way to respond to a newbie. --Uncle Ed 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)

Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aquirata

You may recall this user clogging the NPOV talk about a week ago. I am considering starting an RfC and wondered if people would comment. I realize you probably haven't dealt with him at length on Mainspace pages (he only sticks to about three of them) but I thought you might agree that his behaviour has been troublesome. Marskell 18:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aquirata. One of the first posts under "Tried to resolve" is from you, so you may certify. Thanks a bunch, Marskell 08:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know how much this is accomplishing. I wondered if you had noticed this Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aquirata#Outside_view_by_Andrew_Homer. It's been endorsed as an "outside view" when it's actually a silly attack. I would like to remove it from the main RfC page but Aquirata insists on keeping it. Marskell 08:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One further development: I have nommed the article that got Aquirata kicking for deletion here (I think you made a comment on the talk page at one point). The page is a f**king embarrassment. Marskell 17:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts to four days ago

You might want to think about discussing reverting to a version four days old before you do it. Plus, you might want to read the neutral point of view policy. It applies, even if you have strong feelings on a topic. Thanks, For great justice. 05:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Thanks

I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup

I nomimated that attack page for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Goethean/Examples...the fact that you didn't vote on it is proof I don't spam others for support votes. You're probably right.--MONGO 19:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposed" template in user space

Ooops... I thought I'd stripped that out. The problem is that I was trying to view how the final page would look with the "proposed" tag on. Inappropriate things showing up in user space annoy me too! I guess we could do with a {{Dummy proposed}} template, for a "dummy proposed policy, guideline or process" for such purposes. Or even a {{First draft proposed}} for "this is a first draft for what may later be proposed as a..." TheGrappler 08:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing out mine as well --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nordundsud

Nordundsud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks to me to be Gastroturfing. I've issued a warning. Just zis Guy you know? 15:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Felonious

Please review my talk page LoveMonkey and also the talk page on Plotinus. Goethan is engaging in a campaign to have me banned by admin slimvirgin. Because I stopped him and his buddies from posting original research on Plotinus and his attack on the gnostics. I created the article Neoplatonism and Gnosticism to address the "theory" they proposed and Goethan put the article up for deletion. Disruptive. LoveMonkey 16:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please put your comments on my RfC in the proper place

FeloniousMonk-- You are certainly free to state your dispute with me, but you need to follow the rules that are put in place for an RfC. It says quite clearly that "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse." If you are going to contribute to the article you need to do so in the section that is meant for people that are involved in the dispute, since you have now certified that you have tried and failed to resolve the dispute. You cannot add a new section under Outside Views and add your comments there. You are a participant in the dispute and you have your own section. Vivaldi (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused about the instructions given on RFC pages; I have only edited one view and endorsed several, so I'm free to add a view to the RFC. Removing legitimate views from an RFC is disruptive and will only compound your problems outlined there. You also would benefit from earnestly considering the comments of Hipocrite regarding your wikilaywering which seems to extend now to your interpretation of RFC page guidelines. FeloniousMonk 19:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have now certified that you are a participant in the dispute. You have completely made up a new section and placed it under the "Outside Views" section when the rules for RfCs clearly state that this area is meant for people that are not participants. Why are you immune from following the guidelines and rules that are set up? I would appreciate it if you would not move this discussion to my talk page. This is a warning. Vivaldi (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either you're splitting hairs and wikilawyering or you're clueless; either way your disruptive actions make it a distinction without a difference.

Certifying a dispute is the same as endorsing a view, not the same as editing the Statement of the dispute or Response sections. Again, read the instructions. I'm well within guideline and convention to add my viewpoint, unless you want to call certifying the dispute editing, which seems like more wikilawyering to me. My view is labeled just that a "view" not an outside view, all of which is supported by convention and policy. You're becoming disruptive, and I think the last place you'd want to do that is at your own user conduct RFC. FeloniousMonk 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Homeontherange

Hello,

I believe the 3RR block may have been improperly applied in this instance.

The "violation" involved the restoration of an "OR" tag, with no other changes to the text. I'm not certain this constitutes a 3RR violation; if it was, I suspect it was entirely accidental. CJCurrie 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't unblock "my friend" -- another admin unblocked him, and my only involvement was to undo a glitch in the system. CJCurrie 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only exemptions from 3RR violations are for vandalism, potentially libellous material, and user pages. HOTR's edit warring over the tag fits none of the above; it's clearly a 3RR vio. [15] shows that you solicited his unblocking from Bearcat, then you did it yourself when Bearcat was unable to do it: [16] Also, HOTR block log shows he has been a chronic 3RR offender, [17], so claiming it was a accident isn't going to wash. FeloniousMonk 02:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Assume good faith. I refrained from unblocking the user because I was an active participant in the parent discussion; my only action afterwards was to undo a glitch in the system.

The 3RR page seems to have undergone some significant modifications in recent months, and it's hardly a surprise that not everyone would be aware of (or accept) the current version. I suspect that some of the "3RR offenses" in question would not have been interpreted as such even a few months ago. CJCurrie 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policies are not a buffet where one gets to choose what fits the occasion and leave the rest. Those who ignore them do so at their risk with incidents like this as a result. FeloniousMonk 03:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that AGF is also official policy. In any event, 3RR does not mandate that editors must be blocked for making more than three reverts -- it simply grants admins the authority to do so. There's nothing to prevent alternate resolutions from being tried in ambiguous situations like this. CJCurrie 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and chronic offenders tend to get blocked.

Ambiguous? What part of "There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." at Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule is unclear to you? FeloniousMonk 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point: I think some of those situations may have been "ambiguous" as well. In any case, I have absolutely no doubt that HotR did not consciously violate 3RR in this instance. CJCurrie 03:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To your second point: See Bearcat's comments below. I'm certain there are other admins who would be surprised by the current status of the 3RR policy. CJCurrie 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're that poorly versed on current policy they have no business being admins, I'd say. As for HOTR, the fact that one of his first edits upon being unblocked was to attack the person filing the complaint and to misrepresent the situation [18] doesn't speak highly of him. I'd have a bit more sympathy for his plight here were he not his own worst enemy. FeloniousMonk 03:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to know exactly what you think the required time frame should be in which an administrator has a specific responsibility to review every Wikipedia policy for changes: every day? every week? every three weeks? every six weeks? every three months? What's the right balance between staying current on policy changes while not simultaneously spending so much time scanning for policy changes that you never have any time left to actually be an administrator? I frankly couldn't give a flying fig what you think of any individual Wikipedia editor as a person, but against my better judgement I am kind of curious what you figure to be the quantifiable benchmarks that an administrator has to pass. Bearcat 09:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where your action may be controversial reviewing the policy before taking action is always prudent. FeloniousMonk 14:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"any reverts count"

Per the page history on the 3RR policy page, that criterion was added on April 18, 2006 by William M. Connolley. I can find no evidence that he ever sought or established any consensus to add this new clause to the policy; it did not exist on April 17, and I absolutely do not accept that being unaware of an unannounced and non-consensual rule change that's a grand total of six weeks old constitutes any sort of failing on my part.

I've been a Wikipedia administrator for well over a year, and acted exactly in accordance with the rules as they've stood as long as I've been an administrator — and I absolutely reject any notion that I had any responsibility to act otherwise.

And furthermore, until I see some indication that there was a consensus to add this to the policy, I am not obliged to accept it as binding.

I will not discuss this any further. Bearcat 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if you choose to ignore that part of the policy, or all of it. FeloniousMonk 03:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not into ignoring policy. I'm into ensuring that policy as written is actually based on legitimate consensus rather than one person's individual agenda. If you don't understand the difference, that's really not my problem at all. Bearcat 09:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how many have that policy on their watchlists, the fact that the policy stood unchallenged for months shows that there is consensus. FeloniousMonk 14:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on sourcing

I noticed your most recent edit to Intelligent Design as citing references from wikisource. I'm unfamiliar with wikisource; I assume it's a wikimedia foundation website? Is it considered acceptable to use wikisource as a source in a wikipedia article, i.e. is it considered reliable? On the one hand, I think: why have a site called "wikisource" except to provide known reliable sourcing for wikipedia? On the other, I think: wikisource allows anyone to edit; doesn't that mean it can't be considered a RS, for the same reason that another wikipedia article is not considered a RS?

Please don't see this as opposition. I'm not an ID supporter nor do I have a problem with your edit. I'm just curious about wikisource. Kasreyn 05:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that answers my question. :) Kasreyn 05:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A funny one

Hi FM, I see you did a partial reversion of my self-revert, in effect re-instating and somewhat sanctioning language I endorse and Francis opposes as not having reached consensus. Someone else then ran with the ball and made this edit. Although I much appreciate your support of the sentence ("Returning a critical sentence to the new language") you may want to revert back to my last version, which seems to be the current consensus version at WP:NPOV. FWIW, I have a proposal pending here which you may want to endorse, improve, or shoot down in flames. :-O AvB ÷ talk 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The War on Science

Talk:Evolution#Add a "google video" link of evolution science provides a handy link to BBC Horizon's The War on Science which provides a nice documentary and lots of quotes on ID up to the Kitzmiller verdict. ..dave souza, talk 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arbcomm

wats an arbcomm?--The Nation 05:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arbitration commitee??--The Nation 16:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your removal of the unbalanced template at human

Please revert your unilateral removal of the unbalanced template from the Human article. I strongly object to the unbalanced intro to the article. Specifically, the lack of any perspective other than that of the natural sciences in the first paragraph. — goethean ॐ 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hovind article

You reverted some of my changes to the Kent Hovind article as a "whitewash." I'm confused by this. Please discuss your changes on the talkpage. Thanks. --JChap 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on template discussion

Hi FM -- I really like and appreciate your work on ID-related articles. In the recent discussion on deletion of a template that I placed on category:Pseudoscience, you wrote: "Also, templates created to further a particular POV is a misuse of templates." My comments from that page: Since I created it, I can tell you that this template was not created to further a particular POV. It was created to help readers be aware of disputes, as I said above, and it parallels an already existing template that hasn't been deleted. Other editors have argued that category:Pseudoscience is inherently a POV category. WP:CF says "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category", but in practice this is sometimes ignored. I'm fine with the argument that there are better ways to alert readers and editors to disputes. I'm not fine with having my motivations gratuitously questioned. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zer0faults and Nomen Nescio

I too have been involved greatly in the discussion that they have, and I disagree that Zer0 is harassing Nomen Nescio. Nomen has had poor tactics in getting accrossed points, and while he is looking to help, he often has not because of this. When I made Wikipedia:WOT, he edited it several times to misrepresent the issue it was discussing. I, and Zer0 as well, reverted his edits there. Nomen and Zer0 both broke the 3RR rule, and both were blocxked for 6 hours. This incident was 2 days ago (I think) and was noted by you, as an example of harassment. Yesterday Nescio didnt come on, however we reached a consensus, with the help of GTBracchus, on the issue of including the Iraq War in the War on Terrorism (no small task). As stated, he didnt come on yesterday, but today he did, and began to revert all of the edits to the articles related to the consensus. GTBracchus, and zer0 both told him to discuss the issue on a talk page, and I also asked Nomen to do this as well, rather than restart a revert war. He did not do this, though he did eventually stop reverting (he didnt exceed 3RR here). He then went back into the talk page, and brought back an old RFC that had previously been archived. Zer0faults edited the descriptions in this that were misleading of the issue, including a misrepresentations of the polls. Here, I beleive that Nomen exceed 3 reverts, reaching 4. I reverted once, because I too disagreed with his misrepresentations of the polls. I would not call this incident harassment, because we all have been working in similar areas. I think a more effective way of handling this may be to talk to Nomen, and again, try and get him back to the discussion table. If he just reverts stuff and gets into edit wars, or a war of words (calling zer0 and I zealots) it will not help anything as likely it would result in blocking. Rangeley 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping out but this seriously misrepresents the facts. First no consensus was reached,[19] second archiving an ongoing RFC is rather poor taste. Since the debate is ongoing I fail to see why comments in that debate should be deleted. Last, I only corrected you false statements regarding any previous discussion and I pointed out where people could find that discussion. All that was deleted since apparently the previous debates were off-limits. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noone has ever asked you not to point to the polls. I have asked you to stop interpreting them and to let them speak for themselves. However you decided that a poll that had to do with adding WOT to the infobox instead meant all those people felt the WOT was not part of Iraq, when that is not what all the votes said. Some said since its controversial it should stay out. Hence you were misrepresenting peoples views. I put it back with the votes and the questions that was asked and you reverted that, instead once again attempting to speak for the 10+ people who's votes you were calling. But you cannto speak for them and should not be summarizing 10 votes, some with a paragraph explanation into one single sentence. Its wrong.

Grudge against Nomen? because a user posts NPA and Vandal tags on my user page does not signify a grudge, I would love it if this user would participate in the current discussion, however he has already stated his position is unmoving because of his political views that Bush was wrong, not because factually he US did goto war as part of the War on Terror. I have asked him numerous times what would it take to convince him, or what would he accept as a middleground and my questiosn go ignored, or when the facts are presented and i ask if that convinced him or if he needs more info, that goes ignored. Perhaps you should look at his AN/A AN/I and 3 posts to admin user pages in the last day before you judge who has a grudge with someone. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen, the fact someone reverted does not mean there is no consensus. Neither he, nor you has stated any objection to the consensus [20], despite being invited frequently to. Please discuss with us if you have objections. Rangeley 17:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using this editors page. The discussion should remain on the article's page. Thank you for4 cooperating. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

Actually, I'd already done a CheckUser, because the sockpuppetry and editing pattern was so obvious. Unsurprisingly, the CheckUser evidence was consistent and strongly suggestive (though not 100% conclusive) with them being sockpuppets of Homeontherange. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not acceptable since Jayjg is in a conflict of interest. He doesn't even give you the 'evidence' but that's enough for you to act. Forget it, there's no reason for me to register. Maybe next time you won't block someone without 100% certainty, especially if its on the word of someone with a bias. Or maybe youll just block the millions of people who live here and end up blocking a few hundred wikipedia editors in the process.

a few thousand people use the internet cafe I'm in every week. Many of them israeli and arab students. Block all of us why don't you?

these articles mentioned on arab and left wing jewish student email list here. Maybe i should just tell them that all toronto university students not allowed on wikipedia because of you and Jayjg who can't tell meaning of city with 5 million?

Revision as of 01:45, 24 June 2006 edit 216.249.5.184 (talk) No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:51, 24 June 2006 edit undo 216.249.5.184 (talk) No edit summary Next edit →
Line 427:		Line 427:

	a few thousand people use the internet cafe I'm in every week. Many of them israeli and arab students. Block all of us why don't you?		a few thousand people use the internet cafe I'm in every week. Many of them israeli and arab students. Block all of us why don't you?

			these articles mentioned on arab and left wing jewish student email list here. Maybe i should just tell them that all toronto university students not allowed on wikipedia because of you and Jayjg who can't tell meaning of city with 5 million?