User talk:Morton devonshire

Leave a new message.

This user is a member of the Counter-POV Unit

   Discussion Conventions

• Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
• Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
• Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Don't be a dick

• Caveat: Please keep in mind that I don't necessarily agree with the thoughts expressed by others on this page.

Archives Archive 1 (redacted archives from December 2005 to June 2006)

---

Classifying pseudoscience

File:Tin foil hat 3.jpg

Meet your Team Captain, 9/11 "researchers"!

Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:

• by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results;
• by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
• by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
• by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
• by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
• by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
• by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
• by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible; or
• by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.

Features of Conspiracy Theories

File:Tin foil hat 4.jpg

Live long and prosper!

Allegations exhibiting several of the following features are candidates for classification as conspiracy theories. Articles by User:Blackcats and User:Zen-master (who has since been banned from Wikipedia for one year) are good examples of articles containing these traits. Confidence in such classification improves the more such features are exhibited:

• Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence.
• Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
• Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact.
• Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
• Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions.
• Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
• Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators
• Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
• Allots superhuman talents and/or resources to conspirators.
• May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, never to repent, to possess unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, etc.
• Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning.
• Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
• Appeals to 'common sense'.
• Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological phenomena.
• Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies
• Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
• Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', generally lacking peer review
• Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
• Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science
• At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
• Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities
• Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
• Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative
• When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence.

Steven E. Jones, 9/11 "researcher" debunked

Esteemed 9/11 Researcher

If you ever wonder if there's any science behind the conspiracy theorists claims, take a look at this excerpt from the Steven E. Jones talk page:

wait-both Jones' paper and many points in Toms reply are debateable. If anyone is really wondering about the science, they should look here [1]-Jones' paper. SkeenaR 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• I know you have an engineering background. Do you personally have any kind of opinion on the veracity of his 9/11 paper? I'm pretty sure you have an opinion on the whole controlled demolition theory, but I would still be interested to hear what you have to say from a technical standpoint if you care to share your thoughts on it. SkeenaR 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Doorap.jpg

The researchers arch-nemesis

• I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and I have worked with structural steel, but in bridges rather than buildings. I am in no sense qualified to hold an opinion on the structural engineering aspects of the collapse. I have significantly more experience with explosives and demolitions, and I have used linear shaped charges and thermite. I have not done any work in controlled demolition of buildings, and I'm not qualified to evaluate Jones' work, except as a layman. His work does not have the ring of truth. Jones writes like someone who has read about, but never used, explosives. "I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel." This is technobabble. In what sense is RDX a high-temperature cutter-charge? What does that even mean? Is he suggesting that linear shaped charges of RDX melted the steel? From what I've seen the results of shaped charges on steel are more like tearing. Later he refers to pools of molten metal weeks after the event. Certainly thermite will melt steel, but how much thermite are we talking about? Truckloads? (By the way, I think some back-of-the-envelope heat-transfer calculations are in order there.) Rigging a skyscraper for controlled demolition is a massive undertaking, and a disruptive one. You would need open access to the structural members for weeks, there would be detonating cord everywhere, other members would probably need to be protected from damage so they didn't fail at the wrong time, and the workers would probably tear up the drywall and trash the carpets. And then what about priming the whole thing? Is it going to be left for weeks or months with blasting caps installed in the high explosives? I don't think so. And where is all this thermite going to be? I don't see how it would be possible to do this secretly. I don't see any basis for concluding that these puffs of smoke are from 'squibs.' He seems to just say they must be, because squibs can make puffs of smoke. "See the puffs of smoke? Those are squibs. How do I know they're squibs? Because of the puffs of smoke." I read through his paper, and read through (parts of) the NIST and FEMA reports, and the Popular Mechanics article. Jones' work sounds like junk science; The NIST and FEMA reports are less exciting, but seem solid and workman-like. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I'm not qualified to do a point-by-point debunking of Jones' work. It doesn't really matter what I think anyway. All we can do here is write, "This is what Jones says" and "This is what others say." Everyone with an interest has to read and make up his mind. Tom Harrison Talk 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My Page

Wiktionary:pedantic

This is my user page, and I can do with it what I want. If that pisses-off unemployed pedantic teenagers, then all the better. If, on the other hand, you want to have a rational discussion with me about articles and edits, I will treat you kindly.Morton devonshire 23:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mumites

Mumia:Used by the Left

Over the last few days, I've discovered that the supporters of Mumia are cult-like in their support and defense of Mumia and his public image. As such, I doubt very much that the article Fry Mumia will survive. The response has been incredible, and instructive, and I've learned something about my fellow-man -- that he's willing to elevate to sainthood even the most common criminal, so long as his image can be coopted to advance their own misguided vision. So be it. The article will be deleted because of the Cult of Mumia is obsessed with cleansing his public persona, but no amount of public cleansing will change the fact that Wesley Cook aka Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of murder of a police officer, and will likely die in prison. The larger issue is the cultural phenomenen of the FM movement, which is interesting in its self, and worth exploring and commenting upon -- that's the purpose of the article. So have at it, and feel free to contribute to the article. Thanks. Morton devonshire 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Morton, you may want to review WP:NPA. —Viriditas | Talk 04:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected the page to Free Mumia Movement, in an effort to try to find some balance. My hope is that editors will discuss the political phenomenen which is the Free Mumia Movement, which is larger than the man himself and his case. Please help me to do this by removing the Afd and other tags. Thanks. Morton devonshire

Stalker Dude

User:Golbez -- quit stalking me dude! Morton devonshire 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And calling me out like this is supposed to get me to stop looking at your edits? --Golbez 00:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Little weasel dude, would you please just leave me alone. You're starting to scare me. Morton devonshire 00:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, before things spiral out of control, please review WP:NPA. —Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. The guy/girl is following me around in my edits, editing pages that I edit and that he/she has never edited before, and marked an article Afd before it was even edited. That seems WP:POINT to me, and don't know what else to do than to call him/her out on it, as nobody on the Admin side seems to be willing to help. Worse yet, he/she is an admin. I'm on my own, and here you show up and are critical again. Doesn't feel good man. Morton devonshire 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you need help with, exactly? You seem to be doing fine on your own, although I recommend toning down the rhetoric and familiarizing yourself with policy. You might even want to lend your hand to a WikiProject or some non-controversial articles. You could even patrol recent changes for vandalism. There's lots to do. —Viriditas | Talk 04:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What I want is for the "stalking editor" activity to stop -- feels retaliatory to me. Is there a Wikipedia rule against it? Morton devonshire 04:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, see WP:HA, but in my opinion, you have not been stalked by anyone. It might be best to just let this go and move on. I think most editors understand that having an article up for deletion that you created and have an attachment to can be stressful. Try to focus more on your edits and less on other editors. —Viriditas | Talk 04:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppets

File:Tin foil hat 5.jpg

You make me feel like dancing!

The Conspiracy Theory

• Blackcats/SkeenaR as Sockpuppets -- why: Both hover at 9/11 conspiracy theories, and patrol the page like wildcats. Blackcats goes off the radar screen early Jan, stops editing, except for welcome messages on SkeenaR talk pages, etc. SkeenaR starts editing early Jan, immediately posts very sophisticated user page and demonstrates sophisticated tagging and editing skill immediately, while feigning newbie weakness. SkeenaR accidentally responds to a perceived affront to Blackcats, and leaves smoochie-smoochie messages on Blackcats' user page. Don't get me wrong, they're both interesting editors, and kind of fun to spar with. Both are also so sold on the 911 "Truth" Movement propaganda (yes, those are scare quotes) that they have trouble seeing just how biased their edits are. Morton devonshire 03:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Alternative Explanation

They just both smoke the same dope. Morton devonshire 18:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fellow 9/11 Inhalers

Kaimiddleton, Bov, Ombudsman, Zen-Master (now banned), EyesAllMine, Adam Adler (probably Ombudsman), ILovePlankton (a real piece of work), Normal nick, Pedant (need I say more), Kmf164, Siva1979, Skee-man, Blackcats, Hyperbole, Irishpunktom (friend of Striver), 198.207.168.65 (definitely SkeenaR), and Strive-Man the Magnificent

Mystery Sockpuppet

IslandGyrl placed me on some sort of Wikiquette list, but I've never had any interaction with he/she/it -- most likely a sockpuppet of someone who doesn't like my criticism of Mumia. I now suspect it is Viriditas, who jumped to the aid of an editor who was stalking-editing me several months ago, has connections to Hawaii (as does IslandGyrl), and who has a vegan/ALF bent -- if it's you, please contact me and explain. Also, if Admin Golbez would just apologize for retaliatory-stalking me, then I will completely remove all refs to the dispute -- the refs are there because I believed (and still do), that Golbez violated his station as Administrator when he engaged in the retaliatory editing practices he used to punish me for my views of Mumia.

Definitely Sockpuppets

The Conspiracy Theory

• Gamaliel/Guettarda/Golbez as Sockpuppets -- why: Sockpuppet 1 feels insulted; Sockpuppet 2 responds to purported insult, forgetting I'm actually talking to Sockpuppet 1; Sockpuppet 3 responds with retaliatory stalking-editing -- all within a space of 3 minutes. Funny stuff! Morton devonshire 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Alternative Theory

They are pedantics! Morton devonshire 18:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My Own Sockpuppet

Yo Momma!

Just for kicks, I created my own sockpuppet -- his name is User:MortonsSockpuppet. Do not be confused -- he is me and me is he -- he's a sockpuppet. I think it's useful to have your own sockpuppet, not to masquerade as something else, but to point out actual sockpuppetry and poke fun at others. For comic relief -- MortonsSockpuppet will sometimes agree with me, and sometimes not, depending on the desired comic effect. As Wikipedia is the land of point of view advocates and gatekeepers, and therefore not really a serious enterprise, I needed a tool to help point this out. Morton devonshire 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Finding Your Inner Sockpuppet

See User:Morton devonshire/Finding your inner sockpuppet

Permanent Weasel List

Weasel

With apologies to the weasel

I've initiated a permanent weasel list for those pedantics who make Wikipedia a less pleasant place.

Here's my first nominee

"I stalk all martyrs, it really makes them sweat. --Golbez 00:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)" (from the administrator board)

This guy is supposedly an Administrator, and I'm supposed to assume good faith. Screw that. Morton devonshire 23:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In context, it appears that Golbez was being facetious. —Viriditas | Talk 06:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I admire your generosity my friend. Morton devonshire 08:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My second nominee

Gamaliel -- this thing put me on its permanent watch list because I accused it of liberal bias. If it is an administrator, Wikipedia is truly lost. Morton devonshire 02:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Cult of Mumia

Will Beback, Golbez, Ashibaka, Sycthos, Gamaliel, Bletch, Peyna, Fagstein, Viriditas, Astrokey44, StuffOfInterest, Zoe, SarekOfVulcan, Guettarda, Fawcett5, Taxman, [deleted], BadSeed, Catsv, Kmac1036, and Jim62sch. See the Fry Mumia delete discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fry_Mumia get an idea of the vociferous nature of this Klan.

List of songs featuring cowbells

[[Image:[censored]Cowbell2.gif|frame|100px|right|Animation of Gene Frenkle (Will Ferrell) in the "More Cowbell" sketch]] ...and thank you for reverting yourself on List of songs featuring cowbells. - CorbinSimpson 06:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That article is one of those let's see how ridiculous we can make Wikipedia things, right? I don't think I can really take Wikipedia seriously anymore. Morton devonshire 07:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I think that we have to remember that we are more or less unbounded in the amount of information we can record here. If we're going to try to write about every village that has ever been mentioned in Brittanica, we might as well make a list of all songs with cowbells in them too. I mean, Cajatambo is not an article that I thought was meaningful, but I wrote it anyways...even though it's a tiny stub that nobody except Peruvians are really knowledgeable about... - CorbinSimpson 18:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

File:Blood hound missile.jpg

This (phallic) missile, called the BL-64 "Bloodhound", was deployed by Switzerland during the Cold War.

Don't be a dick

The following is taken word-for-word from Wikimedia Don't be a dick. If Admins took this to heart, most of the disputes they find themselves in would go away, and Wikipedia would be a happier and more useful space.

Why is it a bad thing?

Generally speaking, if you are being a dick, the likelihood of whatever point you are trying to make (or whatever you're doing) reaching the ears of your intended audience dramatically (even exponentially) diminishes. Why? Simple: no one likes listening to dicks, no matter how correct or in the right they are.

Remedies

If you've been labeled as a dick, or if you suspect that you yourself may be one, there is hope. The first step is to realize that you are being a dick. Ask yourself what is causing you to be one. Change your behavior and your mode of presentation. If needed, apologize to anyone who you may have been a dick to. It's okay! People will take notice of your willingness to cooperate and will almost always meet your efforts with increased respect.

Rationale to impeach George W. Bush, Movement to impeach George W. Bush, People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account, Bush family conspiracy theory, & List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks

Getting ready to nominate these for deletion -- violates WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:NPOV, WP:BALLS, WP:BEANS, and WP:OR. Morton devonshire 03:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rationale_to_impeach_George_W._Bush for interested parties. Morton devonshire 03:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush Crimes Commission

You are invited to vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination) Morton devonshire 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sort of surprized that you asked me, I don't even think I've read the article before. But I did read it and the other opinions before I voted. I do not feel very strongly about it, however. Bubba73 (talk), 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. - I don't mind being asked for my input. Bubba73 (talk), 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think the BCC is impotent and kind of sad, but nonetheless notable because of media coverage and the notability of some of the people involved. I'm questioning why you're labelling it propaganda. I think there may be cases where articles are irredeemably POV, but it seems to me that this is an article which could be covered objectively. Шизомби 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Patrol

If it were notable, then I wouldn't come to the same conclusion. But it's not notable, and the article was obviously created to assert the position that Bush is a war criminal -- that's the very definition of propaganda. If a real international body operating under the Rule of Law, like the International Criminal Court, were to create a tribunal with the same name, I would see the issue differently. My perspective is that Wikipedia should be free of advertising and political campaigning. Cheers. Morton devonshire 02:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following your POV here. I could understand someone saying the group is not notable enough for an article; WP policy isn't clear on notability for groups or events, so that's a judgment call. The article may have been created by someone who believes Bush is a war criminal (I don't know Ombudsman's position, though I would guess so), but WP doesn't prohibit people from adding articles about things they agree with (how awkward would that be?). What I don't understand is why having an article about a group that decided Bush is a war criminal necessarily pushes that group's POV and acts as propaganda. WP does not endorse things as valid by having articles about them. If the problem is POV pushers owning the article, then a RFC might have been a better way to go (I realize it wasn't you that nomed it). Шизомби 02:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

WP is replete with POV-pusher articles like this one. I just don't see the merit in taking it to Rfc, as the article could never really be any better than it was when Ombuds started it, as the BCC is nn. As such, the article doesn't attract many editors, except those that agree with its political premise -- those kinds of article quickly become politically slanted and non-encyclopedic. It's best to delete them rather than try to fix, because they will never be encyclopedic. Peace brother. Morton devonshire 02:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What basis are you using to decide who to notify about this AFD? Шизомби 03:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about that too. Anyway, please don't notify me about any more AFD articles - if I feel like contribituting, I'll find the AFD myself. Thanks. --Tim4christ17 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

To answer both of you, my interest is in combating POV-pushing and political agenda-pushing on Wikipedia. WP strives to be an encyclopedia, and should be NPOV. Morton devonshire 11:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Morton, look I'm the one who added the Afd to the Crimes commison page. Please don't notify people about it (This might cause said article to be kept and votes thrown out). If they wish to vote on it they will look it up on the Afd list. Also If the delete fails (which I think it will now) I'm going to oush for the merger of it into the Not in Our Name article. Aeon 13:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Morton devonshire 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I did talk to you above, trying to understand your motivations. I appreciate that you're being polite, and I agree with you that WP should be an encyclopedia and NPOV, and that POV-pushing and political-agenda pushing should be dealt with. However, I think you're guilty of both by contacting 50+ people who could be expected to recommend delete on this article. Many of them have not articulated valid reasons for deletion (or any reason at all), which merely displays their own POV-pushing. As Aeon notes above, your action may backfire on you by the closing admin throwing out votes (unless that was your intent?). Should the article be deleted, you've given ample reason for a Deletion review by your actions. You would have done better to simply recommend the best possible reasons you could identify to delete the article. Maybe had you found a good one I would have agreed with you; I try to keep my recommendations in line with policy even if it means recommending deletion on something I like/agree with/find interesting/don't object to, or recommending keep on something I dislike/don't agree with/don't find interesting/find objectionable. As it is, I think you've done something wrong and felt obliged to report it. Should I have mentioned that to you before I did or immediately after? I don't know; I was debating it; I had most of this comment written and in an open window. Шизомби 19:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF Editing Wikipedia is a learning process, for me too. I've made plenty of mistakes, and want to get into fewer unhealthy exchanges with fellow Wikipedians. Here's hoping we can get along, even if you disagree with me. Cheers. Morton devonshire 23:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a prob Dev. Its all cool Aeon 04:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

RE:The Attention template, AFAIK one doesn't have to be an admin to place it. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion which states "If you expect that the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia (possibly because the article itself is linked from some visible place outside Wikipedia), or if you notice this happening after the AfD page is created, you might want to insert the {{Template:AfdAnons}} template into it." That seems to be directed at all editors, not just admins. Шизомби 20:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. When I first came to Wikipedia, I was impressed, and sometimes intimidated by those sorts of canned notices and messages, because I assumed that they came from Wikipedia Officials. I even got one off the bat from someone calling himself Ombudsman, which I wrongly assumed was actually some kind of Ombudsman -- turns out he's a POV-pusher, and not a neutral at all. So, I think it's helpful to note that the message is not an official one, just one placed by a regular user/editor who is apparently trying to intimidate voters. The template is meaningless -- it's not official Wikipedia policy -- I didn't want viewers to give it any undue weight. Morton devonshire 20:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what status that template has if it's not policy, but it's certainly not deprecated. If you want the wording of it changed so that its meaning is better understood, you might try raising your objections on the discussion page for it. As for the deletion policy, you gave the link for the deletion guidelines for admins, not Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Шизомби 20:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What, no invite? I guess I have to crash!!!! SkeenaR 03:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that people are very seriously taking this place as a field of Information warfare. I was alerted by Striver to most but not all of the Afd's I've participated in and voted KEEP in almost all of them. I didn't base my votes on politics though, I think pretty much every one has been notable and worth keeping. It looks like articles are always nominated for this because someone has an axe to grind. Hey, here's one, I don't know if you've seen it. Wikipedia Watch (Daniel Brandt and the history is pretty interesting I think) Good luck by the way. Check your mail.SkeenaR 22:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of becoming involved in any of that controversy, but thanks for the advice anyway. BTW, I have a hard time seeing this struggle as a war between Left and Right. Sometimes rightwingers see my ideas as leftist("You hate America don't you? Are you French SkeenaR? You pacifists are blah blah blah" and sometimes I hear from lefties things like "You intolerant redneck! No wonder there is so much war. Here, sniff this incense blah blah blah") People should get over this left/right thing. It seems like tunnel vision to me. Don't know why the mail didn't work. SkeenaR 02:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• TOAST! Morton devonshire 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Morton, it's been awhile. Since there is no more Bush Crimes Commission we can replace it with Colbert. Here. Also, you think you could put a message in my email for me? I need to test it. Thanks man. Colbert with Bush [2] Colbert with Kristol [3] SkeenaR 21:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, you are under attack, of course that is what happens when you enter a war zone. I see you have a lot of support as well. I don't know why the hell I can't get a message through to you by wikipedia, but I got your address now so I can go from there. Thanks for testing that for me. SkeenaR 23:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

POV Language in 9/11 Truth Movment Description

File:Kat man doo.jpg

My cat says that substantial scientific methods were employed to arrive at the conclusion that the Towers were destroyed using pre-planted explosives

I've spent some time on wikipedia trying to clean up the nonesense of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists (I gave up on this page, because it was me against a couple others who were adamant that a hanging google link was damning evidence of CIA conspiracy, and any evidence that contradicted their postion was just part of the CIA conspiracy and therefore shouldn't be in the article). That being said, your description of the 9/11 Truth Movement on the pseudoscience page was way POV:

• 9/11 Truth Movement: hack and insubstantial scientific methods used to disprove the factual account of the destruction of the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

While I myself would not hesitate to call them hacks when speaking of them, because there is no problem with myself having a POV, when we are editing wikipedia we have to try and not use language like that, because of the whole NPOV thing ya know?

As a general rule of thumb, if you can tell which side of the argument the editor stands by their contribution, it wasn' written in NPOV language. --Brentt 01:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I like your edit better, and agree completely. Morton devonshire 18:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Counter-POV Unit

Morton, Morton..."non-expert investigators"? Holee! I flipped over to the "Truth" page and once again recognized your trademark before viewing the history. I don't know, I just don't know...what is it that you are so worried about? SkeenaR 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about the issue, and you might disagree with me, but I think that particular bunch has a lot more expertise than they are given credit for around here. For example, it is often pointed out that Prof. Steven E. Jones is a physicist and is researching a subject that would more appropriate for a structural engineer. That probably isn't entirely correct. On the other hand, the whole issue is multidimensional and someone like Andreas Von Buelow or Wayne Madsen for example is expertly qualified to comment on other aspects of the issue. I think "researchers questioning..." is adequate. It doesn't call them expert, amateur, brilliant or boneheaded. Does that make sense? SkeenaR 23:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush crimes Com.

COOL! Aeon 01:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your cat picture on the 9/11 conspiracy page

You're a smartass.

I like you.--DCAnderson 00:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

NICE ONE DUDE Aeon 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. on the "HOP" quote on 9/11 conspiracy theories

I also kind of like the way the quote is written, because it gives you that proper "angry ranting and raving" feel you need for any good conspiracy theory.--DCAnderson 20:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 17:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Morton. I personally don't have a problem with it, but you should be aware that some Wikipedians take a very dim view of campaigning for people to vote a certain way on an issue. Many people would urge you to make a neutrally worded posting to a neutral place, such as the village pump. If you keep up your get-out-the-vote-campaign, it may have the opposite effect to what you wish. Johntex\^talk 20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John. I understand that some don't like it, but there's also no WP policy against it. Unfortunately, there's no other effective to get people to pay attention to blatantly POV articles. Cheers. Morton devonshire 21:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, as you say, it's not against policy. People have tried to make it be against policy in the past, and I've always opposed them. I think attempting to restrict people from campaigning for their position would be bad policy. Maybe if we had hundreds of people leaving hundreds of messages for hundreds of user's daily it would be a problem like e-mail spam is, but even with cut-and-paste, you can't hit that many pages with the current system. Johntex\^talk 21:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I love your userpage

It's one of the best I've seen- userpage and discussion pages both. Love the tinfoil hats galore! --FairNBalanced 21:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, what happened to all the tinfoil hats ??????? --FairNBalanced 19:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Other

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read its talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. For instance, your deletion of virtually all other legal opinion, was a vandal move. As you saw, there an AfD - if you want the article gone, vote for deletion. Metarhyme 20:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't lecture me -- I've been on Wikipedia for awhile, and I know what is and isn't vandalism, so don't bother trying to intimidate me, because it won't work. I removed the material because it's soapboxing, and non-notable, and exactly the kind of thing that got Rationales to Impeach George Bush Afd'd. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for every person trying to promote a political agenda. I will watch the article closely, and eliminate any soapboxing that I see. The article is otherwise factual, except for the nn material I removed, so I wouldn't be in favor of Afd. Don't expect me to wilt in front of your angry fist. Morton devonshire 20:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits to User:SkeenaR

Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bill 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

SkeenaR is a friend of mine, and would not see it as vandalism. Lighten up. Morton devonshire 22:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I know Morton was just having some fun screwing around. SkeenaR 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Consider myself lightened up.--Bill 22:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Jokermovie.jpg

This image is tagged under fair use, so you cannot use it on your User talk page. Currently, under Wikipedia policy for fair use, "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used [...] on user pages." You will need to remove the Jokermovie image that is on your User talk page. Copysan 05:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Coercion, I assume that this is some sort of lame attempt to punish me for my views on your favorite Bush-hating articles. I'm not impressed, nor will this sort of harassment deter me from taking aim at blatantly POV articles. Pet socks can go chew on that for awhile. Morton devonshire 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a sock, and you can go ahead and admins CheckUser me, if you wish. I will ignore your personal attack because, overall, I don't really care. I was simply browsing around, and I noticed a fair use image on your talk. In an attempt to improve Wikipedia, which is my job as an editor, I simply notified you of the rules. Copysan 22:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. Never mind, I understand now what you are, given that you would Wikify the words personal attack. Morton devonshire 01:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

= D SkeenaR 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society - Proud Member

Why yes, I believe I am: http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/worldisflat.htm Have you read it? If not, I'll give you the highlights: The World IS Flat. Thanks to the internet and globalization as well as brilliant innovations in the democratization of knowledge (e.g. Wikipedia), it is no longer possible for governments to keep truth from the people.

I fundamentally believe that while you can break the law, you cannot break the laws of physics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtons_Laws_of_Gravity for an example of the type of law that the official account violates. I realize that Einstein's relativity proved that Newton's model was limited at atomic scales, but it still holds up against claims that 19 Al Quaeda terrorists brought down two skyscrapers with such force that the entire substructure dissapeared in a puff of 'War on Terrorism' logic.

The World IS flat and George Bush would NEVER send thousands of Americans to their deaths on the basis of a lie would he? (Oops, WMD!) 86.49.76.137 19:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So the truth comes out, Morton...or is it MONGO!

[4]BUM, BUM, BUM!--DCAnderson 15:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's funny! I wish I was an Admin -- there are plenty of people I would just delete off the planet. Thanks for making my day. Oh, I do have a sockpuppet -- his name, appropriately, is MortonsSockpuppet Morton devonshire 01:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

File:Can you hear me now.png

Can you hear this message?

Proposed deletions

Shouldn't the articles you tagged with {{prod}} ([5] [6] [7]) instead be submitted to normal AfD review? Per the deletion policy, {{prod}} is reserved for "uncontroversial articles". Certainly, these articles - and their proposed deletion - qualify as controversial. --mtz206 (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The tag has been removed from these articles. --mtz206 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've got People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report AfD'd if you're interested.--DCAnderson 05:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet!

Well, looks like I'm your sockpuppet, or you're mine. We kind of look alike though...aside from the fact that I'm in my forties and as big as a house (6'7", 270). Try not to incite violence over at the 9/11 articles...those people are either misinformed, anti-U.S., prone to believing the impossible, or simply idiots. I think what set "truthseeker1234" of was your use of the word "baloney" in the edit summary, a word I often use, which I use as a polite way to not use my preferred word, which is "bullshit".--MONGO 04:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Articles under attack

File:HuffingGoldPaint.jpg

You are going down! But not on my bag. Hooaah!

Pro-Official POV Warriors/Inhalers Launch Encyclopedia Assault. SkeenaR

Awesome pic! Morton devonshire 00:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, but Morton is less attractive. MortonsSockpuppet 00:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd seen that Indymedia article or blog or whatever is before and it was pretty interesting to look at. Of course I was in a really great mood that one day.[8] SkeenaR 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Sources: From WP:RS

"Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." [9]

Deleting info for political reasons?

I seriously hope this is not the case, but these three difs worry me, the deletion of the reference to MDC on John Wayne especially. MDC is quite a notable band--they even have a bio on Allmusic. If I'm wrong, please say so.

I'm not intimidated by your crap. Morton devonshire 09:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you are so interested in resolving disputes nicely. Please don't make controversial edits without discussing them first with others. The Ungovernable Force 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What happened to "merciless editing"? How can you mercilessly edit by committee? Once again the Wiki-totalitarians make themselves felt. I guess it really should be "merciless editing unless the Left-wingers don't like it." That's much more accurate. PainMan 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Truth Movement" Meatpuppet Alert

See [10] for an invitation from the "Truthseekers" to spread their 9/11 gospel to the pages of Wikipedia. Once more into the breach I go! Morton devonshire 01:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What treally happened is nomed for AFD

Hey Morton. I have nommed What Really Happened for AFD (2nd attempt) Aeon 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notif, and if anybody tries to tell you that notification is forbidden, don't believe it. Some people don't like it, but there is no rule prohibiting it. Morton devonshire 18:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

True True, and I didn't say go vote either I just was notifing you that an article that you watched was being AFDed....although I should have nommed it under WP:NOT not WP:WEB

OH! I forgot to tell you I also nomed Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity for AFD. I'm not sure if the first one on your list List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks qualifies for an AFD or not yet, so far you judgement on it seems correct, which policy are you considering on that one?

Thanks much. Yes, I've been waiting for the Veterans article to come up for some time, and will chime in on that one. The Clear Channel article is still a good candidate, but I want to wait on that until I've put together a strong argument for the Afd -- will chat with you about that later. The simple answer is that the List is an Urban Myth. Some of the facts may be true, but using the sources cited by the author, none of it is verifiable with reference to reputable sources -- the subject is discussed on a few blogs, and Snopes has weighed in and said that the Urban Myth is not true. However, the author of the article is so spastically wed to the article that he lashes out when anyone challenges it, and I expect him to retaliate against the nominator when it's nominated, and to sockpuppet the Afd as well. As such, I want to have my ducks in a row before the nom. Heh, thanks for reaching out. Cheers. Morton devonshire 02:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

yep I stired up the hornets nest on the What really happened article. Can't wait for the rest of the puppets to start there attack Aeon 05:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey you might want to check out the AFD on What Really Happened, it has become a really puppetfest (To qoute Isotope) some of the comments made me fall out of my chair laughing Aeon 17:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

File:Living room expression.jpg

He lied, people died!

What really happened is GONE!

What Really Happened is gone! Closed as a delete on 4th of july! Aeon 20:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy! Snuffed! Maybe the website can be deleted too! Now the freedomfireworks! SkeenaR 05:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Stalker! Morton devonshire 00:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• And it's back. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• no I didn't get hit at all....wow they will resort to anything. Aeon 01:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Figures

Ok.....I will Nom it tomarrow when I get to work. All my notes on this list is there. Aeon 02:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nice edit

Wasn't mine at all. Linton (talk • contribs) was the one who rewrote it; I just fixed a tiny grammatical error Linton had introduced. I agree that the rewrite was well done, though. —Caesura^(t) 14:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

9/11 theory redirects need to go to RfD, not ProD

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, which you proposed for deletion, because the page you proposed for deletion was not an article. If you still feel the page should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it, as proposed deletion is only for articles. Instead, consider using Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion for this page. In some cases, a speedy deletion criterion may apply. Thanks! —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cruft on the firing Line

Hello! The terrorists have won is nomed for AfD Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 12:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notif. Morton Devonshire^Yo

yo

yo. Shannon^{duck talk} 23:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

RfAr involving Zero

Apparently mediation does not result in improvement of the harrasment I endure. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify you should you wish to comment there. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)