User talk:FeloniousMonk: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:55, 21 February 2008

feloniousmonk

Template:Dominionism

As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dominionism

Hi FM. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FM. I appreciate your recent constructive edits on Dominionism and the list. I think (hope) we are moving towards a version that we can all accept. Regarding the navigational aid, I would very much like your input on this proposal. I hope you like it; and if you don't, I think it's very important that we talk directly to find something we can agree on. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility?

Please see my reply [1] to your warning. I thought it best to keep your warning and my reply together. Frankly, I'm glad to see that someone else (besides me) cares about civility and I hope that you and many other editors will issue warnings about incivility - even though I think it was unwarranted in my case. Sbowers3 04:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additional comments. Please see my reply at the same place. Sbowers3 06:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol! "Baseless allegations"

I made no allegations. I simply pointed something interesting out. Gosh, I must've really hit a tender nerve with you. I mean, you could've simply explained it politely as a bizarre coincidence or that one of you just copied the other. Instead, you chose to fly off the handle and throw out a paranoid accusation and threats. Nice. 67.135.49.158 17:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts on the Phyllis Schlafly article

Hello. The link I reported as broken was the one about the Gloria Steinem article, which has been much discussed by Roger Schlafly. I'm not defending him, but since there's no source for the Steinem citation, I thought it would be right to remove it.

Therefore, as I wanted to keep the balance in the article, I looked for another source. Pia de Solenni's article seemed fine. Yet you removed the source claiming it's non-notable and that it's a blog. You're very wrong. It would be good for you to check things out before editing.

Sincerely, DUKERED^{FREE SPEECH} 01:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're talking about different links. Note that when I added the link on October 14 it worked - the BuzzFlash link. When I replaced it, it wasn't working (now it is - I'll re-add it as Time magazine makes no mention of Gloria Steinem). | DUKERED^{FREE SPEECH} 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FM, we may have occasionally run askance of each other, but I wanted to commend you for your comments on the MONGO 3 RfC. You're right on the nose there. - Crockspot (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Forum

Hi FM. Someone else beat me to the rrv, so I'll say here (and expand on) what I was going to say in my edit summary. It is common courtesy to provide a substantial explanation when you revert. I don't mind that we disagree. I'm happy to talk about it. I provided detailed reasons for my edits.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] In response, you offered nothing substantial but rather accused me of a "white wash" -- as if I cared one whit about defending Eagle Forum. Let's please concentrate on correctly representing what the sources say. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last had an EC with your latest edit to EF. This is at least constructive. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Somebody"? Don't play coy here. You and I both know that User:Schlafly, his mother Phyllis Schlafly‎ being the founder of the Eagle Forum, is far too personally involved per WP:COI to be editing Eagle Forum or Phyllis Schlafly‎. I've been selling him rope long enough, and he's done a fine job of hanging himself with it. As for my revert, your "detailed reasons" or not, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm not likely to be drawn into long talk page disputes when I feel that one side is more interested in tendentious stonewalling than compromise. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever someone close to the subject of an article objects to the article's content, we should consider WP:BLP right alongside WP:COI, should we not? I have no interest in defending User:Schlafly, but I do think that we owe it to any such interested person to state things fairly and accurately, and also to make clear that criticism comes from the sources we quote, not from WP.

Are you accusing me of being "more interested in tendentious stonewalling than compromise"? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper sources being provided, BLP is not the issue there, but a red herring, as you and I both know. The tendentious stonewalling is coming from Schlaffy; you I can work with. But I've been dealing with Schlaffy for over a year, and his history indicates conclusively he's not interested an article that treats all sourced views fairly, as a read of his blog posts detailing his ongoing POV promotion prove. FeloniousMonk (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the current dust-up began earlier this month, I thought Schlafly had a legitimate complaint in that the cited sources did not support the text as it was written, and thus I thought it was legitimate to consider BLP. Again, this is not an endorsement or criticism of any person; I take things on a case-by-case basis. Now I agree that the article is properly sourced. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Committee has found that Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion, but has edited reasonably on unrelated topics, and that he was blocked after a discussion on the Community Sanction Noticeboard that did not have a clear consensus. Ferrylodge is unbanned, but is put on an indefinite editing restriction: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." The Community is urged by the Committee to develop a coherent policy regarding the method by which community bans are to be imposed. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

responded

I responded on my talk page. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jinxmchue

Is it really necessary for you and OM to be tag-team tagging his page with a sock template? There is no rule requiring an editor to log in to edit. One IP has been blocked once, which he is not evading. He is feeling harassed, and I don't blame him. His activity does not rise to the level of "abusive sockpuppetry", and I will revert the adding of that tag myself if necessary. - Crockspot 05:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jinxmchue's editing from these IPs consists of edit warring only. This has resulted in multiple 3RR vios, disruption and a block. He's using IPs to avoid having his bad behavior not associated with his main account, Jinxmchue. That falls under the defintion of sock puppetry at WP:SOCK.

How about doing something more constructive than reverting to remedy the disruption he creates, that is instead of enabling him. FeloniousMonk 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought. You can't back up your baseless accusations against me. Jinxmchue 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it uncivil to use the word "baseless" here?--Filll 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this behavior of his permitted? It astounds me! Apparently, he is now pushing that Michelle Malkin is a credible source for ID and her blog is on par with Panda's Thumb. Baegis 04:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian POV-warriors ignore all rules to impose their thought control. Best to ignore their crap. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. After a while, their stunts start to get old. The same stupid things over and over. No wonder people start to lose patience. And I guess since CS was not able to cow me sufficiently, and realized he did not have much of a leg to stand on, he left. I feel slightly bad since he did contribute here, but somehow he decided that all the editing on creationist and ID pages was biased and this needed to change to reflect his own interpretation of what NPOV is. It is a shame. I have my own views, and they often disagree with the NPOV stance or the position of other editors, but I just realize we are writing an encyclopedia together here in a group effort, and each of us cannot always get their own way. And so I just compromise and accommodate and try to reach consensus. Why can't they?--Filll 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your contributions were mentioned as one of many participants in an edit war. GRBerry 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very gentle reminder

Hi, could I draw your attention to my comments here? There is much less chance of drama if somebody else does it - apart from accusations of an admin clique, of course! Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dembski TDI review comment source

I discussed my exchange with Skyrms here. Is that sufficient? --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey T. Kuhner

Can you help with the discussion at the Jeffrey T. Kuhner page? I have filed a COI complaint against User: Steve Dufour because I don't think that he can objectively edit Insight magazine and the Kuhner article, due to his affiliation with a religion that owns the conservative magazine (Insight) for which Kuhner is editor in chief. In past discussion, he has also expressed strong conservative leanings. I don't necessarily care what stance you choose to take; I just want to stop the stalemate.Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also just wrote this on the talk page, but he removed it as a "personal attack."

I don't think that helps at all. This seems to me more like COI on your part. You should recuse yourself from editing articles about organizations owned by the the Unification Church, due to your close affiliation to them.Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've commented at the COI noticeboard. I'll help as much as I can. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having the same kind of trouble with User: Steve Dufour on a number of other sites related to Unification Church and it's media holdings.riverguy42 (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be looking this over. Thanks for the heads up. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging the disruption at Doc Glasgow

Your comment on Viridae's talk page about being reverted (rightly, I'll add) at Doc's talk was simply wilfully encouraging disruption. Brandt is banned, as you both know. When banned users avoid their block to post to Wikipedia, the correct response is to remove the comment and not hinder others doing that and certainly not to encourage them to continue. There's a limit to how much disruption via enabling banned troublemakers the community is willing to put up with. Do not continue to enable or help others enable banned editors to ignore their bans and continue to disrupt Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made no qualitative judgement nor any recommendation to Viridae on the reversion by CBerlet. It was just a notification of what had occurred. Viridae is an admin that I respect, so I was letting him know that someone had reverted an action that he had taken. So, since you didn't WP:AGF with me, I guess I'll return the favor...are you looking for flimsy reasons to add gratuitous warnings to my userpage? Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal NPOV tag from Expelled

Hi FM.

You removed the NPOV tag from Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed. I had been cooling off from the article over the weekend, and had not been able to reply to several new points brought in or reply to substantitive edits made by dave souza.

I think its important to let the objecting party fully explain themselves in the light of new additions before reaching a decision to remove such tags. Tags don't actively harm articles.

That said, I am fine with removal of the tag in light of dave's edits. The article is now countering the right sort of points rather than a mish-mash of creationist jabber and then a disjointed slice of science/truth/justice thrown in to make it seem balanced.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This reversion on "Expelled"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=178655958&oldid=178651440

I have introduced the topic the talk page. [8]

My statement that "Expelled is unequivocally a documentary" has received no counterpoints for four days now.

I have twice said that given no dissent I will restore the documentary links. No one batted an eyelid.

How is this not consensus?--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we do not want to argue further with you does not mean we agree. You had our arguments against this before. And so...--Filll (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge

I have requested clarification concerning your ban of Ferrylodge here. Please feel free to comment if you have information to share. --Yamla (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing @ Dominionism

Hi FM -- I realize that you've been working for a long time to keep this information available & organized for people, and you have had to deal with a lot of people from other political perspectives who may have other agendas. That can be incredibly frustrating as I well know. But please don't assume that's my agenda, as well. I got drawn into this particular dispute because I follow a select set of science/religion articles on WP -- I'm an atheist among other things and I do patrol for pro-religion and anti-science bias. I saw the edit warring on the List article and thought a relatively neutral person who hadn't been involved might be able to cut through some of the chaff. It looks like a lot of the complaining is about the sources, so high-quality sourcing will make the article much less vulnerable to that sort of thing, and enhance the article (and its survivability on wikipedia) in the long-run. Feel free to be annoyed with me for the substance of my comments, but please don't assume my motivations. Lquilter (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an atheist. That says it all.--Filll (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Please Help

Trying to stop vandalism. Larvatus (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

Happy New Year

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of IP userpage

Hi, can you offer some explanation for this (placement of the template and protection of the page)? I hope you're familiar with the Meta privacy policy - editing as an IP is not "disruptive sockpuppetry", especially when the user whose privacy you're possibly violating is not blocked or banned. What purpose does the template/page protection serve? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jinxmchue is a chronically disruptive editor. He posted his identity on each of the three IP user pages beforehand, so adding the tags does not violate his privacy. His IPs are tagged because he used one to evade a block of his main account:

Editing from an IP to evade a block is sock puppetry, the tags are warranted. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding your reason for protection here - editing with an IP is block evasion, not "sock puppetry". See the privacy policy; policy allows people to edit while not logged in. Also, your evidence above seems to not add up in regards to either. On 30 Nov 20:17, Adam Cuerden blocked the IP for 31 hours for edit-warring. So far as I can tell, neither the IP nor the account edited anywhere except talk pages until that block expired. Nonetheless, Guettarda blocked the account on 2 Dec for "block evasion", though there apparently wasn't any to speak of. Then Guy blocked the IP for "sock puppetry".

Regardless of the justification for a block, can you cite the part of the protection policy (or any policy) that justifies leaving the template against a user's wishes and/or protecting the page? I'm particularly concerned because you seem to be involved in a dispute with this user when you used your admin tools on the page. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I placed a request for unprotection here. Also, I mentioned you here, wanted to give you a chance to respond. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're online now - anyway, could you please point me toward the part of the protection policy that justifies your action above? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Full_protection. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? Which part? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Preventing abuse of the {{unblock}} template or other disruptions by a blocked user on their user talk page." Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Full_protection. An editor such as Jinxmchue who evaded a block and is removing sock puppetry templates properly placed per Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging is clearly is "other disruptions by a blocked user." FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the user talk page, which you didn't protect, but the userpage, which you did. Also, I think I earlier pointed you toward the Meta privay policy - editing while logged out is explicitly not sock puppetry. As a counter-example, User:Guettarda earlier admitted to editing with an IP which was vandalizing Natalie Erin's userpage - should we force him to accept {{IPsock|Guettarda}} on that IP's userpage? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if Guettarda is evading a block or ban as was Jinx. Are you intentionally missing the point, or just using hyperbole? I don't think you have a firm enough grasp of the issues, policies and facts to be slinging the mud you have been today. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm much more aware of the policies involved than you are, please go back and read them again. I have no content dispute with editors as you do. Look more deeply into the situation above - there was no ban, and I don't even see any block evasion. Yes, the user and/or IP edited during Adam's block (I don't think Guettarda's block was legit, based on the evidence, and besides he was also involved in the content dispute, a big no-no), but it was only to user talkspace. However, nothing you've mentioned above seems to justify protection of the user's IP page - are you intentionally obfuscating this? Why did you protect the userpage? What type of disruption to the encyclopedia was it intended to prevent? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ban for 31 hours, made on 1 December 2007 This is him violating the ban by editing WP:AN/I (6 times total) from the IP during the block on 3 December 2007. Here he does it again at my talk page, twice. Tell me what part of these diffs and the policies they relate to, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Enforcing_bans, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks, Wikipedia:SOCK#Blocking, and Wikipedia:SOCK#Tagging are not clear to you and maybe I can help you understand them better. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<Can you please explain how any of the above relate to protection of the userpage, which is what I originally asked you about? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already have, please see above. We need to talk about your behavior, now. Your knowingly baseless TFD filing violates WP:POINT and foundationless multiple gripes on JzG, Geuttarda, Jimsch62 and myself while enabling a well established chronically disruptive editor are disruptive to the point of spreading and becoming an actionable issue. How about you moving on and finding a nice, quiet way to contribute positively to the project now. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently impossible for you to give a straight answer divorced from your point of view; i'll disengage now. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Concerned Scientists

Is there any chance you could help to settle a dispute and clean up the criticism section of Union of Concerned Scientists page?Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take another look here? The user also seems to be getting more and more uncivil in his disagreement.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of theological problem section

With the removal of the section devoted to theological problems, the article is incomplete in presenting a thorough and comprehensive perspective of intelligent design. Would you please comment on this? In the quote from Johnson, it is established that Johnson does not concern himself with the theoretical needlessness for the presence of a God (or intelligent designer) should the "gaps", however unlikely, eventually be explained through natural means. Surely, as the article stands, there are numerous references to intelligent design acting as a "uniter" of religious stances, and there is no reference made to it being anti-religion, which is certainly a legitimate concern for those who are religious and perhaps did not pick up on the delicate points made by both Slifkin and Miller. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's harassment

Evading a block at best, there is no evidence of sock puppetry that I have seen. Adding those tags and "evidence" to a user page and then protecting the page is not typical admin duties. It's abusing your power to harass another editor. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:SOCK again then because evading a block by logging in or out is by definition sock puppetry. And there is a longstanding convention of temporarily protecting the user pages of disruptive former editors when their pals show up to delete templates, evidence or warnings. Until which time you better understand our policies regarding dealing with disruptive editors, I suggest you steer clear of deleting any admin-placed content from user pages associated with your pal, and also avoid making baseless and incivil comments about me or any other admin there. Continuing to do so you will run the risk of being deemed a disruptive editor yourself. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request to stop harassing me

You keep calling me "disruptive" when you disagree with me. I wish you would stop doing that but just say why you disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=182555522 is simply incorrect. I did not "attempt" to have Intelligent Design unprotected; I got it unprotected - by the same sysop who had protected it. And that sysop agreed with me that "parties declared the matter resolved.

It's not "disruption" to announce that parties to a heated discussion are agreeing to proceed in a consensus manner. I would call this "calming". --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It did not look disruptive to me. I think an apology is in order. TableManners ^U·T·C 04:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty clear to me that FM had a point. Page didn't get locked until Ed came walking in and ran through the same tired ID logic that has been discussed several times already in the archives. Putting out the fire you started is not grounds for applause. Baegis (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, are you pretending that you have a good history on this topic? Are you under the impression that you are subject to arbcom probation because you have a good record as regards disruptive editing? If not, then I fail to see why you think it was somehow harassment for me or anyone else to identify you as being disruptive, which other, trusted members of community who've reviewed this case agree you are. It's not as if your very pronounced history as a disruptive editor with a problem with that particular topic is irrelevant to the fact that the article has been protected as a result of your participation. Identifying disruptive editing as being disruptive is neither harassment nor irrelvant. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a truce?

How about I stop complaining and you stop accusing me of sockpuppetry (i.e. intentionally changing my IP address to edit abusively)? That's not "I'll stop if you stop." Just plain "let's stop." I think Wikipedia will be better off for it. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Gohde 2 Arbcom

FYI, I've mentioned you in my evidence, since it was related to my attempts to get him to engage in proper dispute resolution with me. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI ban

You may know more than most people. Your description of what's happening, with diffs, would be more useful than just a "I support a ban". Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extensive >12 month record of disruption and administrative actions. And now the same editor has announced that he plans to organize more intentional disruption.--Filll (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your name came up in some vandalism

Someone altered my arbitration evidence at the Matthew Cuerden case to make it appear that I was accusing you of running sockpuppets. I've started a thread at ANI. Perhaps you know who might have pulled this stunt?[9] Durova^Charge! 00:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Looks like a blockable offense. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding warning

You recently placed a warning on Levine2112's talk page. Could you explain how he provoked SA? Is it a comment or comments on Bleep? Do you believe that Levine somehow provoked SA on that page? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations of your recent deletions

Please come back to the various plant articles from which you recently removed knowledge about homeopathic uses and explain your rationale. I am unsure about the application of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE here. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People use genera to refer to species all the time. We don't disambiguate genera to species. Guettarda (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet we do just that at Aloe. Suggesting similar treatment. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Aloe? No, we don't. Have you read the Aloe article? Guettarda (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to consider

[10]--Filll (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Noticeboard

Sure I could agree with you, if I thought the archive template was entered properly instead of prematurely, as discussion was still on-going and it really didn't look like there was consensus to end it. And if I thought the comments left afterward were horribly inappropriate considering all the nonsense spewed up to the point, which probably was even more inappropriate. And if I thought that excising user comments was valid in the first place, which for the vast majority of cases, it isn't, imho. I have a problem with all of that, but as you can see, I'm not about to make an issue out of it. I just don't agree with the way it was handled. The whole thing was unseemly and they should have taken it off the board long before.Wjhonson (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Felonious, I am respectfully asking you to remove yourself from the list of admins enforcing the Homeopathy probation based on your vote to ban User:Whig here and User:Abridged here. A community ban seems like a pretty serious step, and there didn't seem to be any consensus that those bans were justified. Abridged ^talk 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really ? I see.--Filll (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fill, with all due respect, that's not very helpful. I am trying to civilly express what I feel is a legit concern. Abridged ^talk 23:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, whatever do you mean? I mean no disrepect or incivility. I take affront that you would suggest such a thing. I am just learning about this matter.--Filll (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Also, some evidence of involvement in the general area of homeopathy based on these edits: [11], [12]. (I'm not saying I agree with the edits or disagree; they may have been entirely appropriate, I'm just concerned that you have involvement in the subject area). Abridged ^talk 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

I will stop. I was justing trying to get him to stop making false claims against me. Anthon01 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be inappropriate for me to apologize to him? Anthon01 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations on WP:AN/I

I think it would have been more courteous, at the very least, to ask me directly about the issues regarding Pallywood before posting accusations to WP:AN/I. I'm also wondering why you didn't extend me the courtesy to notify either myself or Kylu about the serious accusations you were making about the two of us. I was under the impression that responsible administrators seek to get the facts before making accusations, particularly when the accused party is a fellow administrator who's been around a lot longer than you. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible administrators don't game the system to gain an upper hand. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the message in bold at the top of AN/I: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." I suggest you bear this in mind in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've sufficiently established for me that my bringing the matter to the community's attention first was the right course of action. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Jinxmchue?

See this, and the following reverts (which I changed back to before my IP addition). Even though it'd be symbolic, maybe it's time for an indefinite block on the main account, so we can block IP's as block-evading sockpuppets. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do it. Try to get me indefinitely banned. I want to see this played out.

We'll present all the evidence to an impartial group of people and see if you are justified in your baseless accusations and biased threats. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon at Move America Forward

Hi FeloniousMonk. The anonymous editor making changes to Move America Forward has returned and is asking awkward questions that I don't have enough experience to answer fully. Could you take a look at Talk:Move America Forward#Reason. The anon is basically saying that the article is biased and he or she doesn't see why they should create an account just for that (amongst other things). Capitana (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll weigh in as I can, but I'm not optimistic our anon friend is dealing straight after that bogus COI allegation. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for expansion of Ferrylodge Arbitration remedy

Hello. I've filed a request at WP:RfArb for the expansion of remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Briefly, I'm asking that the sanctions allowing Ferrylodge to be banned from specific articles for disruptive behavior be extended to apply to all pages (talkspace, projectspace, etc) where his conduct is disruptive, rather than applying solely to articlespace. I'm notifying you as an involved party in the original ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 286: / Line 286: @@
 :Thanks. I'll weigh in as I can, but I'm not optimistic our anon friend is dealing straight after that bogus COI allegation. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] ([[User talk:FeloniousMonk#top|talk]]) 04:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
+== Request for expansion of Ferrylodge Arbitration remedy ==
+Hello. I've filed a request at [[WP:RfArb]] for the expansion of remedies from [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge]]. Briefly, I'm asking that the sanctions allowing Ferrylodge to be banned from specific articles for disruptive behavior be extended to apply to all pages (talkspace, projectspace, etc) where his conduct is disruptive, rather than applying solely to articlespace. I'm notifying you as an involved party in the original ArbCom case. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)