User talk:Morton devonshire: Difference between revisions

Please sign your comments. To make a new section, click here, or just add a section to the bottom of the page. Remember to use a meaningful header.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Morton_devonshire.

Wikimedia Foundation

Contents

Ganser's Work Written With Both Eyes Closed

See this book review, where the reviewer easily discredits the so-called scholarly nature of propagandist Daniele Ganser's work.

It isn't "so-called" scholarly just because you don't like it, and just because you like the reviewer's opinion more doesn't mean he "easily discredits" anything. Frankly, you don't have the slightest idea what constitutes scholarly nature. Hint: It's not telling you what you want to hear. The fact that you continue to suggest yourself to possess greater expertise than entire university departments is what easily discredits you. Grabbing random pages off the web has nothing to do with "discrediting scholarly nature". Maybe before rambling about "so-called scholarly nature", you familiarize yourself with the concept of peer review. --OliverH 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OliverH, theres no point getting cross with Morton. His aims here are so hypocritical as to be laughable. He is a caricature wont into flesh. His world view is so narrow that a cigarette paper of enlightenment could not be slipped between his prejudice and his bigotry, etc.

The funniest thing is that he hasn't even read Ganser's book, and sees no reason to, before dismissing it. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Roland Rance

I tagged Roland Rance with a db-bio, but someone removed it. I am considering an AfD. The subject just does not seem notable. He chaired a meeting that looks like it was attended by a couple dozen souls at best, another source doesn't seem to exist anymore, and one source is an online petition. He has had a collection of his pamphlets published. I don't think this qualifies for the CT board, or I would have posted on the talk page there. What do you think? If he is truly notable, it isn't established in the article. Crockspot 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to have any reliable sources, just citations to blogs. Place a tag on it requesting citations, like {{primary sources}}. If it doesn't get fixed in two weeks, then nom it.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another list of pages

User:Rhobite/9/11 watchlist

Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pearl

[1] Whats up Monty? The President of a country where a thing happens says something interesting on that topic and you call that "undue weight". Its one sentence. Do you think that the President of Pakistan is a 'conspiracy theorist'? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, that sort of thing may belong in the Musharraf article, but here (in Daniel Pearl) by itself without examination it is undue weight. Second, my name is not 'Monty' -- if you wish to shorten it, call me Mort, Morty, Matt or MD. Lastly, please refrain from personal characterizations such as "obsession" -- it's not appropriate on Wikipedia to make ad hominem attacks. I know you have been warned about this before -- I do not wish to bring an Rfc or Arbcom case against you -- I think they are mostly ineffective. Instead, I will just ask you politely here to stop making insulting comments towards me. Thank you.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very sensitive to criticism, Mo-ty, but I don't 'attack' you. I am sensitive to your attacks on wikipedia content. If you believe the comment by the president of Pakistan on the case is 'undue weight' why do you leave the next comment which states, "The U.S. Government believes that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed conspired in the kidnapping." Is this not equally unweighted? Or do you think everything your government says is gospel? I will remove this statement also for the time being. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say it with me: "Morty". I know you can do it.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Devon Mortonshire? Feel like answering the question yet? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney, this looks like borderline trolling. Just thought you ought to know. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thanks for your support. Mo-ty needs to learn to put his fanatical nationalism to one side when he edits. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I am not "supporting" you - especially since you cannot have a discussion without attempting to push someone’s buttons. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but pushing Mo-ty's buttons is so easy and fun. You should try. Its addictive. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So this means you admit that you are trolling? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm calling Mo-ty on his biased edits. When I do that he ignores my point and choses to be distracted by my misspelling his name (which is childish - few people ever spell my name correctly yet I take the time to answer their questions anyway) So, Morty, any hope of you explaining why a comment by the US government on an event in Pakistan is acceptable while a comment by the Pakistani government is 'undue weight'? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, knock off the insults. You are not accomplishing anything. Second, with your confrontational attitude, I wouldn’t deal with you at all. You got off to a bad start on this one. I wouldn’t keep this harassment up if I were you. Cheers. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think it would make any difference. After months and years of dealing with people like morty, TDS, Mongo, and the rest, it is clear that they have no interest in wikipedia. They are here to push their personal nationalistic bias. History, citation, reality, take a back seat to promotion of their personal myths. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, if you feel that way, I'll let you have a chance to prove it.--MONGO 07:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG

How did you do that thing with the title of your talk page, I must learn. Miltopia 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the formatting is borrowed from User:ST47. One trick learned from him is that he also uses a header which is a separate page that he has built, and then inserts using the page name inside little two sets of opening and closing paranthesis. See his page and the one marked Head to see what I mean.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olbermann/Rumsfeld edit war

Hi, I started a topic in the Keith Olbermann discussion about the recent edit war. I invite you to contribute. Thanks, CalebNoble 09:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Nother conspiracy

What needs deleting. See here.[2] This one may take some off-wiki work, but I'm sure you'll manage to get her scrubbed anyway. Cheers. 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.2.85 (talk • contribs)

Now, now. Must play nice here.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 23:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't trouble yourself Mort. I've already faxed Rove, and the helicopters are spinning up as I post this. - Crockspot 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black helicopters??? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not just any black helicopters. We have our own VRWC-Logo fleet! - Crockspot 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome pic. Blackhawks?

Morton Devonshire^Yo 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another two cruft articles: Pierre Amine Gemayel and Rafik Hariri. There are editors suggesting it was some kind of conspiracy! Silly people - we all know conspiracies never happen. These were clearly cases of suicide and/or lone gunmen. Get de-crufting! ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to start your own conspiracy notice board. I would keep it in your own space though. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Na, I trust Morty to route out all this conspiracy stuff. I know he doesn't just do it for America-related conspiracy theories. That would be biased. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know we all joke about conspiracy theories, and most of them are of little consequence because they are so outlandish. Those are the ones I'm most interested in eliminating here because they are not described widely by reputable sources. With respect to the two honorable gentlemen, Prime Minister Hariri and Mr. Gemayel, I will ask kindly that you not joke about their deaths. My friends in Beirut are heartbroken, and tell me that there are at least a dozen more assasinations carried out by Syrian agents that we haven't yet heard about in the Western press. No, not a laughing matter at all.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that Hariri and Gemayel are not the butt of my joke. But I note with interest that you seem to believe the conspiracy theories regarding Syria's involvement. Have you seen any evidence of it? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Syria at the behest of their masters, Iran. There are conspiracies in the world, they just don't involve teh hand of Rove crumpling the WTC. - Crockspot 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True or not, there is no evidence of that theory publicly available. I'm interested why you choose to believe it? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Kristol told me it was true. :O - Crockspot 01:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Why think for yourself when you have someone to do it for you, eh? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You catch on quick! Crockspot 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran isn't Syria's master as they are not particularly aligned religiously or ideologically. However they both support the terrorist group Hizbollah. They both support terrorism against Israel and they both thwart Democracy in Lebanon by undermining the legitimate government. Neither country wants Lebanon to go the way of Jordan and Egypt - namely peace and prosperity while bordering Israel. --Tbeatty 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace and prosperous! Egypt and Jordan? Read up on them, they are both brutal dictatorships with massive poverty and unemployment. Egypt recently passed a law making it illegal to accuse a public official of corruption!

Israel isn't exactly interested in a democratic Lebanon either. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to read any more about them as I've been to Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon and have seen it. Israel certainly wants a democratic Lebanon that controls it's borders. It also wants a democratic Palestine that controls it's borders. It's like saying they don't want a democratic Egypt or Jordan. Certainly they do. --Tbeatty 01:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Israel wanted a democratic Palestine independently in control of its own borders why has it built hundreds of settlements throughout the west bank? Do it intend that the settlers will become Palestinian citizens when the new state is formed? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do the West Bank settlements have to do with Palestine democracy? The west bank is what it is. There are few if any Palestinians in the settlements. Talking about west bank settlements is about as pointless as talking about right of return. But to help you out, Israel is building a fence to define the border so that settlements cease to be an issue. One side of the fence is Israel, the other side can be a democratic palestine. --Tbeatty 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common misconception. The settlements are distributed right across the west bank and are connected with each other by a vast network of highways which the Palestinians need permits to cross. The West Bank is no longer a single continuous territory but an archipelago of Palestinian land, literally walled in by a sea of Israeli controlled land and roads. You can't make a country out of that. Its a prison. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 11:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One user's view

Hey guy. I saw where "stone" censored your questioning his accusations. I was thinking of confronting him about it myself, but he doesn’t look to friendly. I’ll just let his comments at the RfC suffice to let everyone see his "good faith". I didn’t know I was part of a cabal. I didn’t know someone could make accusations like that and get away with it. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where I am “honored” as part of the cabal. In his own words: I have been frequenting one of the boards on which this cabal of page vandals -- devonshire, junglecat, tdc, nuclearzero and their sockpuppets… Pretty strong statement. I am surprised no one has called him on it. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a warning on his talk page -- depending upon his response you may want to chime in as well.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 01:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what is ironic about it? Look who he lists as a "page vandal" - someone he endorsed in the RfC! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago I attended a campaign workshop put on by the National Organization of Women (heh, it was free and I was a broke campaign staffer who wanted to meet chicks). They said: “There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests.” I guess they (the Liberals) really mean it.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 01:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HeHe, well I wouldn’t go that far. I left a message as well on his talk page. I hope he will consider his statement and help us to come to a peaceful solution. I don’t think those kind of remarks are helping tensions. I have a feeling this whole situation could get bad. I hope not. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Soviet espionage in the United States

I do not believe your recent edit of History of Soviet espionage in the United States was proper given the unresolved conflict in the Discussion page. The fact that you have edited that talk page indicates you are aware the dispute was unresolved. Please revert your edit until the unresolved citation dispute is resolved via mediation or by the addition of requested citations. Abe Froman 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did it myself. If you happen to know the citations and page numbers for the unsourced fact tagged passages, please post them. Abe Froman 19:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Morton. I know this is kind of off-topic and not directly involved to Wikipedia, but considering our many contributions to the encyclopedia, I'm sure they can expend us a few bits of data.

I wonder if you are willing to take a pledge?

If you ever find yourself in the situation were you find yourself believing that the USA government actually did or allowed 911 to happen, then you will inform openly to everyone you know about your strong efforts to destroy as many articles as possible that represented that point of view on Wikipedia, in contrast to hiding your current and previous actions. Deal?

It should not be any problem for you to make such a pledge, since you believe that you will never find yourself in such situation, right? In fact, don't even answer me, just make up your mind about the pledge, and make it a firm pledge, if you choose to do so.

Peace. --Striver 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, you are an earnest guy who seems genuinely concerned about these issues, and I respect that. Let me say with all seriousness that if the leadership of my country were implicated in the 9/11 attacks, that I would not waste my time writing about it on Wikipedia. I would go to the streets, and take direct action to overthrow my government. And I don't mean 'direct action' in the way the Anarchists mean it. I wouldn't be alone. We are a People who threw-off the Tyrant, and push come to shove, would do it again. We have lots of faults, we Americans, but tolerance for getting shoved around by the elites is not one of them. Long live the Republic! And Happy Thanksgiving to you in The Netherlands(?). Peace to you, my Brother.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPLANE deletion review

Would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 See [http://www.intelligence-history.org/jih/reviews-5-1.html this book review], where the reviewer easily discredits the so-called scholarly nature of propagandist Daniele Ganser's work.
 :It isn't "so-called" scholarly just because you don't like it, and just because you like the reviewer's opinion more doesn't mean he "easily discredits" anything. Frankly, you don't have the slightest idea what constitutes scholarly nature. Hint: It's not telling you what you want to hear. The fact that you continue to suggest yourself to possess greater expertise than entire university departments is what easily discredits you. Grabbing random pages off the web has nothing to do with "discrediting scholarly nature". Maybe before rambling about "so-called scholarly nature", you familiarize yourself with the concept of peer review. --[[User:OliverH|OliverH]] 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
+::OliverH, theres no point getting cross with Morton. His aims here are so hypocritical as to be laughable. He is a caricature wont into flesh. His world view is so narrow that a cigarette paper of enlightenment could not be slipped between his prejudice and his bigotry, etc.
+::The funniest thing is that he hasn't even read Ganser's book, and sees no reason to, before dismissing it. ... al [[User:Seabhcan|Seabhcán]] bin [[User talk:Seabhcan|Baloney]] ''<small>([[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan|Hows my driving?]])</small>'' 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 == Take a look at [[Roland Rance]] ==