User talk:FeloniousMonk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FM cleaning up with style!feloniousmonk



WebEx Vandalism[edit]

Please be advised that content agreed upon in ArbCom has been vandalized, most recently by a Wikipedia admin. cordially, - Michael - 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 - 323.363.1860 - (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)larvatusReply[reply]

Heads up[edit]

You'll want to keep an eye on NPOV/FAQ‎ for pseudoscience issues, and oh, you might want to keep an eye on Mackan79: He's taken to deleting the majority view from the Expelled article.

You should probably have a look at the Marks article where a particular editor seems to have a COI issue and is edit warring. Odd nature (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

McCain: intelligent design advocate?[edit]

Hi--I see you added the category:Intelligent design advocates tag to John McCain. I hadn't heard that he was an ID proponent. Can you point me to an article about his connection to the ID movement? I've started a section on the McCain talk page about this (Talk:John McCain#Category: intelligent design advocates?); if you could reply there, that would be fantastic. Thanks much! -- Narsil (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mentioned your name in an RfC[edit]

I mentioned your name in this RfC:

If I characterized your response incorrectly let me know and I will change them. Any background information or anything else you can give would be welcome. Inclusionist (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


FM, it may have come time to do something about that editor. He is basically a reincarnation of Moulton, only with a different ID proponent. He has literally caused disruption on every single article he has edited with regards to Marks plus he has a serious COI that needs to be addressed. Should I take this to ANI for a report? Baegis (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, he has become disruptive. Let's give him another day or two to settle down, and then if he hasn't, bring it to the community. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you have a sec[edit]

Would you mind commenting here. I think I've done a better job of framing my concerns. Thanks! Angry Christian (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Richard Sternberg controversy[edit]

I see you made changes to the Richard Sternberg page, removing the contributions shown here: [1]. Can you please provide an explanation for removing this information from the paragraph? Especially on a subject so controversial, it's important to articulate information in as neutral a fashion as possible. The previous version only presented a single side of the controversy, biased against R. Sternberg in the initial paragraph. Presenting Sternberg's position on the issue (with references) is not only more informative for the reader but also maintains an accurate account of the controversy itself.

Tony Zirkle userfication[edit]

When you have a moment, could you userfy that article for me? I'd like to expand it and make it into an article that demonstrates his notability. (The closing admin seems to be AWOL) JoshuaZ (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expelled POV[edit]

I am trying to figure out why you removed the POV notification I added to the Expelled article yesterday. The article reads like an enormous, exquisitely detailed and interlinked refutation of the film. It doesn't present any material in the film except for the purpose of debunking it.

Not having seen the movie, I wanted to know if it was worth watching, but the article postively exudes POV. I didn't find out most of what I wanted to know, even after reading a few thousand words. It's just too long and too negative. keno (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied[edit] my talk page. Thanks for the note. Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skype invite[edit]

Hi, would you be free for a Skype chat? Please e-mail and I'll give you my ID. :) DurovaCharge! 05:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does one of youse own stock in Skype? •Jim62sch•dissera! 02:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Question[edit]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jinxmchue was deleted under WP:CSD#C1 – it was an empty category that was left empty for several weeks. Feel free to re-create it, if appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Felonious, neither of the sources that are cited for the first half of the sentence provide any verification for the second half which states: '... the list is intended to lend support to other Discovery Institute campaigns, such as "Teach the Controversy", "Critical Analysis of Evolution", "Free Speech on Evolution", and "Stand Up For Science"'. Neither of those sources even mentions this list, so they certainly could not be used to source the claim that the list is "intended" for such and such purpose. Now, I fully believe this claim, but it still needs to be cited. I'm looking for an adequate citation, but without one the tag must remain.PelleSmith (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pleanty of other sources do. Either you're promoting the Discovery Institute's obfucation line or you're clueless on the subject. Which is it? FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well its not the former since I believe the claim to be true ... that the DI is using the petition to further the promotion of ID. To your second point I suggest instead of calling other people clueless you help the project and just provide the sources. Clearly in my clueless naivete I cannot find a source to back the assertion that I believe is true, but you probably can, given how not clueless you are. So please do. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source you have found does not substantiate either the disputed claim at the Picard page, that the petition promotes ID, or even the non-disputed claim that I have asked for sourcing for at the petition page, that the DI uses the petition in its campaigns. Would you care to explain what exactly you think this source tells us?PelleSmith (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To anyone objective it does. But since you insist, I'll add another. I've literally a dozen more. You can reject them one by one and we'll see how this ends up. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for providing a source that actually connects the petition to "other campaigns." Unfortunately this is of no help to us at the Picard page where we need a source that connects the use of the petition directly to the promotion of ID, something not mentioned in the second source at all. Providing such a source would be of great help. If you have one, or two, or ten please do post directly to the talk page there. As I said it would be a very big help. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two primary sources have been provided supporting the content and saying the same thing, you have simply just rejected them. I can keep adding sources and you can continue rejecting them. Fine by me. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are talking about the Picard page I assume. Neither of your sources say what you want them to. In fact, the one you just added states emphatically that "challenges to Darwinian evolution are not the same as proposed solutions, such as the scientific theory of intelligent design." Oddly you have just strengthened the opposition to the point you are trying to prove by showing that the DI itself does not conflate those who challenge Darwinian evolution (e.g. those who signed a petition to that effect) with those who support intelligent design.PelleSmith (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you say, the person who thinks partisan primary sources are to be taken at face value and ignores Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources... FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Evidence of Meatpuppetry[edit]

I admit, I edited for Moulton. However, 1)I did not make changes word-for-word, but close to it, 2)I support Moulton's unbanning and have edited Wikipedia under another account, 3)I support Moulton's rewording of the text, and 4)Meatpuppeteering is when an editor is recruited, not when a person says something should be done and an editor feels it's the right choice and does it. I don't see what's wrong with Moulton's proposal. Instead of attacking me for agreeing with his proposal, why don't you offer some constructive criticism on the proposal itself. --PlatanusOccidentalis (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like this little meaty needs a block as well as the other account. Great job with being a front for a user who left the community only after exhausting every last shred of good faith possible. Awesome. Baegis (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attacks in the article User:Moulton[edit]

Removed provocative and unjustified warning. Please don't template the regulars! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Reply[reply]

What is this nonsense? There are no personal attacks on that page, and its not an article either btw. This template is nonsensical, could you possibly be trying to open discussion?If so, please try again. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The puppy speaks wisely and kindly. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heck, I'm a newb, and even I know the rules on that one. Of course, me ma always said I was a fast learner... :) --Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was a nice message on my talk page. I enjoyed it. I mean, you still suck, but yeah, I had fun. the_undertow talk 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It would not be good for Wikipedia if you and your friends were out-witted by yourselves. You guys are a great help in keeping Wikipedia NPOV in evolution-related articles. But you are now involved in BLP articles. Ask for advise from friends. Please. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:AN#Moulton (un)ban may interest you. .. dave souza, talk 11:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Keep it up and I'll take a personal interest in seeing that you are prevented from making one again. Please do not threaten other users because they attacked you first. WP:CIVIL does not allow you to do "eye for an eye" and make threats against other users. Be the better person here, like is expected from everyone in such situations. Mike H. Fierce! 22:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stopping an incivil editor from being uncivil is one of the jobs of an admin. Saying that you will do so is never a threat. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The manner in which you said it sounded like a threat to me, or else I wouldn't have brought it up with you. "Stop it or you will be blocked" is not a threat. "I'mma make sure you won't make another incivil comment again!" is a threat. See the difference? Mike H. Fierce! 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I try to proportion my tone to the level of disruption I'm addressing usually. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the important thing to keep sight of is that you are talking to another person on the other end, not a dog or something you need to shame. People tend to like it when you treat them like people. :) Mike H. Fierce! 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The road runs both ways, good acts beget good acts. That wasn't his first CIVIL warning, but I take your point. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moral support[edit]

This is a move in the right direction. Thanks for taking the time to assemble the evidence. Somebody with a strong constitution is needed to clear the stables. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Stop trying to drag me into the dispute with the blocked user Moulton by labeling me a "meatpuppet" or "WR editor." It's completely false, a personal attack, and I had no interest in dragging this out further. krimpet 02:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"That's right folks, I forgot to mention we re-programmed Krimpet a week or so ago and we are finally putting her to use." If you don't want to be seen as acting on behalf of a banned editor you shouldn't be making the exact edits at the exact article that a banned editor is calling for. And don't say you weren't aware of Moulton's requests, I've diffs showing you were. You involved yourself the moment you started editing the Picard article with the very edits Moulton was calling for. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone mentioned the article in passing on IRC and I clicked on it - as a fellow woman in computing, her article piqued my interest - and I noticed it was a BLP mess and a COATRACK, so I made a couple tweaks to improve it. This is meatpuppetry? The "diffs" you claim to have are a canard. I was only tangentially aware that Moulton had his prints on the article on the past - I thought his ban was for creationist POV pushing in general. And as far as I can tell, Moulton when he was here was trying to rip out the whole section that I tweaked, not improve it. (And that random smartass quip on WR wasn't sanctioned or approved by me at all - "re-programmed?")
I'm kindly asking you to stop dragging me back into this. I was glad to see that woman's BLP improved in the end, through whatever roundabout means it ended up taking, and I don't want to squabble more. But it seems like you're just trying to continue this dispute and seek a pound of my flesh. Don't. krimpet 05:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that's the story you want to stick to, then please, by all means go ahead. It's laughably improbable given your edits exactly match Moulton's requested edits verbatim and their precise and limited nature, but if that's what you want us to believe, it's your call. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I know why the heck are you adding evidence to a RfC that closed almost 9 months ago? Please, if you have evidence that shows Moulton doing meatpuppetry, then use a proper forum, aka, one that is active and where sanctions can be taken. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've included the recent evidence of Moulton engaging in meatpuppetry on the talk page of the RFC, not the RFC itself. Furthermore, doing so is established convention at Wikipedia, not without precedent, and well within Wikipedia policy. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But one of the reasons because User:Moulton was nominated for deletion was because it linked to evidence collected by one user, instead of just linking to "official" pages like RFCs, ANI threads and arb cases. What you are doing amounts to trying to run around the discussion at the MfD. You are adding your evidence right behind the "enough" section that User:Moulton links to, which has almost the same effect as linking directly to a page with evidence collected by you. Please remove that evidence and post it on a page on your userspace or post it at ANI. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's your impression of why it was nominated for deletion, there are others. You don't seem to have a firm grasp of how RFCs work or this situation; individuals compile all the evidence in an RFC, period. And editing RFCs is open to all, with the one caveat that you do not alter the comments of another. Since Moulton is already banned for disruptive editing, there's noting to bring up at AN/I. All there is for us to do now is compile any evidence of any further disruption he causes from offsite such as recruiting and directing meatpuppets, and keep it in a central location for any admin or editor seeking more detail can find it, and the right place for that is his RFC's talk page since some of the community is not comfortable with it on his talk page at the moment. I suggest you become better accquainted with the situation and the policies and conventions around dealing with banned editors and RFC before deleting the evidence presented there: That is the proper place for it as was suggested at the MFD. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notice that Random832 has blanked the page where the evidence was originally hosted as a courtesy[2], and note his comment on wheter the evidence should be posted anywhere [3]. According to a comment by Krimpet, and older version of the page being discussed appears to have evidence against him[4]. From context, it appears to be the same evidence that Krimpet is removing from the RfC[5]. I'll just make a comment on the MfD for others with more knowledge of RfCs to review this matter. I think that adding the information there after removing it from the user page could not be totally correct, and I would like other people to take a look. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I won't do the comment at MfD after seeing Fill's comment. If he thinks that it's ok, then that's enough for me Ah, I'm not sure, I'll sleep on it. I still think that you should ask an uninvolved admin to review this. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the end I decided to add myself to the list [6]. Since the MfD is closed, I went to bitch complain to ANI [7]. Notice that I later changed the section headings for technical reasons unrelated to the rest of the issue[8] --Enric Naval (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (chat) 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dorftrottel has suggested here that the parties might like to make a fresh statement now that the evidence has been thrown in, and the community is trying to decide what proposed remedies are appropriate.
I have created a new area for this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Reflection by the parties. Please consider adding a statement there. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AIDS denialism[edit]

Would you mind commenting on the talk page what "undue weight issues" lead you to revert my change (which was also accompanied on the talk page by a thorough analysis of the section and its sources)? This section has been the subject of discussion and a turtle-paced edit war for well over a year, and undue weight has in fact been a point for keeping it out. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More AIDS "denialism"[edit]

Excuse me. Could this edit by MastCell [9] be regarded as "disruptive editing" per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive

If your answer is negative, could you please explain me why it is not?.

There´s no consensus at the talk page (we are tied 3 to 3), I am providing reasons for that text being in the article [10][11] and trying to rework the text to reach consensus [12] and then MastCell appears like a Deus ex machina and with no comment at the talk page just deletes again a new re-worked (and very shortened) version of the stuff he deleted in 2007 [13].

Maybe it is out of my naiveté, but I thought this kind of edits were frowned upon here.

And no, this is not an issue of "denialists" versus "mainstreamers". This user summarized very well why "denialist" views should be detailed and refuted [14]

Thank you for your attention Randroide (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no voting for content. It either is acceptable or not. MastCell is one of the best editors of medical articles out there, so I doubt you'll get support here or anywhere else. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, no, it's not disruptive. Read WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THen, I do not understand why you restored that content [15]
The article compares no views. The article is about a minority view, that of the "denialists". Anyway, if you think that´s a good edit, that´s more feedback for me. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom case evidence request[edit]

Would you be able to number the bullets in your evidence section on the evidence page? I agree with some of your evidence and if numbered that would make it easier for me to outline a response in which I go line by line by number and either stipulate to what you've presented or disagree and explain why. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case[edit]

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. RlevseTalk 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbcom evidence page[edit]

re User talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom evidence‎ - Moulton has made 31 comments on Slashdot, not 44,252 - 44252 is his user ID number ([16]). You may want to change that prior to submission. Neıl 14:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2[edit]

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Factual error in your submission to the RfC[edit]

Sceptre is not,and never has been an admin (Ok, I was wrong, went all the way back to mid-06, shoulda gone a bit further, you see, when I'm wrong, I admit it.), just so you're aware and can correct your statement :) SirFozzie (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick heads up[edit]

Since I listed you by name, I figured I'd alert you of my impending doom/request for adminship: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ali'i‎. I only thought it right to inform you. I know, I know... what in the world could I have possibly been thinking?!?! ;-) Mahalo, FeloniousMonk. --Ali'i 17:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jindal supports ID[edit]

I have tried to add some information about Gov Bobby Jindal's support of ID and the current legislation. However, one user has removed any mention of it and has even removed what ID is leaving no context.Paper45tee (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So far the consensus on the discussion page is that my edit was proper. I, of course, welcome the opinion of a wikipedia administrator as well. DanielZimmerman (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll look into it, but the main point is that his position on the topic is properly mentioned and remains, which it appears to. The fact that Time Magazine is the source is good. The context of ID is not the most important point in that article at this time, perhaps, but covering the fact that he supports it is. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article in need of NPOV seeing-to[edit]

I happened across the article on Charles Hodge (whilst aimlessly following links from the William Demski page). Just one quick read-through of the contents revealed some alarming weasel words, and on giving it a more thorough looking-at, I thought I'd better add my concerns re its considerably NPOV stance onto the Talk Page - which I see has not been added to for over 2 years! I was only vaguely aware of the ID Wikiproject so followed the links, saw your name (which I recognized from just 'around') and hope you'll be able to help out. I'm probably not the best person to take this on but am prepared to do what I can. This article appears to have remained under radar for a very long time and I hope it can now be sorted. Thanks. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Addenda - Just checked out the History. Most of the article's text was from a 1914 work (this is mentioned in a line at the end of the article), added to the orignal version of the article (just a basic biog framework re Princeton) by User:Flex in Spring 2005. The Edit Summary noted it needed POV checking. This seems not to have been done. A short para (re slavery) was added shortly afterwards. Since then, the edits have been confined to several Category shuffles/additions and the like, some recent vandalism of the common-or-garden insertion of a line or two pertaining to the subjects sexual abilities - but no major revisions to the text else. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've replied to your comments about WP:NOR at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) - you might like to have a look. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have unblocked this user, per the emerging consensus at WP:ANI. Please do not reblock them under any circumstances. The block reason was not transparent, and there were concerns that you were too involved, as a party named in C68-FM-SV, to make this decision. If there are hidden reasons for the block, feel free to explain them to me and I will consider reblocking. In the alternative, you can go to an uninvolved administrator, such as User:FT2. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 13:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, when it comes Dragon695, you're hardly impartial. In fact, you're far more involved than you claim I am. FT2? After his bogus one-man RFAR, he's not uninvolved. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not involved at all. You should have reported your concerns to the case clerks (Nishkid64 and myself) rather than blocking someone you're involved with vis a vis the arb case. In addition your reasoning was weak. I support the unblock.RlevseTalk 15:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.

— Coren (talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New policy proposal and draft help[edit]

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't know if you're watching or around but...[edit]

just letting you know that your desysopping has been proposed at the RFAR. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is not one of arbcom's better moments. My disappointment cannot be expressed loudly enough, but for sake of not trying to resurrect the issues, I won't go further than to simply but publically post my disappointment about your desysopping here. Best wishes.--MONGO 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this is a massive miscarriage of justice, but I will not comment further.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I just made three proposals at WP:NOR - feel free to comment, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy Darwin200 Year! . dave souza, talk 21:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (for story line see Darwin's Rhea#Discovery)Reply[reply]

Attack page[edit]

I thought I'd mention that I've nominated what I see as an attack page on you as part of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Ed Poor subpages. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

request for suggestions[edit]

here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks,Slrubenstein | Talk 17:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Leadership University (web portal) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. HrafnTalkStalk 13:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of Discovery Institute registered websites, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of Discovery Institute registered websites is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of Discovery Institute registered websites, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be interested[edit]

Your name has been brought up here- Talk:Israel_Shahak#The 'lengthy_passage' NoCal removed, accusing you of meatpupptery. I see you have not been notified by the editor making these accusations. NoCal100 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Discovery Institute registered websites[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Discovery Institute registered websites, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This article consists solely of original research and is also almost exclusively a list of external links. Nor is notability clearly established.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Huadpe (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wethersfield Institute[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wethersfield Institute, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Apparently defunct publishing house that only garnered a few very brief and insubstantial mentions in sources even when it was in existence, and whose profile it appears was so low that nobody noticed its demise

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD nomination of Jerry Bergman[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jerry Bergman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Bergman. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD of UC article[edit]

Since you have worked on Unification Church articles you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, as one of the main editors of the ID article, could you have a look at this discussion? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think there is a very dangerous section in the NPOV policy, which I deleted and discussed on the talk page here. Now there is an RfC; please, I hope you will comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Lauren05.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lauren05.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed deletion of Metanexus Institute[edit]

The article Metanexus Institute has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:CORP notability criteria … nothing but primary sources provided.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Denialism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello FeloniousMonk! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,424 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Frederick M. Franks, Jr. - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Error in reference[edit]

The link for reference 178 is dead. Changing .com to .org will do the trick (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Category:Dominionist organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Prezbo (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a great many years there has been an almost-loophole at this policy "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves." I have always interpreted this to mean that a verifiable account of someone's view is encyclopedic. However, some people read this to mean that Wikipedia should emphasize facts, not opinions. And opinions = views. I think this line of thinking leads to a contradiction in the policy (that we must include all significant views from reliable sources) and undermines the dictum, "verifiability, not truth."

The problem is, there is a user, user:Zaereth who states excplicitly on his user page that he is opposed to our NPOV policy and wishes to change it. And he has been trying to edit the "loophole" I mention above to mean that we should strive to present the truth. He has teamed up with user:QuackGuru who is claiming that there is another policy called "state facts accurately" which he believes means that certain claims do not have to be attributable to any source (since they are "facts" - i.e. a total subversion of "verifiability, not truth."

Currently, the discussion is happening on the bottommost sections of the talk page (there was a convenience break). I think the discussion really could benefit from the input of experienced editors with real institutional memory and I am asking that you consider participating in this discussion until this issue at NPOV is satisfactorally resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slrubenstein, please strike all your false statements against me. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FeloniousMonk, your recent edit accidently deleted this from ASF: "A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An opinion can be attributed to so-and-so said." QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I forgot to let you know I restored the text myself. QuackGuru (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sternberg peer review controversy[edit]

Hi. At Talk:Sternberg peer review controversy [[17]] we're discussing the removal of what seems to be WP:OR WP:SYN from four years ago. I'm inviting your input. Yopienso (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for lifting of restriction[edit]

Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an involved party.[18]Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation clean up at Climate change denial[edit]

I'm trying to clean up some issues with Climate change denial. One of the issues relates to sources. I noticed some footnotes link to Wikipedia, which is not acceptable. Your editincluded several sources, many of which look fine. I'm specifically referring to the source with the title "Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers". The url you added may have been fine at the time , but someone changed it later, possibly because it no longer worked. I checked, and it doesn't go to the article in question, nor have I been able to find the original article.

As you were the editor to add this, I assume you have special interest in keeping this link. I plan to post at Talk:Climate change denial about this and other issues, with the expectation that we need to find a good citation or remove the reference. I haven't yet posted at the Talk page, I'm giving you a heads up, in case you wanted to search for it yourself.--SPhilbrickT 15:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD of article you worked on[edit]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Sternberg.Wolfview (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using blogs as sources[edit]

I know it has been a few months, but I noticed in this edit from August, you restored sources to an article which included a blog. Could you explain why, as an experienced editor, you would sign off on using a blog as source that doesn't meet WP's definition as reliable? Cla68 (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

creation–evolution controversy[edit]

An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See FYI --Kaptinavenger (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The Integration of Theory and Practice has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, per WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright problem: Discovery Institute[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Discovery Institute, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from (dated 25 August 2005), and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

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

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

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Discovery Institute saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In regard of operation Bulmus 6[edit]

I couldn't find any name of Egyptian commanders:

  • Major Saad Amin (Garrison commander)
  • Brigadier Butros Zaghloul (Brigade commander)
  • Captain Abbas Shehata (Signal Platoon Leader)

represented in the article as commanders of the Green Island during the Israeli raid on the fortress in any Arabic, English or Hebrew accounts of the operation, so can you provide me with sources of these names, please? Thank you Amr F.Nagy (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]