This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sorry, Morton, CheckUser does not give any indication that these editors are sockpuppets of one another. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove an AfD tag that has been properly placed.
Please post a note at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fry Mumia to explain why the article should be kept. Thanks, - Will Beback 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, from Wikipedia:Vandalism
Further deletions of the tag may lead to your being blocked. Please respect the process. Thanks, - Will Beback 02:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Before all other disputes, please do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer of another Wikipedian because we both share the same point of view. Looking throught AfD pages reveal many people with the same point of view, and they are obviously not sockpuppets or sockpuppeteers.
Secondly, the tag {{ totallydisputed}} is allowed to be set if there is at least a single dispute. It is not illegal to place that template on an article.
Thirdly, in the defense of Will Beback and Wikipedian policy, WP:AFD states that an article can be nominated for AfD despite the time since creation if the article meats AfD requirements. Placing an AfD tag within 2 minutes of an article's creation is not abuse. Sycthos Talk 03:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Rather than engage in this mechanical war, I have redirected the page to try to make it more acceptable to all. Thanks. Morton devonshire 05:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, well. Got an answer only from one of the comrades, and now all have ceased their edit wars, and their replies. Is it live, or is it Memorex? Morton devonshire 06:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
me and User:ClicketyClack worked so hard at making this NPOV. Can you be specific about what isn't. We'll get on it. Gah!!! Saboteurs destroying our hard work. I meant to check the updates but I've been busy, so if you can pinpoint some that would help! JamieJones talk 12:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes Morton, that was pretty funny! SkeenaR 07:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually liked that. But where are you going to go with that? SkeenaR 07:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you on the first part Morton, but I could point out that you seem to have an infatuation with sockpuppet conspiracies, even when you are given 'proof' otherwise. I'm not a bloody sockpuppet, you should know that by now. Anyway, conspiracies whether real or imagined are pretty interesting don't you think? I'm not just talking about the sociological aspects like what causes these to be prevalent in society and I'm sure you agree with me judging by your conspiracy theory loitering and your sockpuppet fetish. :) SkeenaR 07:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking to your less scary looking alter ego from now on. SkeenaR 20:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC) And I jumped on it first chance I got. I admit it. It was too funny. SkeenaR 07:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the comment you added to my discussion page. Sorry I didn't respond sooner. It raises my blood pressure and aggravates my disability to spend too much time on Wikipedia, so it can be weeks between visits. I was just editing the article on Rush (correcting some really bad writing, e.g. "independent freethinking" and "totalitarian dystopia"; can you say "redundant"? I can.) And, not that it was political, but the article was littered with POV, making statements about Rush's music that are merely opinions held by just one faction of their vast fan base.
I agree 100%. Wikipedia simply cannot be considered a reliable source of information unless its confirmed by at least one, preferably more, sources. The Left-Liberal bias reins here--regardless of the injury to the facts or reality.
the article on the commie and admitted liar Rigaberto Minchu was absolutely ridiculous. And people were down playing her lies! Lies I documented by using, among other sources, the Lib bible, the New York Times. It just goes to show you that anything that contradicts the Lib-Leftist canon is rejected regardless of the source.
Like you I've noticed that not only is Left-Lib (and outright Communist) POV tolerated, its positively encouraged. Only a conservative view point is labeled as such. I'm not advocating for conservative POV. The constant refrain from the worst of the Lib POV'ers is that wikipedia is supposed to be a "real" encyclopedia.
OK. Fine. Quit filtering the articles through the daily DNC talking points fax and you've got a start.
I find it more sad than amusing that some people, specifically this gamaliel person, clearly have so little to do that they watch so many pages like a hawk to ensure they adhered to the Left-wing kook blogosphere's "ideology"* (I freely admit I borrowed the phrase from the Maha-Rushi).
Ciao.
PainMan
10:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
His supporters, however, strike me in the way that LaRouche supporters come across -- you could have a 4-hour conversation with a LaRouchian, and never approach common ground. They have drunk the Koolaid, man, and are ready to tie on their trainers and matching track outfits, and take the ride to the sun. Out there, and so far beyond reasonable belief that you really wonder if psychosis isn't at the root of it. I'm not sure what it is that motivates the Mumites in their obtuseness -- it certainly isn't righteousness of their cause, or justice, because the evidence against Mumia is so compelling (see http://www.danielfaulkner.com/mythsdir.html) -- so what is it really? Whatever it is, of one thing I'm certain -- there is no possibility of reasoning with them. Mars and Venus have a better chance of convening than do the Age of Reason and the Mumites.
I think the motivation behind people who support this thug is pretty obvious. His guilt or innocence is irrelevant to them. He's a "symbol" of "The Man's" "oppression" ("the Man" murdered my great-great-great mother and drove my Cherokee family out GA @ gunpoint).
It is a classic cause celebre. In a way it reminds of the anti-Dreyfusards during the controversy of Alfred Dreyfus. They simply refuse to believe overwhelming evidence because that supports their weltanschauung. Protecting the French Army became more important than injustice done to one man (and the fact that an actual traitor was still on the loose!). Despite the mountain of evidence against this cop-killer (and where's the sympathy for the families of the murdered cops?), his "supporters" close their eyes and mindlessly chant slogans. In the vacant reflection in their eyes you can see the vicarious thrill: "Dude, this is what the 60s was like, dude! Like, fight the Power, bro!"
To take a mirror example, look at the OJ case. I realize as a so-called "white" person (tho' in fact I'm mixed race, Anglo-Celtic-Germanic-Cherokee-Jewish-African-American), I'm in a minority in believing that OJ should not have been found guilty on the evidence. That's not to say he didn't do it or hire it done. Just to say that there were holes big enough in the case to drive a truck through. One of the homicide detectives takes a vial of OJ's blood from the crime lab and disappears with it for at least three, perhaps five hours. The infamous white Bronco is left completely unguarded in an impound yard--where LA city workers actually steal stuff out of it to sell! The blood-stained socks in his bedroom, supposedly one of the main pieces of "evidence" against him, were created by someone with an eye-dropper! The stains on one side are identical to the stains on the opposite.
But the biggest piece of exculpatory evidence in that farce was the fact that I watched the deputy LA County Corner say, in the Preliminary Hearing, that one victim had been killed by a left-handed person, the other by a right handed person. OJ's one of the greatest pro athlete's in history, but he ain't ambidextrous. (This deputy coroner, for having the audacity to speak the truth, had his reputation trashed and was forced out of his job.)
I could go on and on. The point is that vast numbers of people are just as convinced of his guilt as the tiny number of "Mumia" supporters are convinced of his innocence. It's taken on almost religious overtones. "Don't confuse me with the facts!" The willfull suspension of belief in contrary facts in the very diagnosis of fanaticism.
But the country's getting more and more like that. For too many people it doesn't matter what the truth is--the Left questions the very concept of truth!--but whether it benefits the agenda and the ideology. When reality and my ideology part, I go with reality every time.
PainMan 10:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Just saw the charming note you left for User:Bigplankton. I find it hard to believe you have so much anger over the fact that I submitted your stub article for deletion a while back. That's pretty routine here and certainly nothing to justify so much rage, but I can't change how you feel about things. However, before you attempt to recruit new users for your righteous crusade, consider that you are only encouraging the rude and uncivil behavior that could eventually get Bigplankton banned. Getting newbies to join you in shaking your angry fist at The Man may make you feel good in the short term, but will accomplish nothing and do neither of you any good in the long run. If you really think that you and he are the victim of "abuse", feel free to start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment about me. That might not be as much fun as ranting, but would be a lot more constructive. Gamaliel 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure you're not in a mood to take advice from me, but maybe you would get into fewer fights like these if you created a firewall between the activities -- one suggestion would be to exercise admin-like functions only on those articles for which you do not engage in substantive edits, and to engage in zero admin-like functions for those pages that you substantively edit. Maybe even staying completely away from deleting peoples comments and the like when you are making substantive edits. I think that would cut down on the disputes you find yourself in. Trying to step back and be helpful here. Morton devonshire 09:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Morton, I am glad to see that I'm not alone. Too many people belive that crap. Kurt Leyman
Lol@ att message. Is there any barnstar for that? peace :) -- Striver 18:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the "this article is about ... for ... see ..." line at the top of Protests against the Iraq war doesn't add much. I have removed it. See Talk:Protests against the Iraq war#Disambig'.-- JK the unwise 14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the more annoying aspects of Wikipedia, an aspect which hurts its credibility, is the concept that every point of view, however poorly sourced, must be represented. This leads to the truly strange phenomenen that when someone says the Earth is round, the page may contain an "alternative" theory that the Earth is considered flat by some persons. This is just nuts. I am recruiting a squad of editors to combat this obvious flaw in the Wikipedia system. If you are interested in contributing, please let me know. Peace. Morton devonshire 16:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The noise of wikipedia criticism is still a low chatter in the background, but I see it continuing to grow as more cases of vandalism, inaccuracy and bias filter to the surface and become news stories. I look forward to it. One of the problems with wikipedia is its prominience in search engine results. To an unsuspecting user, wikipedia has an air of authority because of the word "encyclopedia" and it looks polished and professional. Lurking underneath is awful bias, inaccuracy, and power-tripped administrators. For example, if you Google "New York Post", the wikipedia link is second! Little does the person know who clicks on it that some of the Post article was edited by two people who know very little except their own narrow bias. You know one of them. It ain't me. Luckily, there's a "disputed" tag above the article. There should, however, be a "disputed" tag on the main page of wikipedia. "The entirety of wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia is disputed." So who cares, someone can come along and fix the page right? That's the whole idea. But right now, the page is as it is, a biased mess. I can't be bothered arguing with people on the internet, I was done with that 4 internets ago. So, wikipedia does have tons of cool info on it, but it's weaknesses are going to be exposed eventually and changes are going to have to be made. Soon the internet meme of how bad wikipedia can be will spread faster than an owl at a O' RLY convention. -- Bigplankton 19:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Holy jeez have you been to the admins alt. user page? That is some scary psycho sh-t! I was just there. I'll tell you what, you're not going to win an argument with that obsessive compulsive disorder. -- Bigplankton 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Mistress, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would let it go. This sort of practice makes Wikipedia an unpleasant place, particularly that you, as an Admin, do your boyfriend's dirty work after he misbehaves. Thanks. Morton devonshire 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Why? - Corbin Simpson 02:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Lonely Troll! Hey, I was looking at Prison Planet like I enjoy doing because it's so interesting and I found this. Here is an excerpt out of an article that has to do with what we were discussing above. I just figured you'd want to read it and it's kind of funny too.
"In an interview with Alex Jones this week, a liberal radio talk show host for GCN Radio Network, Sheen relived his thoughts and shared his theories on what happened that historic day four-and-a-half years ago," states the article.
Alex Jones a liberal? That one's going to keep us laughing all through until next winter! Alex Jones cut his teeth bashing Bill Clinton and in his youth even campaigned for Republicans before waking up to the false left-right paradigm. Within 10 seconds of meeting Alex Jones anyone would know that he is not a liberal. But in the upside down world of neo-cons and neo-libs, where the drumbeat of state worship has flipped them over so many times that they aren't even sure of their own phony political labels, Alex Jones is a liberal.
If George W. Bush, an assault weapons ban supporting, amnesty loving, abortion supporting, biggest spender on federal government ever, faux cowboy from Kennebunkport Maine is a conservative then I guess we're all Hollywood liberals. In truth both Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen are real conservatives, adhering to the legacy of the founding fathers who advocated constant vigilance of government.
SkeenaR 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:[censored]Pres GW Bush in Army jacket.jpg|thumb|150px|left|These pants are waaay too tight!]] I got an invitation from you concerning the deletion of an anti-Bush page. I happen to be pro-Bush, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm for deleting an anti-Bush article. Some propaganda and lies can be so silly and obviously off-base that it's better to leave them up and have them exposed.
But I'm still not sure what the whole "delete" campaign is all about. Maybe you can the basics to me? Loomis51 19:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, peace. Sorry to be grumpy. I changed my name after what happened to Gator1, and it seems to be freaking people out. This I do not understand, so it's made me a bit defensive. Brillig20 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
See "Yabbadabbadoofus" at User:Morton devonshire/Finding your inner sockpuppet. I added that without asking 1st. I hope that's ok. Merecat 16:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant! Thanks man. SkeenaR 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)n
Who are you? First, you invite me to make changes, then you clean up my userpage for some reason. I'm just seeking an explanation. Thanks. -- Michaelk 06:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:[censored]Tempts-page-display.jpg|230px|thumb|right|The "Classic 5" lineup of The Temptations, circa 1965. Left to right: Melvin Franklin, Eddie Kendricks, Otis Williams, Paul Williams, and David Ruffin.]] It was all I could do not to change "Lay commissioners" to "Play commissioners." Tom Harrison Talk 19:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
My time is precious.
Crazy socialists don't value their time: because they are so dumb.
So they can spend tremendous amounts of time posting online and not even care.
They are so close-minded they wouldn't listen to reason anyway.
So I wonder why bother?
I do admire people like yourself, who do fight the good fight.
I just can't seem to get to worried about what a fool thinks.
And: how do you motivate yourself to persuade a fool to be wise? Perhaps you have to be a natural salesman? An extrovert with a masculine drive to conquer the wills of others? A fighting spirit?
I salute you.
-- Capsela 04:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's fair use policy does not allow for copyrighted pictures on user pages. Therefore, you need to remove Image:Tempts-page-display.jpg and any other pictures here which are not released under GFDL or similar. If you have questions about this, please see WP:FUC #9. This is non-negotiable. Contrary to what you claim above, this is not your page, it belongs to Wikipedia. No one WP:OWNs any page here and all pages must abide by official policy.
Also, the picture of Woohookitty could be a humorous joke or it could be a personal attack. I suggest you ask him if he minds that you are using it here as part of a little joke.
Happy editing! Johntex\ talk 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours for egregious POV vote-stacking and talk page spamming in regards to an Article for deletion. Please don't do it again. That is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Afd is about the merits of an article, not how many users each side can recruit. -- Cyde Weys 22:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
See above message from Jtdirl. Please help. Morton devonshire 00:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I am working on getting consensus to unblock you. Please see:
In the mean-time, I see Woohookitty has requested you to please remove his picture from your page. I think you should do so to ensure you are complying with WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Johntex\ talk 04:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morton. I'm sorry, I've campaigned hard against Cyde's actins. I've taken the issue to WP:ANI, Deletion Review, and to the off-wiki mail-list. It looks like the majority of people think Cyde did the wrong thing to close the AfD early.
However, I've not been able to get consensus to unblock you. If you've read the discussion, you already know that I find this appalling, as we have no policy against what you did. Unfortunately, people are now trying to remedy that by actually writing a policy at
[5]. Hopefully they won't get the necessary super-majority to do that. We'll see.
Anyway, I will not start a
wheel war by unblocking you without consensus of my fellow admins to support my doing so. You were only blocked for 24 hours, so your block will expire soon anyway. I'm sorry I wasn't able to do more for you. On the bright side, the unencylopdeic POV-laden article is back at AfD.
On another note, thanks for removing the picture of Woohookitty and for reviewing your other photos. See you around soon when the block wears off.
Johntex\
talk
17:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Your note on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination) is incorrect.
Actually, the Template:AfdAnons tag is Wikipedia policy. Says so right on WP:AFD "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight." Also on WP:GD "Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not." AnonEMouse 17:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
i am afraid that they're going to try and close my vote out of process please help-- Ham and jelly butter 02:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Congrats, Morton!
You've been so effective: you've forced the liberal wikipedia admins to show their true colors! Don't let the trolls slow you down.-- Capsela 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is an obviously bad page that I've been trying to address for awhile now: Nick Berg conspiracy theories-- DCAnderson 22:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh... I am newly minted. I did not work to death during 2L. I was as lazy a bum as possible - and I got two A+'s, which bumped up my GPA from a 3.1 to a 3.2 - go figure :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Tin-foil heaven: Bush family conspiracy theory Morton devonshire 09:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the award.
Sorry I haven't acknowledged it sooner. I haven't spent much time on wikipedia lately so I only just noticed it.
Just when I was feeling really, really isolated this comes along. Thanks very much.
PainMan 21:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't do this [6] anymore. It's too easy for things like this to cross the line and become harrassment, which I'm sure you don't intend. Tom Harrison Talk 23:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.
As for my next project, here is a text book POV fork/Walled Garden:
Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report
I figure it doesn't need to be deleted, because once all the OR and unverifiable stuff gets trimmed out it can just be merged as there is probably an iota of legitimate criticism in there.-- DCAnderson 04:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I left a complaint on his thread. Someone else edited back, which shows there's some sense on the thread. However if you want to refer him to the admins you can cite the fact he was warned by you and then he still deleted other people's comments. Thanks for the heads up. John Smith's 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Morton, you seem to be prodding redirect pages that point (or pointed to) 9/11 conspiracy theories. Why bother? Since they are redirects, all the content is there. And you haven't proposed deletion of that page (nor would I suggest it). -- Kchase02 ( T) 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Morton, I saw your message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Merecat has been blocked because he edited John Kerry which is a no-no for User:Rex071404. And since Merecat has been deemed a "sockpuppet" of Rex, then the logic follows that Merecat can be blocked for breaking conditions which apply to Rex. However, not all alternate accounts are "sockpuppets" and in point of fact, alternate accounts are allowed (see this). Even so, the check user feature is being abused by some to thwart this. See dialogs relating to Merecat and this topic here Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. At that page, some editors are being accused of being "Merecat", but since it's clear that at worst, those editors are non-transgressing alternate accounts, there is no justification for a check user against them. Even so, User:Mr. Tibbs seeks to kick them off the wiki. Please keep these points in mind 1) Currently User:Rex071404 is blocked by User:Cyde on a false basis. It is absolutely true that Rex himself is not a "sockpuppet", yet Cyde called him one and blocked him. 2) If Merecat is Rex and Rex is not currently under ArbCom block or ban (he's not) then there's no reason why Rex can't be unblocked, change his user name to Merecat and drop the Rex name. However, if you look at the talk page history for User:Rex071404, you will see that a few editors keep deleting "unblock" requests made on his behalf. Personally, I think you might get better success if you ask User:172 for help. Other than that, keep an eye on whoever it is that Mr. Tibbs is complaining about at any given moment as they tend to edit along the same lines of thinking that you do. You'd be likely to find new friends that way. Also, if you were to leave a "hey, see this article" message on Rex's user page, anyone interested in the articles you draw attention to, might follow up and edit where you point them to. Signed, a friendly anonymous editor. 216.22.26.46 07:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush family conspiracy theory (2nd nomination)-- DCAnderson 23:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I just reverted your change at Wikipedia:Spam because I didn't see any discussion of it on the talk page or anywhere else. If you think that guideline needs to be altered, why don't we talk about it? - GTBacchus( talk) 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Forum:The_Nerve_of_Some_People#Please_help_me_tweak_the_ego_of_Wikipedia Et tu Uncyclopedia? Morton devonshire 22:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes things aren't what they seem I guess. It looks like you wouldn't have found this out unless you had pushed their buttons right. BUM, BUM, BUM! SkeenaR 09:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I can offer this as a means of restraint for consiracy theorists.-- MONGO 08:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
How sweet of you. SkeenaR 04:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Bush Knew is bascially a speedy, but I'll leave that one up for a full week and deal with it after the 10th if someone doesn't beat me to it.-- MONGO 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Panexa. Tom Harrison Talk 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't take it personal (OK, so I did, but I'm over it) about the page, but, what else could work. The main page of 9/11 conspiracy theories is said to be too long, so I thought that the Jewish section was an appropriate lift, as it was somewhat self-sufficent. Something's gotta go, but what can we do to help the page? Scoutersig 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) --P.S. How can I check to see if a page was made (and deleted) before I make it (again?)?
Hey! Yeah, it seems like a battlestation sometimes. Thanks for pointing out that what you said was your characterization of it too. I'm not trying to promote any point of view, from where I sit I see a supression of material eg. the Undue Weight policy being violated, so if people disagree with me on that point, I guess it seems to them I'm a promoter. People should be able to disagree without being enemies, but it gets tough when people take a subject seriously, and it seems like this one takes the cake. It's in our nature to fight I guess, but I think this can be a better place if we try to keep that in mind. At the very least we have a cool platform to write and discuss. Talk to you later. SkeenaR 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to. Unfortunately I haven't a clue about these things. Someone else did mine for me. It is [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup>[[User talk:Jtdirl|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] You need also to click the Raw signature (no auto link; don't use templates or external links in this) box. I hope that helps. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 22:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the comment that you left on my RfC in support. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As a hard case POV Crusader? Have you thought about the issue? SkeenaR 08:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It just seems like you are doing your best to try and discredit anything that doesn't fit with your POV, for example the thing about using the word researcher among other stuff. Don't take it in a bad way, but all the edits seem to be decidedly one directional. Of course I'm open to anything you might have to say about my editing, and I would appreciate any constructive criticism but it seems really obvious that you will try and discredit even minor things to make it fit your POV while at the same time completely ignoring anything else. I hope that's not too forward, but that's what it seems like. SkeenaR 08:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You take a respectable position for sure, but I disagree with you about a whole bunch of stuff. It's late, but I'll be back tomorrow. Thanks for the reasoned argumentation dude. But before I go, I must point out that no WMD's were found. Ask yourself, whos interest does the corporate media really act in? The publics? The shareholders? Are politics involved? Is it as simple as you make it sound? SkeenaR 09:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Like you say, there are real threats we should be aware of. One of the dangers that you pointed out are people being deliberately distracted by the use of half-truths to acheive political objectives. The mainstream media completely and utterly fails miserably as a reliable source of information when it matters the most. Ask the average person if they are aware that the event that pushed public opinion in favour of the first Gulf War was a lie. And make no mistake, this was not an error. The baby incubator story- Nurse Nayirah In reality, Citizens for a Free Kuwait, organized by the exiled Kuwaiti government, had hired Hill & Knowlton to gain support for the US counterstrike. Hill & Knowlton was paid US $14 million by the US government for its help in promoting the Gulf War. It was not revealed until later that the girl was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. Frieda Construe-Nag and Myra Ancog Cooke, two maternity nurses in that ward, later said that they had never seen Nayirah there and that the baby-dumping had never happened.
As another example from an endless supply of deception: Lauri Fitz-Pegado, later Assistant Commerce Secretary, invented Nayirah's story and coached the girl. She also prepared Iraq-invasion testimony for the UN which was later discredited, and later promoted a book about the rescue of PFC Jessica Lynch during the 2003 Iraq War. [9] "They used me to symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things". She also stated "I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees. And that's the last I remember." She reported excellent treatment in Iraq, and that one person in the hospital even sang to her to help her feel at home.
Indeed, it seems that in some cases we have the same old behind the scenes propaganda pushers. [10] Call it what you will.
Did the media reort that these were deceptions on anywhere near the scale that they hyped them? No. And the effects could never be reversed.
The WMD story is a perfect parallel to Nurse Nayirah. The mainstream media acted as a mouthpiece for the administration. Tell me, when did the mainstream media reveal that the information about WMD's was "mistaken"? After you country was firmly entrenced in a bloodbath and a quagmire right?(the quagmire wasn't going to happen either). The media would have had to manufacture their own WMD's to report otherwise.
It would be a mistake to undermine the threat of terror. But my point is that the mainstream media is almost useless for dependable information when it is actually needed. I love America and I hope you are able to keep your freedom. Excercise your rights and stay vigilant. SkeenaR 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (if these these so-called reliable sources of information are not challenged, then freedom is already lost)
On which planet does reality shift to fit your version? I'll make up a list of journalist bullshit artists who still have their jobs for you and a list of people like the one mentioned above who get promotions for inventing this crap. One thing I will not be able to provide you with is a list of any problems that the media created that they managed to "self-correct". If you consider mainstream journalism superior when all they can do is say "oops, sorry" after they have convinced people to sacrifice everything on false pretenses, then our ideas of superior are vastly different. Are you making this up, or do you actually believe yourself? One thing I do agree with is that if there was such a huge conspiracy, it would probably be exposed eventually. I'm not sure how long it would take though, if it actually happened. SkeenaR 16:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) (sorry, I don't mean to sound so cantankerous)
Which reporter was that? I want to read her story. Never heard much about her. I remember hearing a lot about some threat in Iraq though. And how easy it would all be. All networks, all channels. At least all the ones I saw coming out of the U.S. anyway. This doesn't change anything I said about them being unreliable sources. SkeenaR 05:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WOT is up for vote now. Rangeley 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your prompt feedback. I don't feel you addressed my reasons for tagging the page, and these reasons are not affected by what happened last year (I have read up a lot of the past discussion, but I'm not at all convinced). On consideration, I feel the Cyrus Farivar page will eventually go as it is clearly:
The issue of CF 'criticising' WKP is simply begging the question, I wasn't aware that he did so. I note that my notability tag has been removed without any notability being added. I am determined to have a debate about this page on principle, and if notability is not discussed, will take it further. I'm also confident that if I take the discussion wider, I will find reasonable support for my stance. IMHO the majority of the 'keep' votes are based on weak arguments, and/or a lack of perception of the issues: the hoax, notability etc. Further, I am aware from my background reading that past raisings of this issue have disappeared. See Mrtourne's comments during the Aug '05 deletion discussion. I should add that I am also going to push for the related 'Greenlighting hoax' page to be merged to 'hoaxes'. Again, it is extremely trivial, and almost entirely self-referential. I would draw your attention also to the following comment by user Snowspinner (during Aug '05 deletion discussion). Quote: Keep. I don't care if it was vanity created, it is a notable subject. In fact, I will go a step further. This article is being kept. I do not care what the outcome of the usual VfD suspects straw poll is. The article is being kept, and I will undelete it until the arbcom or Jimbo tells me to stop. Snowspinner 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC) End quote
I note also that the announcement of the result of the Aug '05 deletion vote being a 'keep' was made by the same user Snowspinner. As a new user, I respectfully suggest that he made a bad counting error. My suggestion is that the page be deleted, and perhaps userfy-ed. Centrepull 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sorry, Morton, CheckUser does not give any indication that these editors are sockpuppets of one another. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove an AfD tag that has been properly placed.
Please post a note at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fry Mumia to explain why the article should be kept. Thanks, - Will Beback 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, from Wikipedia:Vandalism
Further deletions of the tag may lead to your being blocked. Please respect the process. Thanks, - Will Beback 02:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Before all other disputes, please do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer of another Wikipedian because we both share the same point of view. Looking throught AfD pages reveal many people with the same point of view, and they are obviously not sockpuppets or sockpuppeteers.
Secondly, the tag {{ totallydisputed}} is allowed to be set if there is at least a single dispute. It is not illegal to place that template on an article.
Thirdly, in the defense of Will Beback and Wikipedian policy, WP:AFD states that an article can be nominated for AfD despite the time since creation if the article meats AfD requirements. Placing an AfD tag within 2 minutes of an article's creation is not abuse. Sycthos Talk 03:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Rather than engage in this mechanical war, I have redirected the page to try to make it more acceptable to all. Thanks. Morton devonshire 05:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, well. Got an answer only from one of the comrades, and now all have ceased their edit wars, and their replies. Is it live, or is it Memorex? Morton devonshire 06:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
me and User:ClicketyClack worked so hard at making this NPOV. Can you be specific about what isn't. We'll get on it. Gah!!! Saboteurs destroying our hard work. I meant to check the updates but I've been busy, so if you can pinpoint some that would help! JamieJones talk 12:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes Morton, that was pretty funny! SkeenaR 07:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually liked that. But where are you going to go with that? SkeenaR 07:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you on the first part Morton, but I could point out that you seem to have an infatuation with sockpuppet conspiracies, even when you are given 'proof' otherwise. I'm not a bloody sockpuppet, you should know that by now. Anyway, conspiracies whether real or imagined are pretty interesting don't you think? I'm not just talking about the sociological aspects like what causes these to be prevalent in society and I'm sure you agree with me judging by your conspiracy theory loitering and your sockpuppet fetish. :) SkeenaR 07:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking to your less scary looking alter ego from now on. SkeenaR 20:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC) And I jumped on it first chance I got. I admit it. It was too funny. SkeenaR 07:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the comment you added to my discussion page. Sorry I didn't respond sooner. It raises my blood pressure and aggravates my disability to spend too much time on Wikipedia, so it can be weeks between visits. I was just editing the article on Rush (correcting some really bad writing, e.g. "independent freethinking" and "totalitarian dystopia"; can you say "redundant"? I can.) And, not that it was political, but the article was littered with POV, making statements about Rush's music that are merely opinions held by just one faction of their vast fan base.
I agree 100%. Wikipedia simply cannot be considered a reliable source of information unless its confirmed by at least one, preferably more, sources. The Left-Liberal bias reins here--regardless of the injury to the facts or reality.
the article on the commie and admitted liar Rigaberto Minchu was absolutely ridiculous. And people were down playing her lies! Lies I documented by using, among other sources, the Lib bible, the New York Times. It just goes to show you that anything that contradicts the Lib-Leftist canon is rejected regardless of the source.
Like you I've noticed that not only is Left-Lib (and outright Communist) POV tolerated, its positively encouraged. Only a conservative view point is labeled as such. I'm not advocating for conservative POV. The constant refrain from the worst of the Lib POV'ers is that wikipedia is supposed to be a "real" encyclopedia.
OK. Fine. Quit filtering the articles through the daily DNC talking points fax and you've got a start.
I find it more sad than amusing that some people, specifically this gamaliel person, clearly have so little to do that they watch so many pages like a hawk to ensure they adhered to the Left-wing kook blogosphere's "ideology"* (I freely admit I borrowed the phrase from the Maha-Rushi).
Ciao.
PainMan
10:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
His supporters, however, strike me in the way that LaRouche supporters come across -- you could have a 4-hour conversation with a LaRouchian, and never approach common ground. They have drunk the Koolaid, man, and are ready to tie on their trainers and matching track outfits, and take the ride to the sun. Out there, and so far beyond reasonable belief that you really wonder if psychosis isn't at the root of it. I'm not sure what it is that motivates the Mumites in their obtuseness -- it certainly isn't righteousness of their cause, or justice, because the evidence against Mumia is so compelling (see http://www.danielfaulkner.com/mythsdir.html) -- so what is it really? Whatever it is, of one thing I'm certain -- there is no possibility of reasoning with them. Mars and Venus have a better chance of convening than do the Age of Reason and the Mumites.
I think the motivation behind people who support this thug is pretty obvious. His guilt or innocence is irrelevant to them. He's a "symbol" of "The Man's" "oppression" ("the Man" murdered my great-great-great mother and drove my Cherokee family out GA @ gunpoint).
It is a classic cause celebre. In a way it reminds of the anti-Dreyfusards during the controversy of Alfred Dreyfus. They simply refuse to believe overwhelming evidence because that supports their weltanschauung. Protecting the French Army became more important than injustice done to one man (and the fact that an actual traitor was still on the loose!). Despite the mountain of evidence against this cop-killer (and where's the sympathy for the families of the murdered cops?), his "supporters" close their eyes and mindlessly chant slogans. In the vacant reflection in their eyes you can see the vicarious thrill: "Dude, this is what the 60s was like, dude! Like, fight the Power, bro!"
To take a mirror example, look at the OJ case. I realize as a so-called "white" person (tho' in fact I'm mixed race, Anglo-Celtic-Germanic-Cherokee-Jewish-African-American), I'm in a minority in believing that OJ should not have been found guilty on the evidence. That's not to say he didn't do it or hire it done. Just to say that there were holes big enough in the case to drive a truck through. One of the homicide detectives takes a vial of OJ's blood from the crime lab and disappears with it for at least three, perhaps five hours. The infamous white Bronco is left completely unguarded in an impound yard--where LA city workers actually steal stuff out of it to sell! The blood-stained socks in his bedroom, supposedly one of the main pieces of "evidence" against him, were created by someone with an eye-dropper! The stains on one side are identical to the stains on the opposite.
But the biggest piece of exculpatory evidence in that farce was the fact that I watched the deputy LA County Corner say, in the Preliminary Hearing, that one victim had been killed by a left-handed person, the other by a right handed person. OJ's one of the greatest pro athlete's in history, but he ain't ambidextrous. (This deputy coroner, for having the audacity to speak the truth, had his reputation trashed and was forced out of his job.)
I could go on and on. The point is that vast numbers of people are just as convinced of his guilt as the tiny number of "Mumia" supporters are convinced of his innocence. It's taken on almost religious overtones. "Don't confuse me with the facts!" The willfull suspension of belief in contrary facts in the very diagnosis of fanaticism.
But the country's getting more and more like that. For too many people it doesn't matter what the truth is--the Left questions the very concept of truth!--but whether it benefits the agenda and the ideology. When reality and my ideology part, I go with reality every time.
PainMan 10:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Just saw the charming note you left for User:Bigplankton. I find it hard to believe you have so much anger over the fact that I submitted your stub article for deletion a while back. That's pretty routine here and certainly nothing to justify so much rage, but I can't change how you feel about things. However, before you attempt to recruit new users for your righteous crusade, consider that you are only encouraging the rude and uncivil behavior that could eventually get Bigplankton banned. Getting newbies to join you in shaking your angry fist at The Man may make you feel good in the short term, but will accomplish nothing and do neither of you any good in the long run. If you really think that you and he are the victim of "abuse", feel free to start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment about me. That might not be as much fun as ranting, but would be a lot more constructive. Gamaliel 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure you're not in a mood to take advice from me, but maybe you would get into fewer fights like these if you created a firewall between the activities -- one suggestion would be to exercise admin-like functions only on those articles for which you do not engage in substantive edits, and to engage in zero admin-like functions for those pages that you substantively edit. Maybe even staying completely away from deleting peoples comments and the like when you are making substantive edits. I think that would cut down on the disputes you find yourself in. Trying to step back and be helpful here. Morton devonshire 09:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Morton, I am glad to see that I'm not alone. Too many people belive that crap. Kurt Leyman
Lol@ att message. Is there any barnstar for that? peace :) -- Striver 18:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the "this article is about ... for ... see ..." line at the top of Protests against the Iraq war doesn't add much. I have removed it. See Talk:Protests against the Iraq war#Disambig'.-- JK the unwise 14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the more annoying aspects of Wikipedia, an aspect which hurts its credibility, is the concept that every point of view, however poorly sourced, must be represented. This leads to the truly strange phenomenen that when someone says the Earth is round, the page may contain an "alternative" theory that the Earth is considered flat by some persons. This is just nuts. I am recruiting a squad of editors to combat this obvious flaw in the Wikipedia system. If you are interested in contributing, please let me know. Peace. Morton devonshire 16:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The noise of wikipedia criticism is still a low chatter in the background, but I see it continuing to grow as more cases of vandalism, inaccuracy and bias filter to the surface and become news stories. I look forward to it. One of the problems with wikipedia is its prominience in search engine results. To an unsuspecting user, wikipedia has an air of authority because of the word "encyclopedia" and it looks polished and professional. Lurking underneath is awful bias, inaccuracy, and power-tripped administrators. For example, if you Google "New York Post", the wikipedia link is second! Little does the person know who clicks on it that some of the Post article was edited by two people who know very little except their own narrow bias. You know one of them. It ain't me. Luckily, there's a "disputed" tag above the article. There should, however, be a "disputed" tag on the main page of wikipedia. "The entirety of wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia is disputed." So who cares, someone can come along and fix the page right? That's the whole idea. But right now, the page is as it is, a biased mess. I can't be bothered arguing with people on the internet, I was done with that 4 internets ago. So, wikipedia does have tons of cool info on it, but it's weaknesses are going to be exposed eventually and changes are going to have to be made. Soon the internet meme of how bad wikipedia can be will spread faster than an owl at a O' RLY convention. -- Bigplankton 19:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Holy jeez have you been to the admins alt. user page? That is some scary psycho sh-t! I was just there. I'll tell you what, you're not going to win an argument with that obsessive compulsive disorder. -- Bigplankton 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Mistress, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would let it go. This sort of practice makes Wikipedia an unpleasant place, particularly that you, as an Admin, do your boyfriend's dirty work after he misbehaves. Thanks. Morton devonshire 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Why? - Corbin Simpson 02:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Lonely Troll! Hey, I was looking at Prison Planet like I enjoy doing because it's so interesting and I found this. Here is an excerpt out of an article that has to do with what we were discussing above. I just figured you'd want to read it and it's kind of funny too.
"In an interview with Alex Jones this week, a liberal radio talk show host for GCN Radio Network, Sheen relived his thoughts and shared his theories on what happened that historic day four-and-a-half years ago," states the article.
Alex Jones a liberal? That one's going to keep us laughing all through until next winter! Alex Jones cut his teeth bashing Bill Clinton and in his youth even campaigned for Republicans before waking up to the false left-right paradigm. Within 10 seconds of meeting Alex Jones anyone would know that he is not a liberal. But in the upside down world of neo-cons and neo-libs, where the drumbeat of state worship has flipped them over so many times that they aren't even sure of their own phony political labels, Alex Jones is a liberal.
If George W. Bush, an assault weapons ban supporting, amnesty loving, abortion supporting, biggest spender on federal government ever, faux cowboy from Kennebunkport Maine is a conservative then I guess we're all Hollywood liberals. In truth both Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen are real conservatives, adhering to the legacy of the founding fathers who advocated constant vigilance of government.
SkeenaR 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:[censored]Pres GW Bush in Army jacket.jpg|thumb|150px|left|These pants are waaay too tight!]] I got an invitation from you concerning the deletion of an anti-Bush page. I happen to be pro-Bush, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm for deleting an anti-Bush article. Some propaganda and lies can be so silly and obviously off-base that it's better to leave them up and have them exposed.
But I'm still not sure what the whole "delete" campaign is all about. Maybe you can the basics to me? Loomis51 19:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, peace. Sorry to be grumpy. I changed my name after what happened to Gator1, and it seems to be freaking people out. This I do not understand, so it's made me a bit defensive. Brillig20 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
See "Yabbadabbadoofus" at User:Morton devonshire/Finding your inner sockpuppet. I added that without asking 1st. I hope that's ok. Merecat 16:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant! Thanks man. SkeenaR 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)n
Who are you? First, you invite me to make changes, then you clean up my userpage for some reason. I'm just seeking an explanation. Thanks. -- Michaelk 06:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:[censored]Tempts-page-display.jpg|230px|thumb|right|The "Classic 5" lineup of The Temptations, circa 1965. Left to right: Melvin Franklin, Eddie Kendricks, Otis Williams, Paul Williams, and David Ruffin.]] It was all I could do not to change "Lay commissioners" to "Play commissioners." Tom Harrison Talk 19:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
My time is precious.
Crazy socialists don't value their time: because they are so dumb.
So they can spend tremendous amounts of time posting online and not even care.
They are so close-minded they wouldn't listen to reason anyway.
So I wonder why bother?
I do admire people like yourself, who do fight the good fight.
I just can't seem to get to worried about what a fool thinks.
And: how do you motivate yourself to persuade a fool to be wise? Perhaps you have to be a natural salesman? An extrovert with a masculine drive to conquer the wills of others? A fighting spirit?
I salute you.
-- Capsela 04:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's fair use policy does not allow for copyrighted pictures on user pages. Therefore, you need to remove Image:Tempts-page-display.jpg and any other pictures here which are not released under GFDL or similar. If you have questions about this, please see WP:FUC #9. This is non-negotiable. Contrary to what you claim above, this is not your page, it belongs to Wikipedia. No one WP:OWNs any page here and all pages must abide by official policy.
Also, the picture of Woohookitty could be a humorous joke or it could be a personal attack. I suggest you ask him if he minds that you are using it here as part of a little joke.
Happy editing! Johntex\ talk 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours for egregious POV vote-stacking and talk page spamming in regards to an Article for deletion. Please don't do it again. That is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Afd is about the merits of an article, not how many users each side can recruit. -- Cyde Weys 22:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
See above message from Jtdirl. Please help. Morton devonshire 00:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I am working on getting consensus to unblock you. Please see:
In the mean-time, I see Woohookitty has requested you to please remove his picture from your page. I think you should do so to ensure you are complying with WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Johntex\ talk 04:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morton. I'm sorry, I've campaigned hard against Cyde's actins. I've taken the issue to WP:ANI, Deletion Review, and to the off-wiki mail-list. It looks like the majority of people think Cyde did the wrong thing to close the AfD early.
However, I've not been able to get consensus to unblock you. If you've read the discussion, you already know that I find this appalling, as we have no policy against what you did. Unfortunately, people are now trying to remedy that by actually writing a policy at
[5]. Hopefully they won't get the necessary super-majority to do that. We'll see.
Anyway, I will not start a
wheel war by unblocking you without consensus of my fellow admins to support my doing so. You were only blocked for 24 hours, so your block will expire soon anyway. I'm sorry I wasn't able to do more for you. On the bright side, the unencylopdeic POV-laden article is back at AfD.
On another note, thanks for removing the picture of Woohookitty and for reviewing your other photos. See you around soon when the block wears off.
Johntex\
talk
17:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Your note on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination) is incorrect.
Actually, the Template:AfdAnons tag is Wikipedia policy. Says so right on WP:AFD "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight." Also on WP:GD "Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not." AnonEMouse 17:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
i am afraid that they're going to try and close my vote out of process please help-- Ham and jelly butter 02:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Congrats, Morton!
You've been so effective: you've forced the liberal wikipedia admins to show their true colors! Don't let the trolls slow you down.-- Capsela 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is an obviously bad page that I've been trying to address for awhile now: Nick Berg conspiracy theories-- DCAnderson 22:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh... I am newly minted. I did not work to death during 2L. I was as lazy a bum as possible - and I got two A+'s, which bumped up my GPA from a 3.1 to a 3.2 - go figure :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Tin-foil heaven: Bush family conspiracy theory Morton devonshire 09:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the award.
Sorry I haven't acknowledged it sooner. I haven't spent much time on wikipedia lately so I only just noticed it.
Just when I was feeling really, really isolated this comes along. Thanks very much.
PainMan 21:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't do this [6] anymore. It's too easy for things like this to cross the line and become harrassment, which I'm sure you don't intend. Tom Harrison Talk 23:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.
As for my next project, here is a text book POV fork/Walled Garden:
Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report
I figure it doesn't need to be deleted, because once all the OR and unverifiable stuff gets trimmed out it can just be merged as there is probably an iota of legitimate criticism in there.-- DCAnderson 04:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I left a complaint on his thread. Someone else edited back, which shows there's some sense on the thread. However if you want to refer him to the admins you can cite the fact he was warned by you and then he still deleted other people's comments. Thanks for the heads up. John Smith's 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Morton, you seem to be prodding redirect pages that point (or pointed to) 9/11 conspiracy theories. Why bother? Since they are redirects, all the content is there. And you haven't proposed deletion of that page (nor would I suggest it). -- Kchase02 ( T) 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Morton, I saw your message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Merecat has been blocked because he edited John Kerry which is a no-no for User:Rex071404. And since Merecat has been deemed a "sockpuppet" of Rex, then the logic follows that Merecat can be blocked for breaking conditions which apply to Rex. However, not all alternate accounts are "sockpuppets" and in point of fact, alternate accounts are allowed (see this). Even so, the check user feature is being abused by some to thwart this. See dialogs relating to Merecat and this topic here Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. At that page, some editors are being accused of being "Merecat", but since it's clear that at worst, those editors are non-transgressing alternate accounts, there is no justification for a check user against them. Even so, User:Mr. Tibbs seeks to kick them off the wiki. Please keep these points in mind 1) Currently User:Rex071404 is blocked by User:Cyde on a false basis. It is absolutely true that Rex himself is not a "sockpuppet", yet Cyde called him one and blocked him. 2) If Merecat is Rex and Rex is not currently under ArbCom block or ban (he's not) then there's no reason why Rex can't be unblocked, change his user name to Merecat and drop the Rex name. However, if you look at the talk page history for User:Rex071404, you will see that a few editors keep deleting "unblock" requests made on his behalf. Personally, I think you might get better success if you ask User:172 for help. Other than that, keep an eye on whoever it is that Mr. Tibbs is complaining about at any given moment as they tend to edit along the same lines of thinking that you do. You'd be likely to find new friends that way. Also, if you were to leave a "hey, see this article" message on Rex's user page, anyone interested in the articles you draw attention to, might follow up and edit where you point them to. Signed, a friendly anonymous editor. 216.22.26.46 07:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush family conspiracy theory (2nd nomination)-- DCAnderson 23:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I just reverted your change at Wikipedia:Spam because I didn't see any discussion of it on the talk page or anywhere else. If you think that guideline needs to be altered, why don't we talk about it? - GTBacchus( talk) 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Forum:The_Nerve_of_Some_People#Please_help_me_tweak_the_ego_of_Wikipedia Et tu Uncyclopedia? Morton devonshire 22:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes things aren't what they seem I guess. It looks like you wouldn't have found this out unless you had pushed their buttons right. BUM, BUM, BUM! SkeenaR 09:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I can offer this as a means of restraint for consiracy theorists.-- MONGO 08:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
How sweet of you. SkeenaR 04:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Bush Knew is bascially a speedy, but I'll leave that one up for a full week and deal with it after the 10th if someone doesn't beat me to it.-- MONGO 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Panexa. Tom Harrison Talk 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't take it personal (OK, so I did, but I'm over it) about the page, but, what else could work. The main page of 9/11 conspiracy theories is said to be too long, so I thought that the Jewish section was an appropriate lift, as it was somewhat self-sufficent. Something's gotta go, but what can we do to help the page? Scoutersig 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) --P.S. How can I check to see if a page was made (and deleted) before I make it (again?)?
Hey! Yeah, it seems like a battlestation sometimes. Thanks for pointing out that what you said was your characterization of it too. I'm not trying to promote any point of view, from where I sit I see a supression of material eg. the Undue Weight policy being violated, so if people disagree with me on that point, I guess it seems to them I'm a promoter. People should be able to disagree without being enemies, but it gets tough when people take a subject seriously, and it seems like this one takes the cake. It's in our nature to fight I guess, but I think this can be a better place if we try to keep that in mind. At the very least we have a cool platform to write and discuss. Talk to you later. SkeenaR 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to. Unfortunately I haven't a clue about these things. Someone else did mine for me. It is [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup>[[User talk:Jtdirl|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] You need also to click the Raw signature (no auto link; don't use templates or external links in this) box. I hope that helps. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 22:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the comment that you left on my RfC in support. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As a hard case POV Crusader? Have you thought about the issue? SkeenaR 08:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It just seems like you are doing your best to try and discredit anything that doesn't fit with your POV, for example the thing about using the word researcher among other stuff. Don't take it in a bad way, but all the edits seem to be decidedly one directional. Of course I'm open to anything you might have to say about my editing, and I would appreciate any constructive criticism but it seems really obvious that you will try and discredit even minor things to make it fit your POV while at the same time completely ignoring anything else. I hope that's not too forward, but that's what it seems like. SkeenaR 08:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You take a respectable position for sure, but I disagree with you about a whole bunch of stuff. It's late, but I'll be back tomorrow. Thanks for the reasoned argumentation dude. But before I go, I must point out that no WMD's were found. Ask yourself, whos interest does the corporate media really act in? The publics? The shareholders? Are politics involved? Is it as simple as you make it sound? SkeenaR 09:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Like you say, there are real threats we should be aware of. One of the dangers that you pointed out are people being deliberately distracted by the use of half-truths to acheive political objectives. The mainstream media completely and utterly fails miserably as a reliable source of information when it matters the most. Ask the average person if they are aware that the event that pushed public opinion in favour of the first Gulf War was a lie. And make no mistake, this was not an error. The baby incubator story- Nurse Nayirah In reality, Citizens for a Free Kuwait, organized by the exiled Kuwaiti government, had hired Hill & Knowlton to gain support for the US counterstrike. Hill & Knowlton was paid US $14 million by the US government for its help in promoting the Gulf War. It was not revealed until later that the girl was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. Frieda Construe-Nag and Myra Ancog Cooke, two maternity nurses in that ward, later said that they had never seen Nayirah there and that the baby-dumping had never happened.
As another example from an endless supply of deception: Lauri Fitz-Pegado, later Assistant Commerce Secretary, invented Nayirah's story and coached the girl. She also prepared Iraq-invasion testimony for the UN which was later discredited, and later promoted a book about the rescue of PFC Jessica Lynch during the 2003 Iraq War. [9] "They used me to symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things". She also stated "I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees. And that's the last I remember." She reported excellent treatment in Iraq, and that one person in the hospital even sang to her to help her feel at home.
Indeed, it seems that in some cases we have the same old behind the scenes propaganda pushers. [10] Call it what you will.
Did the media reort that these were deceptions on anywhere near the scale that they hyped them? No. And the effects could never be reversed.
The WMD story is a perfect parallel to Nurse Nayirah. The mainstream media acted as a mouthpiece for the administration. Tell me, when did the mainstream media reveal that the information about WMD's was "mistaken"? After you country was firmly entrenced in a bloodbath and a quagmire right?(the quagmire wasn't going to happen either). The media would have had to manufacture their own WMD's to report otherwise.
It would be a mistake to undermine the threat of terror. But my point is that the mainstream media is almost useless for dependable information when it is actually needed. I love America and I hope you are able to keep your freedom. Excercise your rights and stay vigilant. SkeenaR 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (if these these so-called reliable sources of information are not challenged, then freedom is already lost)
On which planet does reality shift to fit your version? I'll make up a list of journalist bullshit artists who still have their jobs for you and a list of people like the one mentioned above who get promotions for inventing this crap. One thing I will not be able to provide you with is a list of any problems that the media created that they managed to "self-correct". If you consider mainstream journalism superior when all they can do is say "oops, sorry" after they have convinced people to sacrifice everything on false pretenses, then our ideas of superior are vastly different. Are you making this up, or do you actually believe yourself? One thing I do agree with is that if there was such a huge conspiracy, it would probably be exposed eventually. I'm not sure how long it would take though, if it actually happened. SkeenaR 16:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) (sorry, I don't mean to sound so cantankerous)
Which reporter was that? I want to read her story. Never heard much about her. I remember hearing a lot about some threat in Iraq though. And how easy it would all be. All networks, all channels. At least all the ones I saw coming out of the U.S. anyway. This doesn't change anything I said about them being unreliable sources. SkeenaR 05:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WOT is up for vote now. Rangeley 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your prompt feedback. I don't feel you addressed my reasons for tagging the page, and these reasons are not affected by what happened last year (I have read up a lot of the past discussion, but I'm not at all convinced). On consideration, I feel the Cyrus Farivar page will eventually go as it is clearly:
The issue of CF 'criticising' WKP is simply begging the question, I wasn't aware that he did so. I note that my notability tag has been removed without any notability being added. I am determined to have a debate about this page on principle, and if notability is not discussed, will take it further. I'm also confident that if I take the discussion wider, I will find reasonable support for my stance. IMHO the majority of the 'keep' votes are based on weak arguments, and/or a lack of perception of the issues: the hoax, notability etc. Further, I am aware from my background reading that past raisings of this issue have disappeared. See Mrtourne's comments during the Aug '05 deletion discussion. I should add that I am also going to push for the related 'Greenlighting hoax' page to be merged to 'hoaxes'. Again, it is extremely trivial, and almost entirely self-referential. I would draw your attention also to the following comment by user Snowspinner (during Aug '05 deletion discussion). Quote: Keep. I don't care if it was vanity created, it is a notable subject. In fact, I will go a step further. This article is being kept. I do not care what the outcome of the usual VfD suspects straw poll is. The article is being kept, and I will undelete it until the arbcom or Jimbo tells me to stop. Snowspinner 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC) End quote
I note also that the announcement of the result of the Aug '05 deletion vote being a 'keep' was made by the same user Snowspinner. As a new user, I respectfully suggest that he made a bad counting error. My suggestion is that the page be deleted, and perhaps userfy-ed. Centrepull 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |