![]() | 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 is my user page, and I can do with it what I want. If that pisses-off unemployed pedantic teenagers, then all the better. If, on the other hand, you want to have a rational discussion with me about articles and edits, I will treat you kindly. Morton devonshire 23:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:[censored]Cowbell2.gif|frame|100px|right|Animation of Gene Frenkle ( Will Ferrell) in the "More Cowbell" sketch]] ...and thank you for reverting yourself on List of songs featuring cowbells. - Corbin Simpson 06:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Getting ready to nominate these for deletion -- violates WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:NPOV, WP:BALLS, WP:BEANS, and WP:OR. Morton devonshire 03:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You are invited to vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination) Morton devonshire 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sort of surprized that you asked me, I don't even think I've read the article before. But I did read it and the other opinions before I voted. I do not feel very strongly about it, however. Bubba73 (talk), 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. - I don't mind being asked for my input. Bubba73 (talk), 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think the BCC is impotent and kind of sad, but nonetheless notable because of media coverage and the notability of some of the people involved. I'm questioning why you're labelling it propaganda. I think there may be cases where articles are irredeemably POV, but it seems to me that this is an article which could be covered objectively. Шизомби 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
What basis are you using to decide who to notify about this AFD? Шизомби 03:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Morton, look I'm the one who added the Afd to the Crimes commison page. Please don't notify people about it (This might cause said article to be kept and votes thrown out). If they wish to vote on it they will look it up on the Afd list. Also If the delete fails (which I think it will now) I'm going to oush for the merger of it into the Not in Our Name article. Aeon 13:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
RE:The Attention template, AFAIK one doesn't have to be an admin to place it. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion which states "If you expect that the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia (possibly because the article itself is linked from some visible place outside Wikipedia), or if you notice this happening after the AfD page is created, you might want to insert the {{Template:AfdAnons}} template into it." That seems to be directed at all editors, not just admins. Шизомби 20:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
What, no invite? I guess I have to crash!!!! SkeenaR 03:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that people are very seriously taking this place as a field of Information warfare. I was alerted by Striver to most but not all of the Afd's I've participated in and voted KEEP in almost all of them. I didn't base my votes on politics though, I think pretty much every one has been notable and worth keeping. It looks like articles are always nominated for this because someone has an axe to grind. Hey, here's one, I don't know if you've seen it. Wikipedia Watch ( Daniel Brandt and the history is pretty interesting I think) Good luck by the way. Check your mail. SkeenaR 22:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no intention of becoming involved in any of that controversy, but thanks for the advice anyway. BTW, I have a hard time seeing this struggle as a war between Left and Right. Sometimes rightwingers see my ideas as leftist("You hate America don't you? Are you French SkeenaR? You pacifists are blah blah blah" and sometimes I hear from lefties things like "You intolerant redneck! No wonder there is so much war. Here, sniff this incense blah blah blah") People should get over this left/right thing. It seems like tunnel vision to me. Don't know why the mail didn't work. SkeenaR 02:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Morton, it's been awhile. Since there is no more Bush Crimes Commission we can replace it with Colbert. Here. Also, you think you could put a message in my email for me? I need to test it. Thanks man. Colbert with Bush [1] Colbert with Kristol [2] SkeenaR 21:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup, you are under attack, of course that is what happens when you enter a war zone. I see you have a lot of support as well. I don't know why the hell I can't get a message through to you by wikipedia, but I got your address now so I can go from there. Thanks for testing that for me. SkeenaR 23:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've spent some time on wikipedia trying to clean up the nonesense of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists (I gave up on this page, because it was me against a couple others who were adamant that a hanging google link was damning evidence of CIA conspiracy, and any evidence that contradicted their postion was just part of the CIA conspiracy and therefore shouldn't be in the article). That being said, your description of the 9/11 Truth Movement on the pseudoscience page was way POV:
While I myself would not hesitate to call them hacks when speaking of them, because there is no problem with myself having a POV, when we are editing wikipedia we have to try and not use language like that, because of the whole NPOV thing ya know?
As a general rule of thumb, if you can tell which side of the argument the editor stands by their contribution, it wasn' written in NPOV language. -- Brentt 01:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Morton, Morton..."non-expert investigators"? Holee! I flipped over to the "Truth" page and once again recognized your trademark before viewing the history. I don't know, I just don't know...what is it that you are so worried about? SkeenaR 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I've thought about the issue, and you might disagree with me, but I think that particular bunch has a lot more expertise than they are given credit for around here. For example, it is often pointed out that Prof. Steven E. Jones is a physicist and is researching a subject that would more appropriate for a structural engineer. That probably isn't entirely correct. On the other hand, the whole issue is multidimensional and someone like Andreas Von Buelow or Wayne Madsen for example is expertly qualified to comment on other aspects of the issue. I think "researchers questioning..." is adequate. It doesn't call them expert, amateur, brilliant or boneheaded. Does that make sense? SkeenaR 23:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
COOL! Aeon 01:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You're a smartass.
I like you.-- DCAnderson 00:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
NICE ONE DUDE Aeon 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I also kind of like the way the quote is written, because it gives you that proper "angry ranting and raving" feel you need for any good conspiracy theory.-- DCAnderson 20:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 17:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It's one of the best I've seen- userpage and discussion pages both. Love the tinfoil hats galore! -- FairNBalanced 21:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read its talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. For instance, your deletion of virtually all other legal opinion, was a vandal move. As you saw, there an AfD - if you want the article gone, vote for deletion. Metarhyme 20:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Bill 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I know Morton was just having some fun screwing around. SkeenaR 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This image is tagged under fair use, so you cannot use it on your User talk page. Currently, under Wikipedia policy for fair use, "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used [...] on user pages." You will need to remove the Jokermovie image that is on your User talk page. Copysan 05:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
= D SkeenaR 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why yes, I believe I am: http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/worldisflat.htm Have you read it? If not, I'll give you the highlights: The World IS Flat. Thanks to the internet and globalization as well as brilliant innovations in the democratization of knowledge (e.g. Wikipedia), it is no longer possible for governments to keep truth from the people.
I fundamentally believe that while you can break the law, you cannot break the laws of physics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtons_Laws_of_Gravity for an example of the type of law that the official account violates. I realize that Einstein's relativity proved that Newton's model was limited at atomic scales, but it still holds up against claims that 19 Al Quaeda terrorists brought down two skyscrapers with such force that the entire substructure dissapeared in a puff of 'War on Terrorism' logic.
The World IS flat and George Bush would NEVER send thousands of Americans to their deaths on the basis of a lie would he? (Oops, WMD!) 86.49.76.137 19:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[3]BUM, BUM, BUM!-- DCAnderson 15:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the articles you tagged with {{prod}} ( [4] [5] [6]) instead be submitted to normal AfD review? Per the deletion policy, {{prod}} is reserved for "uncontroversial articles". Certainly, these articles - and their proposed deletion - qualify as controversial. -- mtz206 ( talk) 19:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've got People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report AfD'd if you're interested.-- DCAnderson 05:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, looks like I'm your sockpuppet, or you're mine. We kind of look alike though...aside from the fact that I'm in my forties and as big as a house (6'7", 270). Try not to incite violence over at the 9/11 articles...those people are either misinformed, anti-U.S., prone to believing the impossible, or simply idiots. I think what set "truthseeker1234" of was your use of the word "baloney" in the edit summary, a word I often use, which I use as a polite way to not use my preferred word, which is "bullshit".-- MONGO 04:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Pro-Official POV Warriors/Inhalers Launch Encyclopedia Assault. SkeenaR
I'd seen that Indymedia article or blog or whatever is before and it was pretty interesting to look at. Of course I was in a really great mood that one day. [7] SkeenaR 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I seriously hope this is not the case, but these three difs worry me, the deletion of the reference to MDC on John Wayne especially. MDC is quite a notable band--they even have a bio on Allmusic. If I'm wrong, please say so.
What happened to "merciless editing"? How can you mercilessly edit by committee? Once again the Wiki-totalitarians make themselves felt. I guess it really should be "merciless editing unless the Left-wingers don't like it." That's much more accurate. PainMan 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
See [8] for an invitation from the "Truthseekers" to spread their 9/11 gospel to the pages of Wikipedia. Once more into the breach I go! Morton devonshire 01:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Morton. I have nommed What Really Happened for AFD (2nd attempt) Aeon 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey you might want to check out the AFD on What Really Happened, it has become a really puppetfest (To qoute Isotope) some of the comments made me fall out of my chair laughing Aeon 17:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
What Really Happened is gone! Closed as a delete on 4th of july! Aeon 20:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh boy! Snuffed! Maybe the website can be deleted too! Now the freedomfireworks! SkeenaR 05:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok.....I will Nom it tomarrow when I get to work. All my notes on this list is there. Aeon 02:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't mine at all. Linton ( talk • contribs) was the one who rewrote it; I just fixed a tiny grammatical error Linton had introduced. I agree that the rewrite was well done, though. — Caesura (t) 14:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, which you proposed for deletion, because the page you proposed for deletion was not an article. If you still feel the page should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to it, as proposed deletion is only for articles. Instead, consider using Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion for this page. In some cases, a speedy deletion criterion may apply. Thanks! — C.Fred ( talk) 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello! The terrorists have won is nomed for AfD Aeon Insane Ward 12:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
yo. Sha nnon duck talk 23:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently mediation does not improve the current conflict. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify you should you wish to comment there. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, added comment. Aeon Insane Ward 00:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop doing the voty thing on Afd [9]. It isn't a vote but your use of voting symbols will mislead other editors into the belief that it is. -- Tony Sidaway 01:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You have placed an RFD tag on 9/11 conspiracy theories foreknowledge. However, you never listed it at WP:RFD. Please properly complete your nomination per the instructions on that page. Also, the RFD tag is not supposed to replace the redirect. It is supposed to go above the redirect. Please fix that also. -- JLaTondre 01:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
yo? Sha nnon duck talk 04:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is a bunch of cruft that was made by a politics class Aeon Insane Ward 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
User routinely (when losing arguments) accuses everyone left and right of being sock/meatpuppets, but can never back up those claims. When pressed to do so, he "declines" citing info he can't disclose. If he harasses you with that AN:I him. It's a pattern. rootology 07:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you actually take a look at the talk page ? There seem to be a dispute between twose that want to blindly accept official position of the American government, and those that want neutral representation of the issue.
Do you claim that the dispute doesn't exist ? Taw 17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It should also be noted that a memorandum (recovered after the US liberation of Iraq) from one of Saddam Hussein's intelligence chiefs (he had quite a few, rather like Hitler) to the Butcher of Baghdad contains information that confirms that Saddam personally approved of aid to the 9/11 terrorists and that the Hussein government provided material aid to the 9/11 attackers. Coupled with the known visit of Mohammad Atta to Iraq, it's clear that Saddam was involved in 9/11. The absence of this information--along with the incontrovertible discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (source: NewsMax), clearly casts serious doubts on the so-called 9/11 Commission. (Source: an AP story.)
The 9/11 "Commission" is also unique in that did it's "work" during the war begun by the attacks. By contrast, the official investigation of the military's rank incompetence that allowed the Pearl Harbor attack did not take place unitl after WWII was over.
PainMan 02:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
While Hippocrite is troublesome, I think that the main problem is User: Zoe. She has exhibited abuses of power that threaten the way Wikipedia is supposed to function. She is the worst offender I have ever seen.
Please help me. I am asking you, as a favor, to review the First Family of the United States article as it was immediately following my last contribution, before entire families were reverted. I seem to be the target of some kind of vendetta, and recently it seems that all of my contributions have been swiftly deleted. There wasn't even a reason given; they just axed the Ford, Eisenhower, and Nixon families without explanation. There was no political bias in my wording, no controversial claims, nothing even remotely resembling a hoax. They even took down my pictures, all of which were public domain.
Please read this article and then write your honest opinion in its talk page. I have been writing with Wikipedia for over a year now but am seriously considering leaving because of this.
History21 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)History21
Hipocrite is giving me trouble again, this time on the Judy Feder website. I cited directly from her website, and stated in the article that that's what I was doing, so he has gotten rid of the whole thing because it may be a "copyright violation." Please look at that as well. Thank you for your help with First Family.
Oh, hi. Now they're trying to say that First Family of the United States is a hoax. They've labelled it and everything. Please look at that as well, and bring in some sane friends. I reported the incident on the administrators' board thing.
History21 04:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)History21
[10]...wild man, wild. SkeenaR 02:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
...that the lizards don't zap you with their third eyes. Thanks for your assistance in trying to instil some semblance of sanity and reality into that Problem-reaction-solution bollocks. I managed to edit the first paragraph, but just gave up after that and nominated the damned thing for deletion. Anyway, power to your elbows. Byrgenwulf 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't stay away! Wikipedia is addicting. two weeks should be more than enough to deal with some o f the stress I had. Thanks for droping me a line. Æon Insane Ward 16:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Went over there and posted, I would recomend leting Doc Tropics know to. Æon Insane Ward 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
hmmm can't think of anyone at this time, you might try ALphachimp Æon Insane Ward 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll check out the AfD, but I probably won't vote, for fear of allegations of meatpuppetry. I hope that you understand. Regards, alphaChimp laudare 00:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry but I can't use checkuser because I'm not an administrator. If you suspect that a user is using sockpuppets to influence afds then you should request a checkuser at the following page: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.-- Jersey Devil 01:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering why you labelled comments by DejahThoris ( contribs) and Mispeled ( contribs) as possible single-purpose accounts. The former user in particular has almost 200 varied edits stretching back to March 2006, which automatically seems to fall outside the prongs of Wikipedia:Single purpose account ("...a user account which is (or appears to be) used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles." The second user I can understand more, since s/he has very few edits, but even those stretch back to February 2006 and are on topics quite different from this one. Could you maybe rethink the adding of SPA notices to those users? Or is there some IP evidence there that I'm not seeing? Cheers! -- H·G ( words/ works) 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Robert M. Bowman article, I'd support an afd. But I'd first try and get rid of the James H. Fetzer and Kenneth L. Kuttler article. These tinfoilers are even less notable than that Bowman dude. -- Peephole 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morton, we should probably settle the issue of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article can co-exist with the September 11, 2001 attacks article. When you have moment, please drop by and discuss it on the talk pages.-- Thomas Basboll 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The reference you cite contains the following: "Clear Channel did not deny that such a list existed" The only thing that seems to be a myth is that Clear Channel banned the playing of these songs, rather than sent a list to its stations of songs it thought may be inappropriate in light of 9-11. The article's title List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks adequately conveys that these were not banned songs, but just deemed inappropriate in a list that corporate sent to the stations. Carlossuarez46 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have created Great President and Waffles (John Kerry). Immediately it is under fire. You've edited Bush and Kerry articles previously so I thought you might be interested. -- Tbeatty 19:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- LGagnon 18:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't done anything wrong; I have just given you the appropriate warning for your recent blanking of an article. Go ahead and report me if you want; it'll only get them to notice your vandalism. -- LGagnon 01:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yet another example of liberal browbeating. "If you don't agree with me, I'm going to tell on you!"
Where does this individual get off writing, "Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia"? Did he buy Wikipedia when I wasn't looking? Was he appointed Wikiemperor? The arrogance!
And yet more evidence why need you, Morton, and people like you to remove Left-Liberal propaganda.
Reading between the lines here isn't hard. What Ms/Mr Gagnon wants is for liberal propaganda to be untoucheable holy writ whilst having people who remove it labeled "vandals."
Isn't that the very definition of facsism? Or, more accurately, Bolshevism?
PainMan 16:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Paranoid fictions and partisan, religious and racial hate have no place beside factual articles (implementation of this by the Drive By media would mean its self-immolation; hardly a bad thing). By writing only the facts, the conspiracy nutburgers are automatically refuted.
After all, the famous Czarist secret police forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion does not warrant being displayed in full next to an article on Anti-Semitism.
This is even more relevant since many of the conspiracies "theories" revolve around the Mossad's having perpetrated the terror attacks ("Hey, guys! Let's attack our best ally, biggest financial supporter and main supplier of weapons and all to make terrorists look bad!"). E.g., "All of the Jews stayed home from work" or "All of the Jews were secretly warned (how? conference call? Mass email?) to stay away from the WTC on 9/11."
Listing such garbage on an equal footing with the facts only dignifies it.
PainMan 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
And compromise the integrity of pages as done on this this edit. Thanks! rootology ( T) 23:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
With regards to your comments on Talk:List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. -- LGagnon 00:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've found when people start bickering over what is or is not something, the best solution is to state everything you dispute, and give reasons. Ergo, I urge you to list on the talk page of the above article each and every reference you dispute the validity of (or rather the use of due to neutrality or other reasons), and give reasons. References for the reasons also comes in handy. I've found the following format to be useful:
*[reference] **[reasoning]
Then ask the other editors involved to argue under each and every reference you listed. You may find a number of them have to be kept, but by using the above, people are often required to admit the problems with a reference.
Another suggestion is that although the article, in my opinion, attempts to be NPOV, there is a lack of opposing references. Looking for these from reliable sources and adding them would help massively, and since they are from reliable sources, it would be hard to remove them.
I hope this helps to defuse the situation some for all sides involved. LinaMishima 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This is with regards to this edit. LinaMishima 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a question for you: Do you also go by the username Seabhcan? Do you sometimes go by the username Travb? Morton devonshire 17:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
May I remind you before I continue to sign your comments with ~~~~? It helps everyone follow the converstation. Now, to busines. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. [11], [12], [13] and [14] seem to me to lack civility and certainly do not assume good faith. You have been warned about this several times now. I see your more recient edits are trying to be more tactful, which is good.
For your information, I'm LinaMishima, and checking my contrib history will show that I am not a sockpuppet. It will also show that I believe in verification, and so far I have seen an article that is verified. It could, however, do with more sourced arguing against the current ones. As I have stated before, such sources can't be contested, and as such would make perfect additions to help with NPOV improvements LinaMishima 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Morton, just a question... why don't you contribute as well to make it NPOV with explained cited edits? rootology ( T) 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what everyone is complaining about. The entry for POV on the userpage is about content. There is no discussion of people as far as I can tell. The article itself is pushing a POV. That is a content concern, not a concern with editors. The goal is to reduce the POV content and POV pushing that occurs in articles. I doubt Morton believes he is going to change the POV of editors, but is an admirable goal to try and eradicate POV pushing in articles.-- Tbeatty 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You rv'd 4 edits by 3 users without explanation in edit summary. This is vandalism. Continued abuse will be reported. rootology ( T) 20:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America if you continue to revert other peoples edits without explaining your edits on the talk page, I see no other choice but to involve a third party mediator in this page.
I really want to work with you Morton, to build a better encyclopedia. Deleting other users contributions without any explanation can cause revert wars, which I think we all would like to avoid.
Please keep in mind, I even actively agreed with one of your deletions. If you explain your deletions, their is a better chance your deletions will remain deleted, thus far your deletions stay deleted for no more than 10 minutes, and unfortunatly your deletions without explaination have caused a lot of negative feelings, which I think we all would like to avoid.
We need your help and your knowledge on the page, I look forward to your continued contributions, and your explanations for any deletions on the talk page. Thanks for your hard work! Travb ( talk) 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
While I appreciate to an extent your efforts to keep conspiracy-mongers from disrupting Wikipedia, some of your edits over the past few days trouble me greatly. In particular, this one and this one, as well as any unexplained reverts, are unhelpful and may result in administrative action against you if such behavior continues. Please moderate your aggressiveness and take care to avoid personal attacks against other users. Andrew Levine 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You have been reported as being naughty on a few articles. [15]...maybe rethink labelling folks on your pages too...I mean, they can't help it I guess.-- MONGO 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you been to the Protest Warrior page recently? -- Tbeatty 06:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I am reporting you as a sockpuppet of User:TheOnlyChoice based on this edit: [16] Travb ( talk) 00:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Mortin, Travb is still trying to push the issue of you 'sock puppet' I would watch this closly and if you need an Advocate from the AMA tell me I will help to defend you. Æon Insane Ward 01:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I have requested that Alphachimp look into it so we can educate Travb on how dif work so this won't happen again. Æon Insane Ward 01:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The 'Sock Puppet' case against you was closed by Salmir. He agreed there was not evidence. Travb is going to request a Checkuser on you however. Thought you should know. Æon Insane Ward 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Morton being accused of sockpuppetry? The man who sees a sockpuppet under every bed? This is funny. Don't let 'em bring you down Morton. I'm sure you see the humor in this too. Just so long your nose is actually clean. You seem a bit off the head lately. SkeenaR 04:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently they were working on their conquest when a bolt of lightning nailed one of their letter couriers in Bavaria which led a prompt shakedown by the feds. The Common Account states that as a result of this incident they were disbanded, so no worries : ) Gee, and Weishaupt seemed like such a down to earth kind of guy. : D SkeenaR 06:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with the page 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. PizzaMargherita 23:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Morton, do us a favor and please be a bit more discretionary with your choices. I agree that cruft or articles for the sole purpose of pov promotion should be deleted, but I can't see how that Fetzer one was legitimate. I don't mean any offense, but I'm sure you realize this. Wasn't that a mistake or something? I mean if you thought it was biased, you could have tried to correct that instead of nominating a clearly worthy bio. Peace. SkeenaR 03:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Same here, no offense on my part either. What I'm trying to say is that he was already notable by Wikipedia policy to begin with. There is no way this article should be put up for deletion, especially nowadays. And incidentally, ask yourself this: would you care what was written about you in Wikipedia if, when your name was entered into Google, that link came up top ten? I think we can both see that he is only trying to correct innacuracies, not inject opinion. This is, at least outside of Wikipedia itself, thought by many people to be reliable information. I understand that if you consider yourself a strong republican or right-winger, that you would write in articles that you consider yourself knowledgeable and to try and correct errors. But we should be careful that we don't just start trying edit out any info regarding pov's we disagree with. Editing out pov is fine of course. The main reason I wrote though is just to point out that most of of the bios and articles don't qualify for deletion, so we should be careful what we nominate, otherwise it's kind of a waste of time. Thanks for listening. Cheers. SkeenaR 06:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! SkeenaR 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at the HTML on what I'm writing here--that's it.
rootology (
T) 18:36, 22 August 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. |
This is my user page, and I can do with it what I want. If that pisses-off unemployed pedantic teenagers, then all the better. If, on the other hand, you want to have a rational discussion with me about articles and edits, I will treat you kindly. Morton devonshire 23:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:[censored]Cowbell2.gif|frame|100px|right|Animation of Gene Frenkle ( Will Ferrell) in the "More Cowbell" sketch]] ...and thank you for reverting yourself on List of songs featuring cowbells. - Corbin Simpson 06:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Getting ready to nominate these for deletion -- violates WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:NPOV, WP:BALLS, WP:BEANS, and WP:OR. Morton devonshire 03:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You are invited to vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination) Morton devonshire 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sort of surprized that you asked me, I don't even think I've read the article before. But I did read it and the other opinions before I voted. I do not feel very strongly about it, however. Bubba73 (talk), 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. - I don't mind being asked for my input. Bubba73 (talk), 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think the BCC is impotent and kind of sad, but nonetheless notable because of media coverage and the notability of some of the people involved. I'm questioning why you're labelling it propaganda. I think there may be cases where articles are irredeemably POV, but it seems to me that this is an article which could be covered objectively. Шизомби 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
What basis are you using to decide who to notify about this AFD? Шизомби 03:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Morton, look I'm the one who added the Afd to the Crimes commison page. Please don't notify people about it (This might cause said article to be kept and votes thrown out). If they wish to vote on it they will look it up on the Afd list. Also If the delete fails (which I think it will now) I'm going to oush for the merger of it into the Not in Our Name article. Aeon 13:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
RE:The Attention template, AFAIK one doesn't have to be an admin to place it. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion which states "If you expect that the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia (possibly because the article itself is linked from some visible place outside Wikipedia), or if you notice this happening after the AfD page is created, you might want to insert the {{Template:AfdAnons}} template into it." That seems to be directed at all editors, not just admins. Шизомби 20:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
What, no invite? I guess I have to crash!!!! SkeenaR 03:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that people are very seriously taking this place as a field of Information warfare. I was alerted by Striver to most but not all of the Afd's I've participated in and voted KEEP in almost all of them. I didn't base my votes on politics though, I think pretty much every one has been notable and worth keeping. It looks like articles are always nominated for this because someone has an axe to grind. Hey, here's one, I don't know if you've seen it. Wikipedia Watch ( Daniel Brandt and the history is pretty interesting I think) Good luck by the way. Check your mail. SkeenaR 22:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no intention of becoming involved in any of that controversy, but thanks for the advice anyway. BTW, I have a hard time seeing this struggle as a war between Left and Right. Sometimes rightwingers see my ideas as leftist("You hate America don't you? Are you French SkeenaR? You pacifists are blah blah blah" and sometimes I hear from lefties things like "You intolerant redneck! No wonder there is so much war. Here, sniff this incense blah blah blah") People should get over this left/right thing. It seems like tunnel vision to me. Don't know why the mail didn't work. SkeenaR 02:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Morton, it's been awhile. Since there is no more Bush Crimes Commission we can replace it with Colbert. Here. Also, you think you could put a message in my email for me? I need to test it. Thanks man. Colbert with Bush [1] Colbert with Kristol [2] SkeenaR 21:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup, you are under attack, of course that is what happens when you enter a war zone. I see you have a lot of support as well. I don't know why the hell I can't get a message through to you by wikipedia, but I got your address now so I can go from there. Thanks for testing that for me. SkeenaR 23:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've spent some time on wikipedia trying to clean up the nonesense of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists (I gave up on this page, because it was me against a couple others who were adamant that a hanging google link was damning evidence of CIA conspiracy, and any evidence that contradicted their postion was just part of the CIA conspiracy and therefore shouldn't be in the article). That being said, your description of the 9/11 Truth Movement on the pseudoscience page was way POV:
While I myself would not hesitate to call them hacks when speaking of them, because there is no problem with myself having a POV, when we are editing wikipedia we have to try and not use language like that, because of the whole NPOV thing ya know?
As a general rule of thumb, if you can tell which side of the argument the editor stands by their contribution, it wasn' written in NPOV language. -- Brentt 01:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Morton, Morton..."non-expert investigators"? Holee! I flipped over to the "Truth" page and once again recognized your trademark before viewing the history. I don't know, I just don't know...what is it that you are so worried about? SkeenaR 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I've thought about the issue, and you might disagree with me, but I think that particular bunch has a lot more expertise than they are given credit for around here. For example, it is often pointed out that Prof. Steven E. Jones is a physicist and is researching a subject that would more appropriate for a structural engineer. That probably isn't entirely correct. On the other hand, the whole issue is multidimensional and someone like Andreas Von Buelow or Wayne Madsen for example is expertly qualified to comment on other aspects of the issue. I think "researchers questioning..." is adequate. It doesn't call them expert, amateur, brilliant or boneheaded. Does that make sense? SkeenaR 23:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
COOL! Aeon 01:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You're a smartass.
I like you.-- DCAnderson 00:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
NICE ONE DUDE Aeon 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I also kind of like the way the quote is written, because it gives you that proper "angry ranting and raving" feel you need for any good conspiracy theory.-- DCAnderson 20:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 17:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It's one of the best I've seen- userpage and discussion pages both. Love the tinfoil hats galore! -- FairNBalanced 21:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read its talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. For instance, your deletion of virtually all other legal opinion, was a vandal move. As you saw, there an AfD - if you want the article gone, vote for deletion. Metarhyme 20:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Bill 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I know Morton was just having some fun screwing around. SkeenaR 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This image is tagged under fair use, so you cannot use it on your User talk page. Currently, under Wikipedia policy for fair use, "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used [...] on user pages." You will need to remove the Jokermovie image that is on your User talk page. Copysan 05:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
= D SkeenaR 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why yes, I believe I am: http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/worldisflat.htm Have you read it? If not, I'll give you the highlights: The World IS Flat. Thanks to the internet and globalization as well as brilliant innovations in the democratization of knowledge (e.g. Wikipedia), it is no longer possible for governments to keep truth from the people.
I fundamentally believe that while you can break the law, you cannot break the laws of physics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtons_Laws_of_Gravity for an example of the type of law that the official account violates. I realize that Einstein's relativity proved that Newton's model was limited at atomic scales, but it still holds up against claims that 19 Al Quaeda terrorists brought down two skyscrapers with such force that the entire substructure dissapeared in a puff of 'War on Terrorism' logic.
The World IS flat and George Bush would NEVER send thousands of Americans to their deaths on the basis of a lie would he? (Oops, WMD!) 86.49.76.137 19:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[3]BUM, BUM, BUM!-- DCAnderson 15:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the articles you tagged with {{prod}} ( [4] [5] [6]) instead be submitted to normal AfD review? Per the deletion policy, {{prod}} is reserved for "uncontroversial articles". Certainly, these articles - and their proposed deletion - qualify as controversial. -- mtz206 ( talk) 19:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've got People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report AfD'd if you're interested.-- DCAnderson 05:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, looks like I'm your sockpuppet, or you're mine. We kind of look alike though...aside from the fact that I'm in my forties and as big as a house (6'7", 270). Try not to incite violence over at the 9/11 articles...those people are either misinformed, anti-U.S., prone to believing the impossible, or simply idiots. I think what set "truthseeker1234" of was your use of the word "baloney" in the edit summary, a word I often use, which I use as a polite way to not use my preferred word, which is "bullshit".-- MONGO 04:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Pro-Official POV Warriors/Inhalers Launch Encyclopedia Assault. SkeenaR
I'd seen that Indymedia article or blog or whatever is before and it was pretty interesting to look at. Of course I was in a really great mood that one day. [7] SkeenaR 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I seriously hope this is not the case, but these three difs worry me, the deletion of the reference to MDC on John Wayne especially. MDC is quite a notable band--they even have a bio on Allmusic. If I'm wrong, please say so.
What happened to "merciless editing"? How can you mercilessly edit by committee? Once again the Wiki-totalitarians make themselves felt. I guess it really should be "merciless editing unless the Left-wingers don't like it." That's much more accurate. PainMan 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
See [8] for an invitation from the "Truthseekers" to spread their 9/11 gospel to the pages of Wikipedia. Once more into the breach I go! Morton devonshire 01:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Morton. I have nommed What Really Happened for AFD (2nd attempt) Aeon 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey you might want to check out the AFD on What Really Happened, it has become a really puppetfest (To qoute Isotope) some of the comments made me fall out of my chair laughing Aeon 17:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
What Really Happened is gone! Closed as a delete on 4th of july! Aeon 20:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh boy! Snuffed! Maybe the website can be deleted too! Now the freedomfireworks! SkeenaR 05:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok.....I will Nom it tomarrow when I get to work. All my notes on this list is there. Aeon 02:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't mine at all. Linton ( talk • contribs) was the one who rewrote it; I just fixed a tiny grammatical error Linton had introduced. I agree that the rewrite was well done, though. — Caesura (t) 14:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, which you proposed for deletion, because the page you proposed for deletion was not an article. If you still feel the page should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to it, as proposed deletion is only for articles. Instead, consider using Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion for this page. In some cases, a speedy deletion criterion may apply. Thanks! — C.Fred ( talk) 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello! The terrorists have won is nomed for AfD Aeon Insane Ward 12:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
yo. Sha nnon duck talk 23:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently mediation does not improve the current conflict. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify you should you wish to comment there. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, added comment. Aeon Insane Ward 00:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop doing the voty thing on Afd [9]. It isn't a vote but your use of voting symbols will mislead other editors into the belief that it is. -- Tony Sidaway 01:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You have placed an RFD tag on 9/11 conspiracy theories foreknowledge. However, you never listed it at WP:RFD. Please properly complete your nomination per the instructions on that page. Also, the RFD tag is not supposed to replace the redirect. It is supposed to go above the redirect. Please fix that also. -- JLaTondre 01:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
yo? Sha nnon duck talk 04:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is a bunch of cruft that was made by a politics class Aeon Insane Ward 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
User routinely (when losing arguments) accuses everyone left and right of being sock/meatpuppets, but can never back up those claims. When pressed to do so, he "declines" citing info he can't disclose. If he harasses you with that AN:I him. It's a pattern. rootology 07:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you actually take a look at the talk page ? There seem to be a dispute between twose that want to blindly accept official position of the American government, and those that want neutral representation of the issue.
Do you claim that the dispute doesn't exist ? Taw 17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It should also be noted that a memorandum (recovered after the US liberation of Iraq) from one of Saddam Hussein's intelligence chiefs (he had quite a few, rather like Hitler) to the Butcher of Baghdad contains information that confirms that Saddam personally approved of aid to the 9/11 terrorists and that the Hussein government provided material aid to the 9/11 attackers. Coupled with the known visit of Mohammad Atta to Iraq, it's clear that Saddam was involved in 9/11. The absence of this information--along with the incontrovertible discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (source: NewsMax), clearly casts serious doubts on the so-called 9/11 Commission. (Source: an AP story.)
The 9/11 "Commission" is also unique in that did it's "work" during the war begun by the attacks. By contrast, the official investigation of the military's rank incompetence that allowed the Pearl Harbor attack did not take place unitl after WWII was over.
PainMan 02:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
While Hippocrite is troublesome, I think that the main problem is User: Zoe. She has exhibited abuses of power that threaten the way Wikipedia is supposed to function. She is the worst offender I have ever seen.
Please help me. I am asking you, as a favor, to review the First Family of the United States article as it was immediately following my last contribution, before entire families were reverted. I seem to be the target of some kind of vendetta, and recently it seems that all of my contributions have been swiftly deleted. There wasn't even a reason given; they just axed the Ford, Eisenhower, and Nixon families without explanation. There was no political bias in my wording, no controversial claims, nothing even remotely resembling a hoax. They even took down my pictures, all of which were public domain.
Please read this article and then write your honest opinion in its talk page. I have been writing with Wikipedia for over a year now but am seriously considering leaving because of this.
History21 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)History21
Hipocrite is giving me trouble again, this time on the Judy Feder website. I cited directly from her website, and stated in the article that that's what I was doing, so he has gotten rid of the whole thing because it may be a "copyright violation." Please look at that as well. Thank you for your help with First Family.
Oh, hi. Now they're trying to say that First Family of the United States is a hoax. They've labelled it and everything. Please look at that as well, and bring in some sane friends. I reported the incident on the administrators' board thing.
History21 04:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)History21
[10]...wild man, wild. SkeenaR 02:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
...that the lizards don't zap you with their third eyes. Thanks for your assistance in trying to instil some semblance of sanity and reality into that Problem-reaction-solution bollocks. I managed to edit the first paragraph, but just gave up after that and nominated the damned thing for deletion. Anyway, power to your elbows. Byrgenwulf 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't stay away! Wikipedia is addicting. two weeks should be more than enough to deal with some o f the stress I had. Thanks for droping me a line. Æon Insane Ward 16:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Went over there and posted, I would recomend leting Doc Tropics know to. Æon Insane Ward 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
hmmm can't think of anyone at this time, you might try ALphachimp Æon Insane Ward 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll check out the AfD, but I probably won't vote, for fear of allegations of meatpuppetry. I hope that you understand. Regards, alphaChimp laudare 00:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry but I can't use checkuser because I'm not an administrator. If you suspect that a user is using sockpuppets to influence afds then you should request a checkuser at the following page: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.-- Jersey Devil 01:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering why you labelled comments by DejahThoris ( contribs) and Mispeled ( contribs) as possible single-purpose accounts. The former user in particular has almost 200 varied edits stretching back to March 2006, which automatically seems to fall outside the prongs of Wikipedia:Single purpose account ("...a user account which is (or appears to be) used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles." The second user I can understand more, since s/he has very few edits, but even those stretch back to February 2006 and are on topics quite different from this one. Could you maybe rethink the adding of SPA notices to those users? Or is there some IP evidence there that I'm not seeing? Cheers! -- H·G ( words/ works) 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Robert M. Bowman article, I'd support an afd. But I'd first try and get rid of the James H. Fetzer and Kenneth L. Kuttler article. These tinfoilers are even less notable than that Bowman dude. -- Peephole 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morton, we should probably settle the issue of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article can co-exist with the September 11, 2001 attacks article. When you have moment, please drop by and discuss it on the talk pages.-- Thomas Basboll 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The reference you cite contains the following: "Clear Channel did not deny that such a list existed" The only thing that seems to be a myth is that Clear Channel banned the playing of these songs, rather than sent a list to its stations of songs it thought may be inappropriate in light of 9-11. The article's title List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks adequately conveys that these were not banned songs, but just deemed inappropriate in a list that corporate sent to the stations. Carlossuarez46 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have created Great President and Waffles (John Kerry). Immediately it is under fire. You've edited Bush and Kerry articles previously so I thought you might be interested. -- Tbeatty 19:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- LGagnon 18:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't done anything wrong; I have just given you the appropriate warning for your recent blanking of an article. Go ahead and report me if you want; it'll only get them to notice your vandalism. -- LGagnon 01:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yet another example of liberal browbeating. "If you don't agree with me, I'm going to tell on you!"
Where does this individual get off writing, "Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia"? Did he buy Wikipedia when I wasn't looking? Was he appointed Wikiemperor? The arrogance!
And yet more evidence why need you, Morton, and people like you to remove Left-Liberal propaganda.
Reading between the lines here isn't hard. What Ms/Mr Gagnon wants is for liberal propaganda to be untoucheable holy writ whilst having people who remove it labeled "vandals."
Isn't that the very definition of facsism? Or, more accurately, Bolshevism?
PainMan 16:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Paranoid fictions and partisan, religious and racial hate have no place beside factual articles (implementation of this by the Drive By media would mean its self-immolation; hardly a bad thing). By writing only the facts, the conspiracy nutburgers are automatically refuted.
After all, the famous Czarist secret police forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion does not warrant being displayed in full next to an article on Anti-Semitism.
This is even more relevant since many of the conspiracies "theories" revolve around the Mossad's having perpetrated the terror attacks ("Hey, guys! Let's attack our best ally, biggest financial supporter and main supplier of weapons and all to make terrorists look bad!"). E.g., "All of the Jews stayed home from work" or "All of the Jews were secretly warned (how? conference call? Mass email?) to stay away from the WTC on 9/11."
Listing such garbage on an equal footing with the facts only dignifies it.
PainMan 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
And compromise the integrity of pages as done on this this edit. Thanks! rootology ( T) 23:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
With regards to your comments on Talk:List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. -- LGagnon 00:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've found when people start bickering over what is or is not something, the best solution is to state everything you dispute, and give reasons. Ergo, I urge you to list on the talk page of the above article each and every reference you dispute the validity of (or rather the use of due to neutrality or other reasons), and give reasons. References for the reasons also comes in handy. I've found the following format to be useful:
*[reference] **[reasoning]
Then ask the other editors involved to argue under each and every reference you listed. You may find a number of them have to be kept, but by using the above, people are often required to admit the problems with a reference.
Another suggestion is that although the article, in my opinion, attempts to be NPOV, there is a lack of opposing references. Looking for these from reliable sources and adding them would help massively, and since they are from reliable sources, it would be hard to remove them.
I hope this helps to defuse the situation some for all sides involved. LinaMishima 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This is with regards to this edit. LinaMishima 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a question for you: Do you also go by the username Seabhcan? Do you sometimes go by the username Travb? Morton devonshire 17:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
May I remind you before I continue to sign your comments with ~~~~? It helps everyone follow the converstation. Now, to busines. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. [11], [12], [13] and [14] seem to me to lack civility and certainly do not assume good faith. You have been warned about this several times now. I see your more recient edits are trying to be more tactful, which is good.
For your information, I'm LinaMishima, and checking my contrib history will show that I am not a sockpuppet. It will also show that I believe in verification, and so far I have seen an article that is verified. It could, however, do with more sourced arguing against the current ones. As I have stated before, such sources can't be contested, and as such would make perfect additions to help with NPOV improvements LinaMishima 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Morton, just a question... why don't you contribute as well to make it NPOV with explained cited edits? rootology ( T) 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what everyone is complaining about. The entry for POV on the userpage is about content. There is no discussion of people as far as I can tell. The article itself is pushing a POV. That is a content concern, not a concern with editors. The goal is to reduce the POV content and POV pushing that occurs in articles. I doubt Morton believes he is going to change the POV of editors, but is an admirable goal to try and eradicate POV pushing in articles.-- Tbeatty 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You rv'd 4 edits by 3 users without explanation in edit summary. This is vandalism. Continued abuse will be reported. rootology ( T) 20:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America if you continue to revert other peoples edits without explaining your edits on the talk page, I see no other choice but to involve a third party mediator in this page.
I really want to work with you Morton, to build a better encyclopedia. Deleting other users contributions without any explanation can cause revert wars, which I think we all would like to avoid.
Please keep in mind, I even actively agreed with one of your deletions. If you explain your deletions, their is a better chance your deletions will remain deleted, thus far your deletions stay deleted for no more than 10 minutes, and unfortunatly your deletions without explaination have caused a lot of negative feelings, which I think we all would like to avoid.
We need your help and your knowledge on the page, I look forward to your continued contributions, and your explanations for any deletions on the talk page. Thanks for your hard work! Travb ( talk) 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
While I appreciate to an extent your efforts to keep conspiracy-mongers from disrupting Wikipedia, some of your edits over the past few days trouble me greatly. In particular, this one and this one, as well as any unexplained reverts, are unhelpful and may result in administrative action against you if such behavior continues. Please moderate your aggressiveness and take care to avoid personal attacks against other users. Andrew Levine 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You have been reported as being naughty on a few articles. [15]...maybe rethink labelling folks on your pages too...I mean, they can't help it I guess.-- MONGO 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you been to the Protest Warrior page recently? -- Tbeatty 06:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I am reporting you as a sockpuppet of User:TheOnlyChoice based on this edit: [16] Travb ( talk) 00:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Mortin, Travb is still trying to push the issue of you 'sock puppet' I would watch this closly and if you need an Advocate from the AMA tell me I will help to defend you. Æon Insane Ward 01:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I have requested that Alphachimp look into it so we can educate Travb on how dif work so this won't happen again. Æon Insane Ward 01:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The 'Sock Puppet' case against you was closed by Salmir. He agreed there was not evidence. Travb is going to request a Checkuser on you however. Thought you should know. Æon Insane Ward 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Morton being accused of sockpuppetry? The man who sees a sockpuppet under every bed? This is funny. Don't let 'em bring you down Morton. I'm sure you see the humor in this too. Just so long your nose is actually clean. You seem a bit off the head lately. SkeenaR 04:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently they were working on their conquest when a bolt of lightning nailed one of their letter couriers in Bavaria which led a prompt shakedown by the feds. The Common Account states that as a result of this incident they were disbanded, so no worries : ) Gee, and Weishaupt seemed like such a down to earth kind of guy. : D SkeenaR 06:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with the page 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. PizzaMargherita 23:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Morton, do us a favor and please be a bit more discretionary with your choices. I agree that cruft or articles for the sole purpose of pov promotion should be deleted, but I can't see how that Fetzer one was legitimate. I don't mean any offense, but I'm sure you realize this. Wasn't that a mistake or something? I mean if you thought it was biased, you could have tried to correct that instead of nominating a clearly worthy bio. Peace. SkeenaR 03:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Same here, no offense on my part either. What I'm trying to say is that he was already notable by Wikipedia policy to begin with. There is no way this article should be put up for deletion, especially nowadays. And incidentally, ask yourself this: would you care what was written about you in Wikipedia if, when your name was entered into Google, that link came up top ten? I think we can both see that he is only trying to correct innacuracies, not inject opinion. This is, at least outside of Wikipedia itself, thought by many people to be reliable information. I understand that if you consider yourself a strong republican or right-winger, that you would write in articles that you consider yourself knowledgeable and to try and correct errors. But we should be careful that we don't just start trying edit out any info regarding pov's we disagree with. Editing out pov is fine of course. The main reason I wrote though is just to point out that most of of the bios and articles don't qualify for deletion, so we should be careful what we nominate, otherwise it's kind of a waste of time. Thanks for listening. Cheers. SkeenaR 06:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! SkeenaR 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at the HTML on what I'm writing here--that's it.
rootology (
T) 18:36, 22 August 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. |