![]() | 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. |
Can you work this in? Claims Bill Clinton organized the WTC bombings to justify the war in Iraq. This is major tin-foil hat stuff. But not any worse than the stuff in the other conspiracy nut articles you've been battling. Lot's of stuff in there. -- Tbeatty 05:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Much as I agree in principle with you, you won't win this one. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and going after the other forks like Prisonplanet.com. CRGreathouse ( talk | contribs) 03:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem might not be so much that the amount of information in those 12 articles is not commensurate with Jones' contribution to the sum of human knowledge, but the difficulty laymen face in navigating through them and visualising the relationships among them. I've put together an innovative information display and retrieval system that should help the reader in serach of illumination. Feel free to add links I may have overlooked. If an article gets deleted, just pull it. Tom Harrison Talk 19:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That's nice work. SkeenaR 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Rmt2m 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I gave them the North Korea propaganda link but I guess they didn't see the humor in it. -- Tbeatty 05:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that the North Korea Times may not be a reliable source. I think I agree with you after all. However, next time please either discuss before removing, or at least leave a more helpful and maybe less scornful comment than "as if". Thanks. By the way, I have reviewed the section, I would be interested to hear your impartial comments. PizzaMargherita 07:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least my accusations are well-founded... PizzaMargherita 08:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea where I called you that, to prompt your message. If you're referring to the ArbCom evidence for the 9//11 stuff, I just laid out exactly how I found that stuff initially, via your own lists of articles. I really disagree with a lot of what appear on the surface to be your political and some ideological views, but I respect your skills, Mr. Holmes (or is it Moriarty? I guess it depends on who is on which side). If you're referring to the Jones template mess today, that just wasn't cool. Encyclopedia main space content just doesn't get messed with, even in good spirits/humor. If you're not talking about either of them I'm 100% lost. rootology ( T) 08:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I just came across Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hands_Off_Venezuela, a month too late. Please do feel free to leave a note on my talk page if I miss something important again. Thanks, Sandy 02:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the Alexa stats should be replaced with just a link to the site. No data provided because it is impossible to avoid OR problems with selecting what data to provide. Also, the data is constantly changing. No reputable source has interpreted any meaning to the data so it is not admissable. But I am okay with linking to the site. -- Tbeatty 01:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Saw your name a couple of places, and dropped by to check you out. It seems we should be natural allies. Keep up the good work, yo. Crockspot 18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.
Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.
I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 17:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes Morton it is all rather amusing;). Admit it was a goody, right? Right there from the start… and people will read it… it was fun, honestly. Hope we'll continue after weekend, have good one… - Lovelight
Per WP:ASR, please do not create articles that are redirects to non-encyclopedic content like you did with Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thank you. -- Cyde Weys 02:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Should all have this as a reference with appropriate quotes for whatever is challenged. -- Tbeatty 08:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation |
---|
Dear Morton devonshire/Archive03: Hello, my name is Wikizach; I'm a mediator from the
Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, Wiki eZach| talk 16:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
Hi Morton. I can't access the link for that Ross interview. Did Jones say that he was looking up stuff on the computer and doing back-of-the-envelope figuring? What I'm wondering is if there is any editorializing in that passage. I'm reluctant to change anything in the paragraph to appease Bov because I think the attempt to move it into the criticism section was just a back-door way into forcing it to be edited. I don't find that sporting. I do, however, want to make sure that the passage is accurately reflecting the source. So, whats up? Cheers, Levi P. 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Well, that being the case, I think the interview is definitely notable as it adds pertinent info to his so-called "hypothesis". Perhaps we could modify the "back of the envelope" stuff to a phrase that retains the idea that he was unprepared but is not as likely to be objected to by other editors. Frankly, this whole move-it-into-criticism-thing has pissed me off as it seems utterly disingenuous and stupid. You have any suggestions? Levi P. 00:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Information Clearing House. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nantonos 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Look, he's done it again. Why bother nominating an article for deletion (and losing) when you you can blank it?
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.
PizzaMargherita 09:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
How dare so many people accuse you of being a vandal? Perhaps because you are, no matter how many times you deny that. PizzaMargherita 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Blanking entire sections or reverting without discussing first (let alone without edit comments) is not the way things work around here. Morton has been guilty of vandalism more than once, and this pattern of unhelpful reverts and blankings is not very civil, either. PizzaMargherita 07:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
People are not warning you for the sake of warning. They are warning you because you are being incivil. PizzaMargherita 21:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for another example of a witty and mature conversation. PizzaMargherita 05:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
My accusations are based on facts. You can either defend yourself or ignore me, but you can't have it both ways. PizzaMargherita 17:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Looky look at what the tinfoilers came up with today: here. -- Peephole 17:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You'll like this new addition.-- Tbeatty 18:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is more of a battleground these days, than an encyclopedia...what with all the POV pushing that is going on. Your comments always make me smile....thanks.-- MONGO 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Just letting you know, I nominated some of your favorite articles for deletion. -- Peephole 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
More:
Can't....stop.....:
you're my favorite editor— (Kepin) RING THE LIBERTY BELL 19:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You may want to watch John Kerry for a while. Gamaliel has alerted "the crew" about some edits he doesn't like. I suspect the current version will come under attack momentarily. I didn't write it but I did source some claims that Gamaliel removed. -- Tbeatty 01:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This needs to get out more. Edit section to get wiki version. I only know of Valerie Plame biography and Aluminum Tubes. It doesn't belong in the "Plame Affair" article since it's not related to uranium. I am not sure of any other articles.
David Corn of The Nation revealed that Plame worked for the CIA on determining the use of Aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq. [1]. All CIA analysts prior to the Iraq invasion believed that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge for nuclear enrichment. [2] [3]
-- Tbeatty 06:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No one has voted on this one, needs input. [3] -- Aude ( talk contribs as tagcloud) 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize he was a Cold Fusion clown too. Cold Fusion and now this. What a maroon.-- Tbeatty 22:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Do I even know you? You might want to read WP:POINT.-- csloat 19:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
All ready on them, been commenting delete to my hearts content! Æon Insanity Now! EA! 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morton,
I've been getting a little overwhelmed by the number of 9/11 conspiracy AfDs myself so I created a list: User:GabrielF/911TMCruft. You may have not have seen some of the early ones. Hope this is helpful. GabrielF 01:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we have BYU and University of Colorado and I thought some place in Michigan as well as the NIST. -- Tbeatty 04:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about User:GabrielF/911TMCruft! I have just added a new bit of cruft to that list myself. -- Aaron 02:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. I might be more worried if I was an american academic or if I was in a different field of research but I highly doubt that it's worth any nutjob's time to come after me. If they do, well in the immortal words of W. "bring it on!". Pascal.Tesson 15:38, 14 September 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. |
Can you work this in? Claims Bill Clinton organized the WTC bombings to justify the war in Iraq. This is major tin-foil hat stuff. But not any worse than the stuff in the other conspiracy nut articles you've been battling. Lot's of stuff in there. -- Tbeatty 05:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Much as I agree in principle with you, you won't win this one. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and going after the other forks like Prisonplanet.com. CRGreathouse ( talk | contribs) 03:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem might not be so much that the amount of information in those 12 articles is not commensurate with Jones' contribution to the sum of human knowledge, but the difficulty laymen face in navigating through them and visualising the relationships among them. I've put together an innovative information display and retrieval system that should help the reader in serach of illumination. Feel free to add links I may have overlooked. If an article gets deleted, just pull it. Tom Harrison Talk 19:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That's nice work. SkeenaR 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Rmt2m 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I gave them the North Korea propaganda link but I guess they didn't see the humor in it. -- Tbeatty 05:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that the North Korea Times may not be a reliable source. I think I agree with you after all. However, next time please either discuss before removing, or at least leave a more helpful and maybe less scornful comment than "as if". Thanks. By the way, I have reviewed the section, I would be interested to hear your impartial comments. PizzaMargherita 07:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least my accusations are well-founded... PizzaMargherita 08:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea where I called you that, to prompt your message. If you're referring to the ArbCom evidence for the 9//11 stuff, I just laid out exactly how I found that stuff initially, via your own lists of articles. I really disagree with a lot of what appear on the surface to be your political and some ideological views, but I respect your skills, Mr. Holmes (or is it Moriarty? I guess it depends on who is on which side). If you're referring to the Jones template mess today, that just wasn't cool. Encyclopedia main space content just doesn't get messed with, even in good spirits/humor. If you're not talking about either of them I'm 100% lost. rootology ( T) 08:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I just came across Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hands_Off_Venezuela, a month too late. Please do feel free to leave a note on my talk page if I miss something important again. Thanks, Sandy 02:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the Alexa stats should be replaced with just a link to the site. No data provided because it is impossible to avoid OR problems with selecting what data to provide. Also, the data is constantly changing. No reputable source has interpreted any meaning to the data so it is not admissable. But I am okay with linking to the site. -- Tbeatty 01:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Saw your name a couple of places, and dropped by to check you out. It seems we should be natural allies. Keep up the good work, yo. Crockspot 18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.
Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.
I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 17:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes Morton it is all rather amusing;). Admit it was a goody, right? Right there from the start… and people will read it… it was fun, honestly. Hope we'll continue after weekend, have good one… - Lovelight
Per WP:ASR, please do not create articles that are redirects to non-encyclopedic content like you did with Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thank you. -- Cyde Weys 02:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Should all have this as a reference with appropriate quotes for whatever is challenged. -- Tbeatty 08:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation |
---|
Dear Morton devonshire/Archive03: Hello, my name is Wikizach; I'm a mediator from the
Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, Wiki eZach| talk 16:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
Hi Morton. I can't access the link for that Ross interview. Did Jones say that he was looking up stuff on the computer and doing back-of-the-envelope figuring? What I'm wondering is if there is any editorializing in that passage. I'm reluctant to change anything in the paragraph to appease Bov because I think the attempt to move it into the criticism section was just a back-door way into forcing it to be edited. I don't find that sporting. I do, however, want to make sure that the passage is accurately reflecting the source. So, whats up? Cheers, Levi P. 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Well, that being the case, I think the interview is definitely notable as it adds pertinent info to his so-called "hypothesis". Perhaps we could modify the "back of the envelope" stuff to a phrase that retains the idea that he was unprepared but is not as likely to be objected to by other editors. Frankly, this whole move-it-into-criticism-thing has pissed me off as it seems utterly disingenuous and stupid. You have any suggestions? Levi P. 00:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Information Clearing House. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nantonos 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Look, he's done it again. Why bother nominating an article for deletion (and losing) when you you can blank it?
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.
PizzaMargherita 09:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
How dare so many people accuse you of being a vandal? Perhaps because you are, no matter how many times you deny that. PizzaMargherita 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Blanking entire sections or reverting without discussing first (let alone without edit comments) is not the way things work around here. Morton has been guilty of vandalism more than once, and this pattern of unhelpful reverts and blankings is not very civil, either. PizzaMargherita 07:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
People are not warning you for the sake of warning. They are warning you because you are being incivil. PizzaMargherita 21:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for another example of a witty and mature conversation. PizzaMargherita 05:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
My accusations are based on facts. You can either defend yourself or ignore me, but you can't have it both ways. PizzaMargherita 17:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Looky look at what the tinfoilers came up with today: here. -- Peephole 17:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You'll like this new addition.-- Tbeatty 18:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is more of a battleground these days, than an encyclopedia...what with all the POV pushing that is going on. Your comments always make me smile....thanks.-- MONGO 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Just letting you know, I nominated some of your favorite articles for deletion. -- Peephole 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
More:
Can't....stop.....:
you're my favorite editor— (Kepin) RING THE LIBERTY BELL 19:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You may want to watch John Kerry for a while. Gamaliel has alerted "the crew" about some edits he doesn't like. I suspect the current version will come under attack momentarily. I didn't write it but I did source some claims that Gamaliel removed. -- Tbeatty 01:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This needs to get out more. Edit section to get wiki version. I only know of Valerie Plame biography and Aluminum Tubes. It doesn't belong in the "Plame Affair" article since it's not related to uranium. I am not sure of any other articles.
David Corn of The Nation revealed that Plame worked for the CIA on determining the use of Aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq. [1]. All CIA analysts prior to the Iraq invasion believed that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge for nuclear enrichment. [2] [3]
-- Tbeatty 06:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No one has voted on this one, needs input. [3] -- Aude ( talk contribs as tagcloud) 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize he was a Cold Fusion clown too. Cold Fusion and now this. What a maroon.-- Tbeatty 22:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Do I even know you? You might want to read WP:POINT.-- csloat 19:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
All ready on them, been commenting delete to my hearts content! Æon Insanity Now! EA! 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morton,
I've been getting a little overwhelmed by the number of 9/11 conspiracy AfDs myself so I created a list: User:GabrielF/911TMCruft. You may have not have seen some of the early ones. Hope this is helpful. GabrielF 01:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we have BYU and University of Colorado and I thought some place in Michigan as well as the NIST. -- Tbeatty 04:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about User:GabrielF/911TMCruft! I have just added a new bit of cruft to that list myself. -- Aaron 02:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. I might be more worried if I was an american academic or if I was in a different field of research but I highly doubt that it's worth any nutjob's time to come after me. If they do, well in the immortal words of W. "bring it on!". Pascal.Tesson 15:38, 14 September 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. |