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.

Actually, I admire Mumia's aplomb for public relations. He's managed to create an international cultural movement of Mumia-supporters that any PR hack would die for, all from a jail-cell. I think the guy should be studied as a text-book example of Guerrilla PR -- he's magic.

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[ [1]] -- 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.

[[Image:[censored]Free Mumia.jpg|thumb|100px|left|Mumia:Used by the Left]]

Over the last few days, I've discovered that the supporters of Mumia are cult-like in their support and defense of Mumia and his public image. As such, I doubt very much that the article Fry Mumia will survive. The response has been incredible, and instructive, and I've learned something about my fellow-man -- that he's willing to elevate to sainthood even the most common criminal, so long as his image can be coopted to advance their own misguided vision. So be it. The article will be deleted because of the Cult of Mumia is obsessed with cleansing his public persona, but no amount of public cleansing will change the fact that Wesley Cook aka Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of murder of a police officer, and will likely die in prison. The larger issue is the cultural phenomenen of the FM movement, which is interesting in its self, and worth exploring and commenting upon -- that's the purpose of the article. So have at it, and feel free to contribute to the article. Thanks. Morton devonshire 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Morton, you may want to review WP:NPA. — Viriditas | Talk 04:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected the page to Free Mumia Movement, in an effort to try to find some balance. My hope is that editors will discuss the political phenomenen which is the Free Mumia Movement, which is larger than the man himself and his case. Please help me to do this by removing the Afd and other tags. Thanks. Morton devonshire

User:name withheld -- quit stalking me dude! Morton devonshire 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And calling me out like this is supposed to get me to stop looking at your edits? -- User:name withheld 00:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Little weasel dude, would you please just leave me alone. You're starting to scare me. Morton devonshire 00:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, before things spiral out of control, please review WP:NPA. — Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. The guy/girl is following me around in my edits, editing pages that I edit and that he/she has never edited before, and marked an article Afd before it was even edited. That seems WP:POINT to me, and don't know what else to do than to call him/her out on it, as nobody on the Admin side seems to be willing to help. Worse yet, he/she is an admin. I'm on my own, and here you show up and are critical again. Doesn't feel good man. Morton devonshire 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you need help with, exactly? You seem to be doing fine on your own, although I recommend toning down the rhetoric and familiarizing yourself with policy. You might even want to lend your hand to a WikiProject or some non-controversial articles. You could even patrol recent changes for vandalism. There's lots to do. — Viriditas | Talk 04:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What I want is for the "stalking editor" activity to stop -- feels retaliatory to me. Is there a Wikipedia rule against it? Morton devonshire 04:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, see WP:HA, but in my opinion, you have not been stalked by anyone. It might be best to just let this go and move on. I think most editors understand that having an article up for deletion that you created and have an attachment to can be stressful. Try to focus more on your edits and less on other editors. — Viriditas | Talk 04:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Mumitia [2]

[[Image:[image censored]CheHigh.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Guantanamera Mort"!]] The truth is on to you, neocon scum! You are being tracked and watched! You will be brought to light! Viva la revolución!

Your recent actions have been noted, and your actions are being tracked and tallied for irreperable harm caused. Your vandalism must stop--you are the enemy.

(The foregoing comments brought to you by my good friend The Che Vandal)

Sorry I couldn't talk to you before you got blocked. Maybe we wudda been chums! Morton Devonshire ^Yo

Do you know anyone from the U.K. (are you from U.K.)? Just FYI, This is the beginning of a Guy Fawkes night poem "Remember, Remember the 5th of November" commemorating a foiled plot to blow up parliament. It's celebrated with fireworks in U.K. like the 4th of July in the U.S.-- Tbeatty 04:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This one seems perfectly attuned to the standard 9/11 conspiracy line of thinking. Morton devonshire 23:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me why you reverted again on the above article without any proper edit summary, or any discussion on the talk page, when I had clearly given reasons why the material should stay? This is not collaborative work, and reeks of meatpuppetry. I expect a higher standard of conduct than this. Tyrenius 00:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I like Peeps' version better -- that's all. Meatpuppetry? Get real -- that's for amateurs. Morton devonshire 00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish someone could explain to me what "collaborative work" has to do with "merciless editing", the wikipedia credo? PainMan be confused regarding this.

PainMan 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; in re: 9/11 Conspiracy "Theories". Is there going to be a vote or something on these? PainMan 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

GabrielF maintains the list for people who are interested in seeing which conspiracy theory article are up for Articles for Deletion. Click on any of the links on his list, and you'll see where they go to. Morton devonshire 01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I found your page while googling for tinwiki. I hope the "truth" movements decide to leave wikipedia and go there.

I first heard of Alex Jones via wikipedia (always a bad sign) when someone added his anti-Arnold group to Schwarzenegger's article. Do you think Jones' article will ever be deleted?

Do you feel that the article religion of peace is irredeemably bad?

I liked your comment about "truth" being like "people's republic", but my personal favourite about "truth" is from one of the Indiana Jones' movies, where the teacher says that archaeology is about facts, not truth. Thanks, Andjam 07:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Jones? No, like it or not, he's a notable Nutburger, so his article stays. Religion of peace -- I think eventually it will go, because it's made-up political rhetoric, designed to demonstrate just how "inclusive" and tolerant we are in America. I think it was made up for a poltical speech, and doesn't have the staying power of say, Axis of Evil. Truth Movement leaving Wikipedia? Not until Google changes its search methodology -- right now, because of some strange search algo, Wikipedia outranks almost everything else -- it shouldn't -- it's shit for accuracy. So long as Wikipedia stays on top of Google, it's the battleground. Cheers, and happy editing. Morton devonshire 07:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's easy enough for nutters to get good google hits without wikipedia - try googling for Nicholas Berg. I think the tendency for wikis to have the subject matter in the page title helps, as google gives a fair weighting to that. That kind of advantage would apply for any wiki. With respect to religion of peace, you're aware of its additional use in a sarcastic tone, aren't you? Andjam 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Morton. While I rarely play copyright cop, the Chewbacca image is fair use and probably shouldn't be used in userspace. Take care -- Samir धर्म 08:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Waaaah! Okay. Morton devonshire 17:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. If you're into tinfoil hats, you may be interested in the article on Michael Menkin, which is up for deletion. Byrgenwulf 12:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It look like you missed this one. -- Striver 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude! Giving up on Alex Jones (radio)? He would be so disappointed. Morton devonshire 22:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, i am still a great fan of him. Lets say that some circumstances has discouraged me.-- Striver 12:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You have deleted material again, and left the edit summary "Wikipedia is not boosterism". There is no such thing in guidelines. Could you kindly explain what you mean by this? The information is referenced from a major publisher. It is relevant to the book if someone of note (which I understand the Jersey Girls are) says something of this nature about the book and its author. This is interesting and informative material for the reader. We are here to provide information, not censor it. You have complained that conspiracy theorists are intent on pushing a POV agenda on wikipedia, and I have agreed this is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to try to undermine any information or anything that is favourable to such theories. That is also POV. If you wish to participate in this article, perhaps you could help to find material to add to it. Tyrenius 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If we were talking about a NY Times Book Review, or any review for that matter in a mainstream publication, it would be notable. Book jacket quotes are by their very nature subjective editorialisms, intended to promote the book -- hence "Boosterism". Otherwise, they would not be placed on the book. Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement is an official policy of long standing. Also, this is an encyclopedia that everybody gets to edit -- I do not appreciate the hounding and the threats you have made. Morton devonshire 22:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have taken into account that this is not an editorial comment. It is a quote from a third party. I assure you I have nothing to advertise and have no connection with this book (nor any affiliation with views, whatever they are, expressed in it). My interest is in creating an informative article to improve the encyclopedia.

As you seem to remove material as soon as I put it in the article, it is not surprising that I question your actions, particularly when your early explanation was "I like Peeps' version better -- that's all", an obviously flippant and provocative comment. [3]

I have not suggested that you do not edit the encyclopedia. I have suggested that you discuss things, and that you help to find suitable material to include in the article, rather than just delete other people's work. Perhaps you would like to be more specific about what you perceive as hounding and threats, as I feel I am being hounded whenever I edit The Terror Timeline, and for that matter Paul Thompson (researcher), where you have also deleted material. Tyrenius 02:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm an experienced Wikipedian, so I see where this is headed, and I don't want it to go there. I am going to disengage from you and the 2 articles for a week, let other editors work on the Thompson and Terror Timeline articles, and hope that things will calm down by then. Happy editing. Morton devonshire 03:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you were recently involved in a debate where Wikipedia:Notability (books) was cited. This proposal is under development and would benefit from being assessed by more editors. Perhaps you would be interested in expressing an opinion at the project talk page. NB This does not have any bearing on the previous debate in which you were involved. JackyR | Talk 19:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey! You mentioned me on your page. I'm honored. I doff my tin foil hat for thee. Kaimiddleton 01:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll just have to find out.-- Peephole 20:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bro, when i do something in wikipedia, i log in to this account before doing it. I don't even vandalize for fun from internet cafe's. Thanks for the friendly message, peace. -- Striver 10:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Morton, would you take another look at Islamikaze and to my comments on the deletion page? [4] I've added sources for the origin of the term, and think it meets WP:NEO. (Really, a merge to Suicide bomber is best, but it meets keep criteria as well, IMHO). I'd be curious what you think. Thanks, TheronJ 15:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi I think your use of Image:CheHigh.jpg contravenes the terms of the image's licence and I am requesting that you remove it from your talk page. Thanks. -- Guinnog 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The license reads as follows: "As a supporter of the ideals for which Che Guevara died, I am not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world, but I am categorically against the exploitation of Che's image for the promotion of products such as alcohol, or for any purpose that denigrates the reputation of Che."

I assure you that I am not using it to promote the sale of alcohol, and I am not using it for the purpose of denigrating the memory of Che Guevara, who's bravado, charm, charisma and sheer panache I greatly admire. Morton devonshire 00:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. It is far from obvious from your user page and user talk page that you support Guevara's Marxist ideals or his cause of social justice to which he devoted his "bravado, charm, charisma and sheer panache", and of course ultimately died for. What exactly is the Counter Propaganda unit and how does this relates specifically to Guevara's ideals?

It would be easier too if you did not use your user page and sub pages for the purpose of unencyclopedic polemic, especially propaganda against the 9/11 truth movement, particularly the images ridiculing the researchers. It is this juxtaposition that I find inappropriate. I really think you should take down one or the other, or preferably both. The 9/11 issues are delicate and I don't think, with respect, that the present content of your user pages is conducive to collegial work towards building an encyclopedia. I hope you will understand. Best wishes -- Guinnog 01:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm here to fight against the use of Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, not to promote it. I think it's extraordinarily unfortunate that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have chosen to bring their campaign of "truth" advocacy to Wikipedia. My aim is to uphold the policies and rules of Wikipedia by ensuring that such advocacy, which generally violates WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:RS, and WP:NOT from entering the encyclopedia. If an article can calmly and objectively report on a conspiracy topic, relying upon secondary sources, preferably mainstream reliable sources like the New York Times, for example, then I'm fine with it -- we can and should report on topics of the day, including outrageous notions, so long as we can do so objectively. With respect to Che, Che was a revolutionary. I support those revolutionary principals, and greatly admire the man, and the iconic symbology he represents in our culture. He is a symbol for all revolutionaries and common people, of which I am one (a peasant, that is). Morton devonshire 01:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, I was hoping for a more serious answer to the points I made. If your aim is to do what you say in accordance with our rules, it really would help if you could take down the nonencyclopedic stuff you have on your user page. I also find your use of the copyrighted portrait of Che as, essentially, decoration, in breach of the spirit of both the image copyright statement and wikipedia's own rules about images. Please have a think about it; I can go into more detail on my thinking if that will help. -- Guinnog 04:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the image down, Morton. -- Guinnog 18:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to ask you to withdraw your AfD nomination on this article. I believe that you have clearly violated the requirements of WP:CCC in that you didn’t ask around at all before re-nominating the article, at least from what I can see. AfD is not the proper tactic to use to rid the encyclopedia of articles that you personally object to, irrespective of the reasons.

Your user page clearly indicates that you have a very specific, very defined agenda to further with regard to articles on the 9/11 topic. Everyone has the right to an opinion on the official story on 9/11, but this does not mean that all articles contrary to that opinion should be put up for deletion or should be removed. In fact, WP:DP provides that using the deletion process to excise information you object to is abuse of the process. Shortfuse 07:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Then all those others who also voted to delete the article are also guilty of violating WP:CCC? Indeed, consensus can change, hence the newer nomination for deletion.-- MONGO 07:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The other people voting for delete are just hopping aboard the bandwagon that was provided to them. And WP:CCC talks about the nominator for AfD doing the asking before nominating, without a nomination there are no other people voting. Shortfuse 08:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, he just beat me too it.-- MONGO 08:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I voted before it was nominated. By about a minute. It can't be gone quick enough.-- Tbeatty 06:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This edit is completely unacceptable and is vandalism. You have inserted the same statement 7 times. You are, as you say, an experienced editor, so you should know better. You know the score. I agree that this needs to be stated about Jones in the article, but appropriately. It also needs to be referenced, so please find a suitable reference, and work in a collegiate manner with fellow editors. Tyrenius 00:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, and you know it -- Jones is cited as authority for the propositions, and the reader should know that his research has been called into question. If you have any doubt about the veracity of the statement, please take a look at Jones' article. Please do not allow your personal feelings to influence your work as an administrator. I think you have a grudge against me, and I ask that you not interact with me at all. Morton devonshire 03:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding the same identical line was not standard per Wikipedia editing standards, the same as the same word is not Wikified each time if it appears eight times in an article--only once. Why did you add it so many times, identically? · XP · 04:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I would go farther and say that anything that relies on Jones as a source should be deleted [Refactored the the second time to remove potential defamation] -- Tbeatty 04:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That is POV and not the basis for editorial decisions. If secondary sources quote Jones, then we refer to them. Please do not make defamatory comments about people. Tyrenius 04:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal views do not justify vandalism. · XP · 04:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is innapropriate without explanation. Please do not do this again. · XP · 00:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all clear why the information was deleted, so I'm sure other editors would appreciate at least an edit summary. Tyrenius 01:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not allow your personal feelings to influence your work as an administrator. I think you have a grudge against me, and I ask that you not interact with me at all. Morton devonshire 04:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw mention of this here. Sandy 05:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. One point of theirs is valid -- the whole area could use neutral admins who aren't invested in the outcome. That line is getting blurrier each day. Peace. Morton devonshire 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As you have accused me of acting improperly, I have brought the subject up on AN/I for wider review. Tyrenius 08:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious from your 7 World Trade Center edits that you believe that the U.S. government was responsible for 9/11 -- I don't know how you can be an objective Admin under those circumstances.I think it would be best if you and I just didn't communicate at all. I have disengaged from you in two articles, yet you pursue me on my talk page and in other articles. I renew my request again: please disengage from me. I don't wish to interact with you at all. Morton devonshire 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You should refrain from making such conclusions based on edits. In order to build a comprehensive and informative encyclopedia it is necessary to act from an objective viewpoint to represent the information and viewpoints that exist on issues, regardless of ones personal affiliations or lack thereof. Edits should not be interpreted as agreement or disagreement with the content of those edits. If you think that this is the basis of editing, and are yourself doing what you accuse me of — making edits based on what you personally believe — then you are not editing in the interests of wikipedia, but POV pushing.

I normally refrain from stating my own view on matters, as I don't think it has a place in wikipedia. However, in this instance I am prepared to categorically state that I do not "believe that the U.S. government was responsible for 9/11", and totally reject your consequent conclusion that I cannot be "an objective Admin". I would be grateful for your unqualified withdrawal of those remarks.

I am not "pursuing" you. We were already engaged in dialogue on your talk page. I think there are certain matters that need to be addressed, as initiated by Guinnog above, and MONGO below. Wiki is a place for interaction, and my actions towards you have been no different from those towards any other user where I consider something is amiss. When I accepted adminship it was to act for the best interests of wikipedia, and I intend to do that to the best of my ability.

Tyrenius 19:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your demand for an apology (and related threats) at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Association_of_9/11_All_Sides_Editors has been received, considered and subsequently was denied. No apology will be forthcoming for the reasons stated at the AfD discussion. -- Shortfuse 09:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that listing editors in one's userspace shouldn't be disallowed, it doesn't help to build a congenial atmosphere or make one look they are.-- MONGO 18:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am posting this here to ensure you know to follow Wikipedia:User page, which for the most part I feel you do. It is important, I feel that the best way to operate on Wikipedia is to not list names of individual editors you may be in disagreement with. It is mandatory that all images be free use...so if any of the ones you have are not absolutely in the public domain, get rid of them. There is noting wrong with listing articles you're glad were deleted or ones you think should be deleted in your own userspace. Do a close examination of your userspace and remove anything that may be something that would directly point at any particular individual. We can always support evidence about Folks like Steven E Jones in article space...so no need to do so on your userpage. Thanks.-- MONGO 18:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Will work on it later today. Morton devonshire 18:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO about lists of articles and lists of editors. If you are building up useful information about e.g. Steven E Jones or any other subject, for use in articles, and this is based on sound sources, then I suggest you could do so in a sub page, which would be a commonly accepted practice. Tyrenius 19:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please restore the archived material which is still the subject of current debate. Archiving is for material which is finished with. There is an ongoing discussion on AN/I directly relevant to this material. Additionally Guinnog's request to remove "propaganda against the 9/11 truth movement, particularly the images ridiculing the researchers" remains outstanding. Thank you. Tyrenius 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have studied the report of this incident carefully, and would like to draw your attention to three points.

• User:Guinnog has made a number of comments to you, most recently [5]; while you have addressed some, it wiuld be helpful if you could deal with all of them.
• You have accused User:Tyrenius of acting from a personal grudge. This violates WP:AGF and possibly WP:NPA, and I trust that you will withdraw the remark.
• As Tyrenius has pointed out above, it is most unhelpful to archive material relevant to a current discussion; please restore it immediately.

I am not taking sides in any factual dispute. My sole concern is to ensure that Wikipedia etiquette is followed and that we all proceed calmly and without inflaming each other. If you are unable to do so, I shall of course ensure that the correct procedures are followed. I shall also leave a note on Tyrenius' talk page.-- Runcorn 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I’ve seen the edits that Tom Harrison made to Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center with respect to Steven Jones, and I like his version much better. Thanks. Also, I have taken into account the suggestions some of you have made, and have altered my user and sub-user pages accordingly. I decline to get into content wars with Admins. I apologize for being direct, but being an American, that’s my way: I don’t wish to be involved in continued sessions of dialogue, and choose to disengage to calm things. I hope that you will respect that. Cheers, and happy editing! Morton devonshire 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that I feel its appropriate to request that the Arbitration Committee get involved with regard to your recent conduct towards me and also some of your recent actions here as an editor.

The request may be viewed: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration. -- Shortfuse 23:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I decline to participate. Morton devonshire 00:02, 26 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.