Cheers, I was actually a little concerned I might have overstepped the mark, but he really is getting out of hand isn't he. ornis 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Given ongoing developments (or lack of development) at Talk:Steven Milloy, I'm strongly considering opening a request for comment on the conduct of User:NCdave. I find his approach, at this point, to be tendentious in the extreme, and I think that outside input might help move things beyond the impasse at which we seem to be stuck. As I realized when exploring this option, this would not be NCdave's first RfC; that would be found here, having to do with NCdave's tendentious editing on Terri Schiavo. In any case, I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject. MastCell Talk 04:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious who Nate1478 was harassing and where was his indef ban discussed. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 07:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- FOo 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The result of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_5#Category:Signatory_of_.22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism.22 was clearly not delete. The comments there are about evenly split so there's obviously no consensus. Yet User:Radiant! claimed the conclusion was for deletion, closed the CFD and deleted the category. I've asked Radiant! at his talk page to explain how he came to his conclusion and am asking you to please undo his unjustified deletion. Odd nature 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Further to this, I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". You might want to participate in the deletion review. Hrafn42 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Writing in the FAQ proposes that this should no longer be policy. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ has already been hacked about and several section headings have been removed, with the result that half of the section links to it don't work any more: I've commented on the talk page. .. dave souza, talk 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought that your "challenge" on the DRV was right on point. I must admit that Kbdank71's dogmatic comments on this review (and some earlier comments indicating a contempt for gaining a consensus) make me question his suitability to co-administrate the CFD process. Hrafn42 05:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi FM. Could you take a look at this comment [2] on the DRV. I made a total of four notifications (to Radiant!, to Odd Nature, to yourself and to Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. How is that violation of WP:CANVASS? How is Radiant!'s wild accusation not in violation of WP:AGF, or behaviour unbecoming of an Admin in a formal review of one of their decisions. Is the CFD the Old West or something, complete with 'hanging judges' and lynchings? Hrafn42 11:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I have requested an Arbitration review on your behaviour against me, [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantresman ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 July 2007
Well, see, the thing is, despite Hrafn's claims to the contrary we're not in fact involved in any kind of content dispute. Rather, in clearing xFD backlogs, I made a judgment call about the deletion of something I'm otherwise uninvolved in and don't have any particular strong opinions about, and he's been, for the lack of a better term, screaming bloody murder since then. Aside from that he made a series of nasty remarks against Kbdank, and other people disagreeing with him on this issue, and appears to have a history of doing so against other people. Note that an outside admin (Yamla) reviewed and endorsed the block. HTH, >Radiant< 08:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Informing you because not only were you already attempting to help this user understand what is and is not vandalism and how his approach was disruptive, he apparently has decided I'm your attack dog, or something. Full details on WP:ANI#Mentors wanted, where I have requested someone new (not open to accusations of lapdoggery) give it a try, as he shows no sign of comprehension that his behavior is at all a problem. While I appreciate your reticence to block and efforts to resolve this through dialogue, I believe his disruption has reached the point where unless and until he ceases, he is impeding progress beyond what is tolerable. KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments here Raul654 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have returned from a few days off Wiki, and am still awaiting your response to the charges you lodged on my talk page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi FM. I am discussing the pink swastika issue again in the AFA article talkpage. I welcome your input again if you have the time or inclination. Regards Hal Cross 05:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi again FeloniousMonk. It seems the Pink Swastika issue is being dealt with presently. I do have another issue that I think you could help out with on the AFA article. I am presently paraphrasing the issues section using information taken from the AFA article on issues:
e.g. [4]
I realize my paraphrasing may have my own biases involved. I also realize its not an easy job, and welcome your input whether its editing or comments on my editing. I also realize I may have got off to a shaky start, but I would like to state that there is an effort to edit and conduct discussion responsibly on the article. I certainly would like the article to be as close to neutral as we can realistically get it and I see you obviously also have that in mind. Hal Cross 10:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen you editing much lately and I'm getting concerned. What's up? (You can respond to me privately by email if you want) Raul654 17:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I have seen several cases, including one involving yourself, in which an admin used a very abrasive and harsh tone in reprimanding a relatively new contributor's disregard of an arguably minor Talk guideline, the reprimand itself resulting in an even more combative and hostile environment for all involved. In at least two cases, the new contributors left the project. In general, that does not help the project. -- Otheus 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
As for me, I do appreciate being reprimanded for my specific violations of WP's policy and guidelines. However, when the violation in question is concerning a gray-area or a very obscure guideline, I would appreciate it if you at least prefix your reprimand with "Please", especially since you and I have in the past (and apparently in the present) exchanged hostilities. It is also a good idea (for the benefit of your credibility) to refresh your memory of said policy/guideline before issuing such a reprimand. -- Otheus 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as the specific violation... In this edit summary you cite WP:Talk about not interrupting conversations: "don't interrupt short comments of others with your responses". Here is the guideline, where "common sense should apply", as stated under WP:Talk#Others.27_comments:
I'm not sure if you see where I'm going with this, so I'll spell it out:
Note on the last point, I don't mind that you moved it, under grounds of common-sense. But if you are going to stick me with the letter-of-the-law, which I don't mind you doing, please lead by example. -- Otheus 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
OKay, it's time you and I had a serious conversation about this, rather than reverting each other on tangential topics. You have my permission to move this conversation to a denialism talk page, or to a separate user-talk page.
Here's the first thing: You can't go around calling everyone who disagrees with you "crazy". And "denier" is just a euphemism for crazy -- it's referring to someone who is in denial, which is most often associated with psychiatric problems of depression, dissociative disorder, etc, -- because they disagree with what "everyone else" says. Now -- maybe (and often) it's true! But can't you see that it violates BLP? -- Otheus 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is the second thing: let's be consistent. Anyone who disagrees with the scientific consensus on anything should be labeled as "denier". You got a problem with that? Good. Let's make a list of articles of Living Persons who still believe:
Now, maybe you do intend to link all such articles to denialism. Why not, right? -- Otheus 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is the third thing: As WP is read by many many people, including kids wishing to become interested in science and other areas of research, what are they learning from reading that a dissenting scientist is in denial? I don't want my kids thinking that science is all about agreeing what all the other scientists think. -- Otheus 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
considering this block log, you might be interested in making some statement on this community noticeboard. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 01:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. As an admin previous involved in the Gastrich [5] affair, I wonder if you would be so kind as to weigh in on the Kearny High School, San Diego [6], talk page and the inclusion of one of Mr Gastrich's privately-owned domain sites as a reference for the page. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 04:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
He says that jossi re-blocked him. Since the original block was so manifestly unjust, can you unblock him or is that inappropriate? ornis ( t) 04:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
... for undoing the vandalism to No free lunch in search and optimization. I wish it were possible to get email notification of changes to pages on the watchlist.
Tom, ThomHImself 10:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove the dispute tags before the issue has been resolved at fair use review. Also, under no circumstances should the {{ non-free reduced}} tag be removed, as the old high-resolution revision(s) must be deleted no matter what the outcome of the fair use review is. -- Pekaje 13:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'd just like to inform you that Template:Main is not placed at the top of articles. I've seen this occuring a bit lately and have removed it each time. I checked with the template guidelines just now and it indeed confirms this: "It should not be used at the top of an article to link to its parent topic. Such links should be a natural part of the article lead." Instead I recommend you add Template:Summary in to article talk pages. By the way, I've readded the globalize template as well, since the article has in no way dealt with the issues raised. This is hardly an issue limited to the US only, and we need to do much more research into it. Richard001 07:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Somebody tries to mock the name. Please comment for speedy deletion [7]. Thanks.-- יודל 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to nominate an ombudsman or mediator to resolve a perplexing conflict between myself and User:Hrafn42 regarding potential violations of the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause? I am concerned about the recurring publication of libelous and defamatory falsehoods causing serious harm to scientists and academics with whom I am affiliated. Please feel free to E-Mail me if you need further information. Many thanks.
Moulton 23:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You need to read the sources. Both available sources state that the resignation took place on March 21, 2006. The plagiarism was not discovered until March 23. There is no way Mr. Domenech could have resigned from Regnery because of the plagiarism scandal. Neither source claims that the resignation was linked to his plagiarism; rather, Wonkette's source claims that Domenech's WaPo job gave Regnery an excuse to remove an underperforming employee. FCYTravis 05:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
First the Discovery Institute, now Larry Fafarman: [8] You know you've hit a nerve when the dedicated cranks single you out for honors. Thanks for nailing the sock puppeteer. Odd nature 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Back in March you blocked FNMF ( talk · contribs) because, among other things, the user was exhibiting the same problematic behaviors as DrL ( talk · contribs) and Asmodeus ( talk · contribs). For a variety of reason, it appears to me that BCST2001 ( talk · contribs) is the same as FNMF. I realize you're probably not eager to engage in old disputes, but it would help me if a user more familiar with the previous accounts could look this over. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
FM, I've reverted your undo, because the fact is that ChristiaNet is the world's largest Christian portal with twelve million monthly page loads; there were 500 Christians surveyed; and its press release is posted on some of the most notable news sites there are, including Yahoo!News, LexisNexis, UPI, GoogleNews, MSNBC, and others. This is both notable and reliable. -- profg 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
(Outdent) Firstly, the poll has been soundly rejected after an exhaustive discussion on the article talk page, so I trust that's a moot point. Secondly, I fail to see where anyone has been uncivil to Profg, so his "lack of civility" comment is hard to fathom, but we can ignore that as well, since it seems to be a hobby of his lately to use "uncivil" as often as possible (I suggest you get another one, though). Thirdly, Profg, considering that you've been edit warring against consensus, ignoring talk page guidelines, and otherwise having difficulty learning how to behave on Wikipedia, I would think you would want to make as few enemies among admins as possible. There is considerable leeway about when we block, how long we block, etc. There is also considerable discretion about unblocking. If an administrator remembers you as a pushy, rude, CON-ignoring POV edit warrior who is uncivil and attacks and undermines others yet constantly complains about others' civility, it is possible that you will, should you in the future commit a blockable offense, be accorded less slack. AGF is not a suicide pact. If you're disruptive, you're not going to get much trust from the community. And thus far, you're being fairly disruptive. Please read the links people keep offering you, and attempt to be more civil and less disruptive yourself, and follow the WP:RULES. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Without a doubt the best username I've seen on WP. I lol'd out loud. faithless (speak) 16:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
Are you aware of [9] and [10]?
At some point I hope you will comment there. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:California Mille logo.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
See here please. -- DarkFalls talk 09:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
...in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research - where several editors are rewriting the policy (some in good faith). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your chiming in but I fear most people active on the page will just dismiss your comment. I don't know if you went through the whole talk page but I proposed a revision here that I thought would appease the critics without changing the fundamentals and it was mostly ignored .... I am feeling beleagured... Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Banning Ferrylodge based on an "overwhelming consensus"??? No other steps in the dispute resolution process were even attempted. Plus, there were only a dozen editors commenting for the period of less than 24 hours. This was a fucking terrible call. Yes, if you were counting votes, the outcome would appear to be "Ban him"... but banning is supposed to be a last resort.
But anyway, the call was made. I dispute the decision. What is my next step? Feel free to answer here, I'll keep an eye out. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 19:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Section broke, so Felonius can see and answer my question. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, since I am not special enough to break the section above, I would just like to make sure that you see my question about what to do next. And e kala mai for this second section. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In reference to this reversion, I would like to contest your claim that it is a "good example":
The full paragraph from Alberts is: [11]
For all those who teach college biology, the current challenge posed by the intelligent design movement presents an ideal “teachable moment.” I believe that intelligent design should be taught in college science classes but not as the alternative to Darwinism that its advocates demand. It is through the careful analysis of why intelligent design is not science that students can perhaps best come to appreciate the nature of science itself.
(I've italicised the part that Luskin quoted)
Also, I am sick to death of attempting to engage in discussion of things like this, only to get ignored until I actually edit the article. Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#Indirect method example has been sitting unanswered for a fortnight. Doesn't anybody read the talkpages anymore? Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Your edit summary that "not OR, as the source proves" is erroneous. The sole source is a primary one -- the 'Teaching Guide' itself. Under WP:PSTS, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." The paragraph includes such interpretation. It does not include a secondary source. Therefore it is OR. Therefore I am not misusing {{or}}. Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit to American Family Association, the content wasn't actually deleted - it was moved to List of American Family Association boycotts. Orpheus 05:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, since I am not special enough to break the section above, I would just like to make sure that you see my question about what to do next. And e kala mai for this second section. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If I see a violation of ASG and NPA against me like this edit summary again, I will have no qualms with reporting it.
In regards to the edits themselves, the fact tag is completely appropriate (an assertion is made with no reference to back it up) and the Coral Ridge reference does not bear out the use of "books and DVDs" because (A) there's no ID books there and (B) there's only one video about ID there that's available in both DVD and VHS.
Seems like you're the one who's "white-washing." Jinxmchue 17:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did you have to go and do something cool like that?
You leave me with no other option:
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For displays of sanity above and beyond the call of duty.-- Kim Bruning 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
-- Kim Bruning 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi FeloniousMonk, I have filed an arbitration request pertaining to your indefinite ban on me. Here is the link. Ferrylodge 23:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The ID article said a Zogby poll of scientists stated X, but linked to a poll of Ohio voters. I removed the link and added "citation needed", because the link should connect to the poll of scientists. Why revert this? How did the poll of Ohio voters act as a reference? Sad mouse 04:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you readded the section I removed, can you explain how the "Holt, Rinehart and Winston" discussion is related to the book Icons of Evolution. NNtw22 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
i.e. here. 67.135.49.158 ( talk) 18:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi FM. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see my reply [19] to your warning. I thought it best to keep your warning and my reply together. Frankly, I'm glad to see that someone else (besides me) cares about civility and I hope that you and many other editors will issue warnings about incivility - even though I think it was unwarranted in my case. Sbowers3 04:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your additional comments. Please see my reply at the same place. Sbowers3 06:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I made no allegations. I simply pointed something interesting out. Gosh, I must've really hit a tender nerve with you. I mean, you could've simply explained it politely as a bizarre coincidence or that one of you just copied the other. Instead, you chose to fly off the handle and throw out a paranoid accusation and threats. Nice. 67.135.49.158 17:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. The link I reported as broken was the one about the Gloria Steinem article, which has been much discussed by Roger Schlafly. I'm not defending him, but since there's no source for the Steinem citation, I thought it would be right to remove it.
Therefore, as I wanted to keep the balance in the article, I looked for another source. Pia de Solenni's article seemed fine. Yet you removed the source claiming it's non-notable and that it's a blog. You're very wrong. It would be good for you to check things out before editing.
Sincerely, DUKERED FREE SPEECH 01:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
FM, we may have occasionally run askance of each other, but I wanted to commend you for your comments on the MONGO 3 RfC. You're right on the nose there. - Crockspot ( talk) 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi FM. Someone else beat me to the rrv, so I'll say here (and expand on) what I was going to say in my edit summary. It is common courtesy to provide a substantial explanation when you revert. I don't mind that we disagree. I'm happy to talk about it. I provided detailed reasons for my edits. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] In response, you offered nothing substantial but rather accused me of a "white wash" -- as if I cared one whit about defending Eagle Forum. Let's please concentrate on correctly representing what the sources say. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 06:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Committee has found that Ferrylodge ( talk · contribs) has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion, but has edited reasonably on unrelated topics, and that he was blocked after a discussion on the Community Sanction Noticeboard that did not have a clear consensus. Ferrylodge is unbanned, but is put on an indefinite editing restriction: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." The Community is urged by the Committee to develop a coherent policy regarding the method by which community bans are to be imposed. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 08:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it really necessary for you and OM to be tag-team tagging his page with a sock template? There is no rule requiring an editor to log in to edit. One IP has been blocked once, which he is not evading. He is feeling harassed, and I don't blame him. His activity does not rise to the level of "abusive sockpuppetry", and I will revert the adding of that tag myself if necessary. - Crockspot 05:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it uncivil to use the word "baseless" here?-- Filll 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. After a while, their stunts start to get old. The same stupid things over and over. No wonder people start to lose patience. And I guess since CS was not able to cow me sufficiently, and realized he did not have much of a leg to stand on, he left. I feel slightly bad since he did contribute here, but somehow he decided that all the editing on creationist and ID pages was biased and this needed to change to reflect his own interpretation of what NPOV is. It is a shame. I have my own views, and they often disagree with the NPOV stance or the position of other editors, but I just realize we are writing an encyclopedia together here in a group effort, and each of us cannot always get their own way. And so I just compromise and accommodate and try to reach consensus. Why can't they?-- Filll 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your contributions were mentioned as one of many participants in an edit war. GRBerry 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, could I draw your attention to my comments here? There is much less chance of drama if somebody else does it - apart from accusations of an admin clique, of course! Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I discussed my exchange with Skyrms here. Is that sufficient? -- Wesley R. Elsberry ( talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you help with the discussion at the Jeffrey T. Kuhner page? I have filed a COI complaint against User: Steve Dufour because I don't think that he can objectively edit Insight magazine and the Kuhner article, due to his affiliation with a religion that owns the conservative magazine (Insight) for which Kuhner is editor in chief. In past discussion, he has also expressed strong conservative leanings. I don't necessarily care what stance you choose to take; I just want to stop the stalemate. Athene cunicularia ( talk) 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I also just wrote this on the talk page, but he removed it as a "personal attack."
I don't think that helps at all. This seems to me more like COI on your part. You should recuse yourself from editing articles about organizations owned by the the Unification Church, due to your close affiliation to them. Athene cunicularia ( talk) 05:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Your comment on Viridae's talk page about being reverted (rightly, I'll add) at Doc's talk was simply wilfully encouraging disruption. Brandt is banned, as you both know. When banned users avoid their block to post to Wikipedia, the correct response is to remove the comment and not hinder others doing that and certainly not to encourage them to continue. There's a limit to how much disruption via enabling banned troublemakers the community is willing to put up with. Do not continue to enable or help others enable banned editors to ignore their bans and continue to disrupt Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 04:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi FM.
You removed the NPOV tag from Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed. I had been cooling off from the article over the weekend, and had not been able to reply to several new points brought in or reply to substantitive edits made by dave souza.
I think its important to let the objecting party fully explain themselves in the light of new additions before reaching a decision to remove such tags. Tags don't actively harm articles.
That said, I am fine with removal of the tag in light of dave's edits. The article is now countering the right sort of points rather than a mish-mash of creationist jabber and then a disjointed slice of science/truth/justice thrown in to make it seem balanced.-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 00:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Expelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=178655958&oldid=178651440
I have introduced the topic the talk page. [26]
My statement that "Expelled is unequivocally a documentary" has received no counterpoints for four days now.
I have twice said that given no dissent I will restore the documentary links. No one batted an eyelid.
How is this not consensus?-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 05:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have requested clarification concerning your ban of Ferrylodge here. Please feel free to comment if you have information to share. -- Yamla ( talk) 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi FM -- I realize that you've been working for a long time to keep this information available & organized for people, and you have had to deal with a lot of people from other political perspectives who may have other agendas. That can be incredibly frustrating as I well know. But please don't assume that's my agenda, as well. I got drawn into this particular dispute because I follow a select set of science/religion articles on WP -- I'm an atheist among other things and I do patrol for pro-religion and anti-science bias. I saw the edit warring on the List article and thought a relatively neutral person who hadn't been involved might be able to cut through some of the chaff. It looks like a lot of the complaining is about the sources, so high-quality sourcing will make the article much less vulnerable to that sort of thing, and enhance the article (and its survivability on wikipedia) in the long-run. Feel free to be annoyed with me for the substance of my comments, but please don't assume my motivations. Lquilter ( talk) 19:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Trying to stop vandalism. Larvatus ( talk) 07:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)larvatus
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can you offer some explanation for this (placement of the template and protection of the page)? I hope you're familiar with the Meta privacy policy - editing as an IP is not "disruptive sockpuppetry", especially when the user whose privacy you're possibly violating is not blocked or banned. What purpose does the template/page protection serve? Videmus Omnia Talk 07:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you're online now - anyway, could you please point me toward the part of the protection policy that justifies your action above? Videmus Omnia Talk 02:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
{{
IPsock|Guettarda}}
on that IP's userpage?
Videmus Omnia
Talk
02:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
<Can you please explain how any of the above relate to protection of the userpage, which is what I originally asked you about? Videmus Omnia Talk 03:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any chance you could help to settle a dispute and clean up the criticism section of Union of Concerned Scientists page? Athene cunicularia ( talk) 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
With the removal of the section devoted to theological problems, the article is incomplete in presenting a thorough and comprehensive perspective of intelligent design. Would you please comment on this? In the quote from Johnson, it is established that Johnson does not concern himself with the theoretical needlessness for the presence of a God (or intelligent designer) should the "gaps", however unlikely, eventually be explained through natural means. Surely, as the article stands, there are numerous references to intelligent design acting as a "uniter" of religious stances, and there is no reference made to it being anti-religion, which is certainly a legitimate concern for those who are religious and perhaps did not pick up on the delicate points made by both Slifkin and Miller. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Evading a block at best, there is no evidence of sock puppetry that I have seen. Adding those tags and "evidence" to a user page and then protecting the page is not typical admin duties. It's abusing your power to harass another editor. Turtlescrubber ( talk) 05:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You keep calling me "disruptive" when you disagree with me. I wish you would stop doing that but just say why you disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=182555522 is simply incorrect. I did not "attempt" to have Intelligent Design unprotected; I got it unprotected - by the same sysop who had protected it. And that sysop agreed with me that "parties declared the matter resolved.
It's not "disruption" to announce that parties to a heated discussion are agreeing to proceed in a consensus manner. I would call this "calming". -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 03:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
How about I stop complaining and you stop accusing me of sockpuppetry (i.e. intentionally changing my IP address to edit abusively)? That's not "I'll stop if you stop." Just plain "let's stop." I think Wikipedia will be better off for it. 67.135.49.211 ( talk) 19:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I've mentioned you in my evidence, since it was related to my attempts to get him to engage in proper dispute resolution with me. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
You may know more than most people. Your description of what's happening, with diffs, would be more useful than just a "I support a ban". Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There is an extensive >12 month record of disruption and administrative actions. And now the same editor has announced that he plans to organize more intentional disruption.--
Filll (
talk)
18:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone altered my arbitration evidence at the Matthew Cuerden case to make it appear that I was accusing you of running sockpuppets. I've started a thread at ANI. Perhaps you know who might have pulled this stunt? [27] Durova Charge! 00:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You recently placed a warning on Levine2112's talk page. Could you explain how he provoked SA? Is it a comment or comments on Bleep? Do you believe that Levine somehow provoked SA on that page? Thanks. Anthon01 ( talk) 17:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Please come back to the various plant articles from which you recently removed knowledge about homeopathic uses and explain your rationale. I am unsure about the application of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE here. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[28]-- Filll ( talk) 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!-- MONGO 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure I could agree with you, if I thought the archive template was entered properly instead of prematurely, as discussion was still on-going and it really didn't look like there was consensus to end it. And if I thought the comments left afterward were horribly inappropriate considering all the nonsense spewed up to the point, which probably was even more inappropriate. And if I thought that excising user comments was valid in the first place, which for the vast majority of cases, it isn't, imho. I have a problem with all of that, but as you can see, I'm not about to make an issue out of it. I just don't agree with the way it was handled. The whole thing was unseemly and they should have taken it off the board long before. Wjhonson ( talk) 10:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Felonious, I am respectfully asking you to remove yourself from the list of admins enforcing the Homeopathy probation based on your vote to ban User:Whig here and User:Abridged here. A community ban seems like a pretty serious step, and there didn't seem to be any consensus that those bans were justified. Abridged talk 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me, whatever do you mean? I mean no disrepect or incivility. I take affront that you would suggest such a thing. I am just learning about this matter.-- Filll ( talk) 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Also, some evidence of involvement in the general area of homeopathy based on these edits: [29], [30]. (I'm not saying I agree with the edits or disagree; they may have been entirely appropriate, I'm just concerned that you have involvement in the subject area). Abridged talk 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I will stop. I was justing trying to get him to stop making false claims against me. Anthon01 ( talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Would it be inappropriate for me to apologize to him? Anthon01 ( talk) 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would have been more courteous, at the very least, to ask me directly about the issues regarding Pallywood before posting accusations to WP:AN/I. I'm also wondering why you didn't extend me the courtesy to notify either myself or Kylu about the serious accusations you were making about the two of us. I was under the impression that responsible administrators seek to get the facts before making accusations, particularly when the accused party is a fellow administrator who's been around a lot longer than you. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
See this, and the following reverts (which I changed back to before my IP addition). Even though it'd be symbolic, maybe it's time for an indefinite block on the main account, so we can block IP's as block-evading sockpuppets. Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
We'll present all the evidence to an impartial group of people and see if you are justified in your baseless accusations and biased threats. 67.135.49.211 ( talk) 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi FeloniousMonk. The anonymous editor making changes to Move America Forward has returned and is asking awkward questions that I don't have enough experience to answer fully. Could you take a look at Talk:Move America Forward#Reason. The anon is basically saying that the article is biased and he or she doesn't see why they should create an account just for that (amongst other things). Capitana ( talk) 13:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I've filed a request at WP:RfArb for the expansion of remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Briefly, I'm asking that the sanctions allowing Ferrylodge to be banned from specific articles for disruptive behavior be extended to apply to all pages (talkspace, projectspace, etc) where his conduct is disruptive, rather than applying solely to articlespace. I'm notifying you as an involved party in the original ArbCom case. MastCell Talk 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi... I've replied to Pedro's oppose, which I think is also in a way a reply to your concerns. I would appreciate your serious consideration of what I say to Pedro... as your oppose was very early, and has become one that others cite. That means it is possibly pivotal to the RfB failing. Your points raised are valid but I don't think they necessarily imply that she will have bad judgment around closes, renames, and bot changes, so I would ask you to consider changing to neutral or support. I rarely do this (in fact I can't recall the last time) but I do feel strongly about this, Riana is, in my view, one of the best candidates to come along in quite a while. Thanks for your consideration, all the best. ++ Lar: t/ c 11:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have filed a new request at WP:RfArb for the Ferrylodge case sanctions to be amended or clarified to apply to Ferrylodge's editing in all namespaces, rather than solely in articlespace. This is a courtesy notification as you've been an involved party to the original decision; your statement or other input is welcome at the WP:RfArb page. MastCell Talk 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:California Mille Start.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs ( talk) 04:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm hardly going to edit war with you about it, but I object to your archiving of the "no story" thread on Jimbo's talk page. You must have been reading a different thread than the one I read, because I saw largely (though not exclusively) thoughtful comments about a serious issue that affects Wikipedia, not "palpable schadenfreude oozing out" as you suggest. You should also be far more careful with the terms you bandied about so loosely and thus applied to most everyone who commented there. I commented there. (see here). I am not one of "Jimbo's most vocal critics" - I can't even recall if I've ever criticized him before, though it's possible - and if you read my comment I don't think you'll find any cheap shots or anything even remotely approaching trolling. I don't know you from Adam, but you seem to have had a problem with Giano's comment. Giano was of course largely defending Jimbo so I'm not sure what the big deal was, but I resent your removal of good faith comments like mine within hours after they were written just because you don't like the thread and/or the tone of the person who started it.-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this discussion on my watchlist.
Jimbo used to have this text saying that he'd rather not have people delete or archive comments off of his talk page. (this is rather important, as archiving or deleting comments from a user talk page can cause all kinds of blowups, as you can see above). I don't actually see that text anymore, so I'm not sure what happened to that, if anything has changed, and if so, what. So that's my useless 2 cents ^^;; -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC) The reason I advise people against deleting things from user talk pages is because people tend to assume bad faith when you do so because "it looks bad". So to all the folks here who actually *are* assuming some level of bad faith here: Please accept that Feloniousmonk probably actually acted in good faith.
As you know being part of that crowd, the discussion was started, restored and is being continued by several long running ax-grinders with Jimbo both on and off site. Transparently using 'concern' as a reason to air Jimbo's dirty laundry and create drama is by definition that is disruptive editing. For that reason alone it can and should be ended and archived. You want to discuss Jimbo's personal imbroglios? This isn't the place for it; do it offsite. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 15:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear FeloniousMonk, thank you for taking part in
my RfB. As you may know, it was
not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about my candidacy. Unfortunately very few of the opposes gave me advice on points I should improve upon (bar the examples of incivility), and I ask you now, very humbly, to visit
my talkpage, should you have any concerns about any of my actions here.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. ~
Riana ⁂
06:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, at the time it seemed quite ludicrous that someone would assume that simply because a user was a bureaucrat, that they would have access to checkuser data.
I'm sorry to have "explained" myself in such a blunt fashion on the RfB bar page. I am afraid that my personal outlook on permissions assumes an intimate familiarity with how the permissions system on Foundation wikis work, which is not in fact the case everywhere.
On most wikis, for instance, your concern would not only be healthy but obvious. By default, bureaucrats assign and un-assign all permissions, not the limited subset of abilities that they hold here, and it would not only be possible but typically taken for granted that a bureaucrat would hold checkuser status. I, in fact, have such positions on non-Foundation projects and should have remembered this at the time.
Wikimedia Foundation projects, however, have a far more strict interpretation of the role of bureaucrats: They retain the "normal" abilities of bureaucrats such as changing bot flags and renaming users, but have restricted roles in permission-setting: They can only grant the bureaucrat and sysop flags, not remove them. Here, the ability to remove these two permissions are strictly relegated to the stewards on Meta and the developers. It's quite easy to obtain bureaucrat on most Foundation wikis, but significantly harder to obtain checkuser, in my opinion. Before a user is granted checkuser access, they must agree to abide by the privacy and checkuser policies on Meta, identify themselves to the Foundation office, and either show consensus on the project they're requesting access or be appointed by a Foundation-recognized Arbitration Committee.
I do not have checkuser access at the moment, but do have bureaucrat access on a small number of our projects, and when dealing with those who have the checkuser permission, attempt to do my best to allow them to adhere to the promise they've made to keep such information confidential. I expect that any other users with elevated access would strive to avoid any leak of information that they're not authorized to have, and that checkusers not give out that information except strictly where required.
While I stated it on the comments page, I'll emphasize it here, as it's quite important: If you do have any evidence that checkuser has been abused, you should contact either the checkuser ombudsman or the Board regarding the incident. They do take such breaches of the privacy policy seriously.
Again, you have my apologies for my assumption. If I can be of help in any way, please contact me. ~Kylu ( u| t) 05:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi FeloniousMonk. I'm not sure if you are aware of the disputes going on over at Eric Lerner's page, but I want some advice from you since I vaguely remember you as being pretty knowledgeable on Wikipedia policy and neutral on the subject. I'm concerned about my participation. Please look over my talk page[ [31]] and let me know if I should stop editing the Eric Lerner page as suggested by ScienceApologist. I do have a WP:COI since I am a partner of Eric Lerner, but as I understand WP:COI, I can still edit the page as long as I do so appropriately, which I believe I have. Maybe I'm wrong, so that's why I'm asking you as a third party. Please let me know if I am off base. I'm not trying to drag you into the argument. I'm just looking for advice on my participation. You can answer me there and I will do whatever you advise. Thanks. ABlake ( talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, on 17:54, 22 March 2008 you accused me on my user page of incivility and failure to assume good faith "over the past 24 hours" at Expelled: No intelligence allowed and on "several user talk pages." You also threatened me with "topic ban for you at that and any related articles and a block for distruption."
But you did not tell me what edits or comments I made which concerned you. I replied by asking you, "Would you please point out the examples of incivility and failure to assume good faith which concerned you, FeloniousMonk?" But you have not done so.
I've been trying very diligently to apply the golden rule in my wikipedia contributions, and if I have slipped up I'd very much like to know when and how. Perhaps you did not notice my reply on my talk page, so I'm asking again here: Would you please tell me what article or talk page edits I made over the 24 hour period ending 17:54, 22 March 2008 that you believe were uncivil or uncharitable?
Or, if you conclude that you were mistaken, would you kindly note that fact on my user talk page, and <s>strike</s> your warning, because it is embarrassing to have that sort of accusation on my talk page.
Thank you. NCdave ( talk) 06:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, NCdave continues to disrupt the Expelled article. Not being familiar with the subject matter is obnoxious, but his ongoing campaign to slap the POV tag on the article has become a distraction. What should we do? Angry Christian ( talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)