User talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive 7

Offensive to revert substantial edits on no grounds but that they were substantial
i.e. Re: your reversion and your one line justification at NPOV Tutorial I say "to hell with that, and Goodbye!"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.150.253.56 (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Too many forks by Ed Poor
It is just his general habit. See e.g. Scientific study of religion. Andries 06:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am aware that Ed Poor is on the arbcom for doing that but I think the assumption of bad faith POV pushing by creating many POV forks that I have seen during the arbcom case is at least exaggerated and probably totally untrue. He does it for all subjects, not only for subjects on which there is some reason to assume that he wants to push his POV. Andries 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And not enough songs by Tom Lehrer. ;-) --Uncle Ed 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Email
Hello again, FeloniousMonk. I just wanted to let you know I'm still having the same problem we talked about before- I dropped you an email earlier today. Just let me know if you regularly check it so I don't feel compelled to leave a reminder on your talk page. Thanks! --HassourZain 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal remark on Talk:Uncommon Dissent
On the above-mentioned talk page you posted the following comment: "I agree. I've pointed this out several times already but it's like talking to a wall with this guy. FeloniousMonk 04:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)". Please restrict your comments on talk pages to discussion of the article content and avoid making remarks about other Wikipedians. Note this quote from Wikipedia policy: "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people.". Please assume good faith and try to help establish an atmosphere of collaboration.

Also, when editing the associated article at 18:01, 24 January 2007, you said in the edit summary: "rv, see talk, consensus is it's fine and you're trying to poison the well. please don't start disrupting this article again with this new "issue")".  Please don't use the word "consensus" to describe one side of a dispute which has not been resolved.  Also, please avoid saying things like "you're trying to poison the well" about other editors;  please assume good faith and restrict your comments to article content. --Coppertwig 02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is already established to the satisfaction of a good portion of the relevant editors that Tim Smith is running a low-grade vandalism campaign of misusing templates in a bid to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute: Requests_for_comment/Tim_Smith There's a point when it becomes not a personal attack to call out patterns of policy violation, but simply a matter of calling a spade a spade, so give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Tim Smith's edits are not vandalism; see Vandalism.  Putting a dispute tag on an article where there is a dispute is not vandalism, for example, and is not a misuse of a template.  I have read the RfC and have not seen any policy violations by Tim Smith.


 * If someone's behaviour is out of line, please discuss it in the appropriate channels as described in Resolving disputes or other Wikipedia policy and guideline pages. If someone's actions are against policy, it's important to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines while responding to the situation.  Making comments in edit summaries or on article talk pages about the motivations of other editors is not one of the proper dispute resolution avenues and tends to escalate conflict.  Please follow the procedures recommended in Wikipedia policies and guidelines so that the discussion can focus back onto article content and become more productive.  --Coppertwig 13:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Who the are you lecturing? You've been here a whole whopping four months and are fundamentally clueless about Wikipedia policy except where it suits you. FM, on the other hand, is a very well-respected editor and admin, who has dealt with more vandals and POV-pushers than you have edits.  Give it a rest.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One pov pusher trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute does not a valid dispute make; and there's consensus on the talk page that his objections are baseless. I'm sorry, but you're as mistaken about policy as your lecturing is misplaced. From WP:VAND: "Improper use of dispute tags: Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus." Furthermore, we have been following WP:DR, hence Requests for comment/Tim Smith, so again, your lecturing here is clearly misplaced. FeloniousMonk 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Langan
Use your own judgement, if you think they are Langan or his wide, treat them as though they are. Use the duck test... Fred Bauder 20:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Try Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Fred Bauder 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure the section about the society is worth fighting for--the article looks just as effective without it. The first paragraph, standing alone, is better than any amount of rhetoric & makes a good example for how to deal with articles about similar geniuses--just quote what they say, and don't bother refuting. DGG 01:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might try a brief paragraph, for to an outsider it would look as if it is out of proportion. DGG 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"About your method"
Re your post on my talk page:

About: Since when is an explanation for every edit mandatory? This could be taken as biting newbies. Viewed with your leaving of clueless "warnings", this raises some questions about your method. You are not an admin and clearly not up to speed on policy either. I suggest you stop taking action against other editors and focus on contributing to that article. FeloniousMonk 17:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not every edit summary requires an explanation: reverting obvious vandalism doesn't require an explanation, and new, non-disputed edits require a description, not necessarily an explanation.  See Edit summary. I feel that all users, however new or experienced, need to be told or reminded when they do things that are advised against.  Perhaps my wording could have been a little gentler.  If you think I've done anything wrong, please tell me what it is and give a link to the policy or guideline you think I've broken.


 * Please avoid using the phrase "poisoning the well" on either the talk page or edit summaries of Uncommon Dissent, unless you also specify there that you don't mean the definition given at the beginning of the Wikipedia poisoning the well page, which refers to an intention of discrediting; otherwise it may be seen as a comment on the intentions of other editors.   --Coppertwig 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Please avoid using the phrase "poisoning the well" on either the talk page or edit summaries of Uncommon Dissent" Still insist on issuing bogus warnings I see. I'm afraid that sort of behavior won't get you very far around the project. Poisoning the well is indeed a reference to the well documented problematic behavior of a particuluar editor. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at the diff!
Could you check the diff of you edit, and point out what exactly is "more in line with current practice"? The only significant fix that you reverted is the "as a rule" edit, and while I'm not native English, two other editors considered this could be interpreted as a loophole, see the talk. --Merzul 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry about being so aggressive here. I realize my edit summaries there made absolutely no sense. Here's what I meant, I suspected that there had been a mistake, and applied the substantial changes one by one. And note, that I'm not trying to change this proposal, and I have had very little to do with it, I only like it a lot. --Merzul 20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Benapgar
I noticed that you commented that 24.57.157.81 was previously used by Benapgar. Due to the IP user's recent activity being similar to Benapgar's POV, I requested that someone check it out. If you have information regarding this IP being used by that banned user, please let the declining admin know. Thank you. Vassyana 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any misunderstanding. You just apparently rephrased the self-admission by Benapgar. Apologies again for the misunderstanding. 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An RfC brought up by User:Lukas19 et al.
Hello, sorry to disturb but I thought you might be interested in commenting on this rfC: Requests for comment/LSLM·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I had made my case on WP:COI
And you reverted without discussion. The guideline should reflect the fact that this now used as a reason by arbcom member to ban members, regardless of the quality of edits. My edits were described as responsible. Andries 22:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See User_talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration Andries 23:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP courtesy deletion
FM, do you have any interest in helping to write this? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments
Hey FM,

I was hoping that you might have some idea as to how to deal with this comment of PalestineRemembered's. He insinuates not only that I'm somehow creating an "apartheid" in the article, but that I'm doing the same to him and other editors. The comment is so extremely offensive that I'm not even quite sure how to respond. Please let me know,  Tewfik Talk 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration
Just to let you know that I have begun a "Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration" in which you will be involved. This will include what I feel are some of the unsubstantiated decisions against me. --Iantresman 23:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your puzzling remark about "undermining"
In an edit summary, you wrote:


 * Ed, are you trying to undermine how the scientific community's views are represented?

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I hope you are not accusing me of a policy violation. You have been admonished before about that, by the arbcom, and I've personally asked you to bring any concerns to me directly. If you feel one of my edits is not just incorrect or unhelpful, but amounts to a rules violation I wish you would:
 * 1) Tell me what rule you feel is being broken (or bent), and
 * 2) Tell me how what I wrote or did violates that specific rule.

(You'll recall being told, "FeloniousMonk is admonished not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved." And this is a content dispute. You disagree with me about how to represent the scientific community's views.)

Our long-running dispute is over how various Wikipedia articles should characterize the degree and proportion of support for various controversial scientific ideas (or if you prefer "ideas about scientific matters"). You, like most liberals, insist that the mainstream is "correct" and that all views outside the mainstream should be dismissed. Some, you want dismissed as pseudoscience.

As you ought to know, I am aware of the Wikipedia community's consensus-derived policy, that minority views should not be misrepresented as having more support than they do. For example, if only 20% of the parties to a dispute endorse a particular position, it would be wrong to state (or even imply or hint) that the parties are split 50-50. I have maintained this stance since long before you yourself joined this project. I fail to understand why you think I might not agree with or understand this idea. I mean, I just explained it to you for the dozenth time, with a fresh example. Please be reasonable, FeloniousMonk!

Likewise, if a view has as much as 20% opposition, than there is some question about whether the 80% constitute a "consensus" or simply a "majority". I would not mind even calling it an "overwhelming majority" or "prevailing view". However, I am unaware of any policy page indicating a decision by Wikipedia to treat science as a matter for voting. It really only takes one counterexample to falsify a hypothesis. (If there is a policy page which says that a particular percentage such as 80%, 95%, etc. shall be deemed to constitute a "consensus" and that dissenting views shall be labeled "pseudoscience" then I will be happy to stand corrected. Before I post the second half of my intended remarks, I will pause for a reasonable amount of time for you to locate and quote such a policy.

See you soon. :-) --Uncle Ed 19:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PA's
Hi FM,

I responded in brief to your notes on my Talk page. However, this post is about something else:

I do not have a personal ax to grind against you. I appreciate that this is your perception, but it is not a personal axe, but an idiological one, over the use of the word "denialism". I respect your reasons for needing to have that word given a full article, but I have completely different reasons for opposing it -- because it is used almost always in a pejorative sense.

Thanks for your understanding.

--Otheus 01:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous remark about "no discussion ... as claimed"
FeloniousMonk, please discuss reversions first, instead of making false claims. Your behavior here is highly inappropriate and disrputive. You've been admonished by the arbcom for this sort of thing.

Look at the history of the template. 

I clearly said in the Edit Summary that there had been discussion about the distinction of use - not that there had been an agreement to restore. It was because you failed to follow up on the discussion that I thought you had no major objection and were bowing to consensus. If you had a rejoinder to the points brought up in discussion, you should have made them instead of taking unilateral action. Wikipedia works on consensus, you know.

By your false statement no discussion on the talk page for restoring as Ed claimed you put words in my mouth to accuse me of lying. Is that civil? Or did you mean no consensus for restoring? Anyway, Ybbor and I both disagreed with your previous hasty destruction of this template, and know you are doing it again.

You have:
 * Refused to continue the discussion you were in about the template.
 * Accused me "falsely claiming there was a discussion" even though you yourself participated in it
 * Put words in my mouth "Ed claimed [there was] discussion on the talk page for restoring" when what I actually said is that the three of us discussed the distinction of use. You said there was no discussion. The Ybbor and I felt there was a distinction.

Please stop this sort of behavior. If you disagree with an edit or 'move' or deletion or anything I do, I would like you to give REASONS for you disagreement, instead of accusing me falsely of something. Anyone would think you were trying to build some sort of bogus case against me to get me in trouble. That is hardly collegial. Don't you want to work together?

Also, the false statement about me is completely unacceptable. If you had said that you disgreed with the other editor and me, that would be fine. If you even claimed there was no consensus - because you it was only 2-to-1 against you, that might be okay. But to put words in my mouth and call me a liar - that is not civil. Please don't do this any more. --Uncle Ed 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, there's a guideline about moving pages suddenly, lest such an action cause disruption to the project. When I tried to edit the Template:Weasel word, I accidentally wound up editing Template:Views needing attribution, and it took me several minutes to repair this. Please stop doing things which disrupt our project. --Uncle Ed 04:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's cooperate instead of fighting

 * The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable.

I'm going to leave the template alone, in accordance with the above-quoted advice from 3RR. But I wish you would discuss matters of dispute, instead of acting like you know better than everyone else. Rules-lawering is no substitute for building consensus, and it doesn't hurt to have a little patience. Explain what you plan first, and wait for understanding. What's your rush all the time? --Uncle Ed 04:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

More civility leads to less stress

 * Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

It causes me a lot of stress to be called a liar. To say that I made a false claim means you are calling me a liar. Why not just say you disagree? Or say that you "were unaware of" what I was referring to?

Better yet, why not come to my talk page and ask me, "What did you mean by that?" Please try to engage me rather than thwart me or out-maneuver me. We are working together on various topics of mutual interest. It's only going to work if you make some effort to be civil. Please stop targeting me, it just stresses me out.

If I say something unclear or odd or unsupportable, just ask me about it. Maybe I made a mistake in haste, or maybe I used the wrong word, or (rarely!) maybe I'm just plain wrong. Or maybe I was right but you misunderstood. It will save us both a lot of stress, aggravation and embarassment if you will approach me in a gentle and patient manner. I'm here to help the project, same as you. Work with me on this, I respectfully request. --Uncle Ed 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock of Raspor/Everwill
Hi, FM. Since you enforced the blocks of several other socks of Raspor/Everwill (if I recall correctly), you may be interested to know that a newly-registered user with similar editing patterns (predilection with race/the term Oriental, the Orient, fussing and assuming bad faith on the Talk:Intelligent design page) has recently surfaced. Just thought you should know. --HassourZain 19:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey FM. I hate making an accusation without a lot of evidence, but it's starting to be a trend.  I try to give people like this a chance (you know, assuming good faith), and it's always abused.  I'm not sure if this guy is Raspor or VacuousPoet (who knows, maybe those two are the same), but he really does write in the same manner as the other ones.  Orangemarlin 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Everwill has the same article editing pattern as ElderStatesman:  151.151.21.103 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey FM. He continues to revert or blank out the sockpuppet tag.  See dif.  I hate being a rat, but he's getting a bit out of hand.  Orangemarlin 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Langan
Three points in relation to your threats left on my talk page. (1) I do not know what you mean by my "edit pattern." To what does that refer? It has to be the weakest reason to threaten blockage I can imagine, especially given the extensive, logical, and unrebutted argumentation I offered for my actions (and which contrasts with the lack of explanation offered by those reverting my edit). (2) The arbitration rulings you mentioned have absolutely nothing to do with the section currently in dispute. These rulings occurred in December, and did not address the issues of libel raised by Asmodeus on 7 February, and which have yet to be properly addressed by those currently reverting my edit. Just because there was a ruling on one matter does not mean you can "apply" that ruling to other matters whenever you feel like it. (3) There is no sense in which I am the one "edit warring." I made and justified an edit, which has been reverted three times without attempting an explanation. At the same time I have been accused of vandalism, and threatened with blockage, all in contravention of policy. FNMF 03:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser
Ah, no wonder no one is responding to me. . Sigh. Okay, I understand now why you thought I was compiling an attack page. *sigh* --Otheus 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Otheus
Otheus has asked me to look into his recent accusations of being a sock puppet. I, having nothing to do with any of the individuals involved, or articles involved, agreed to look into it as a neutral third party. Do you know of any particular edits that may lead to suspicions that Otheous is a sockpuppet of Agapetos angel? The article that I am aware of them having common edits on are Jonathan Sarfati. Is there another article that I am unaware of? My research has shown that Otheus has only edited that article 6 times, of which 5 edits were reverting edits by an anon to a previous state, reverting himself or making minor grammatical changes. The only edit I could possibly see as tenditious is which appears to be a re-wording of the content. I am not very involved in this case, so pardon my ignorance, was Agapetos angel and his sock puppets known for re-wroding phrases? If so, I stand corrected in my assumption that Otheus is in fact not a sock puppet. There are several other reasons why I believe this to be the case as well. If you have a take on this, or a personal opinion or anything, I would love to hear it. Thanks, -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Everwill
Oh, aye. That's a match. Definately a sock. But not a Raspor-sock. =) Adam Cuerden talk 04:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, he's a sock puppet of Everwill, who is under a ban as well. 151.151.21.101 20:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Overturned
I have removed your block of FNMF as I could not find evidence of personal attacks, disruption, or any remotely significant similarity to Asmodeous to justify it per your statement in the block log. Further, even if there were clear basis for the block, in no case should you have been placing it after being involved in the dispute. If you wish, I can explain my reasoning more fully and provide diff links. However, I would hope that everyone could leave off making this a matter of conflict and just try to collectively produce a neutral article on the matter. --CBD 12:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine: I'm not going to challenge your unblocking of FNMF, he's had enough time off to consider his method of participation. But I do stand by my reasoning for issuing the block, which was reviewed in advance by four other admins who all agreed FNMF clearly has been contributing in the exact same manner of DrL and Asmodeus at Christopher Michael Langan (you seem to miss the point that the relevant contributions are those of DrL and Asmodeus, not just Asmodeus). Thus per Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern .", the remedy applied to Asmodeus being "Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles." As far as evidence of disruption and personal attacks,  this is clearly a personal attack and there's no shortage of evidence of the disruption from this and his other rants and snipes at Talk:Christopher Michael Langan. As for my being previously involved at the article precluding my being able to block, I remind you that WP:SOCK clearly says when dealing with meatpuppets (which is what the RFAR ruling I invoked applies to) "Accounts operating in violation of this policy should be blocked indefinitely; the main account may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator ." Also note that I not haven't made any notable edits the article or its talk page for over 3 weeks, a fact that is really a non sequitur in the light of WP:SOCK. Should FNMF continue down the same path, walking in the footsteps of DrL and Asmodeus, I'll simply refer him to the arbcomm for clarification moving forward. FeloniousMonk 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rest assured that I reviewed the matter carefully before taking any action. The edit you note as a personal attack is markedly less nasty than many I've seen from any number of long-time users, admins, and even ArbCom members. It is well below any thresh-hold for 'blockable disruption' which I have ever seen before. Likewise, I don't believe the ArbCom had this sort of thing in mind when they said that further bans could be placed for 'similar editing patterns'. That case cited long term repeated edits to promote Langan's theories as more credible than mainstream science, sustained incivility, original research, tendentious editing, et cetera... in short, 'editing patterns' which constituted solid reasons for a ban from the article. FNMF introduced no original research, did not edit to promote Langan's theories at all, and in truth was involved only in a minor content dispute, running a grand total of five days (from his first edit on the page to your block)... by that measure of 'similarity' ANY disagreement with you on this topic could be a bannable offense. He hadn't done anything significantly wrong. Finally, even though you had not edited for a few weeks I don't see how you could be 'neutral' on the content issue... the very passage FNMF was seeking to remove was introduced and kept in over objections by you. You can patch together a 'reason' for blocking here (claims of 'personal attacks' and 'similar' editing), but not I believe a need for a block. FNMF wasn't doing anything more 'disruptive' than a thousand other editors do on any given day without being blocked... he disagreed with you, and that's not enough. --CBD 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * CBD, please try to assume good faith. Your summary also mischaracterises the situation - FM wasn't the only one who characterised FMNF's actions in that way, and at least one other admin reviewed the situation and saw it as valid.  You are free to disagree with FM, Arthur Rubin, JzG and me, but you are not free to pretend that this was a unilateral block based on an edit-dispute.  Guettarda 18:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the matter carefully as well before taking any action, going so far as to seek several second opinions, and stand by the block. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. And it's not as if you and I have not had similar disagreements over blocking in the past. Come to think of it, considering our past conflicts over blocking and unblocking, you're not what I'd call exactly neutral either, but whatever, neither Langan nor any of his proxies that show up there are worth much of my time. FeloniousMonk 19:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If we've been in dispute(s) before I don't remember it... and thus perforce it didn't influence my decision. Agree to disagree works for me, but to avoid continuation of the dispute I'd suggest seeking general comment on AN/I before further use of the 'walking in the footsteps' block reasoning. --CBD 19:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, we've locked horns over the blocks of several users before, but that's neither here nor there, I take you at your word. Please extend me the same courtesy. As I said, I'm not opposing your unblocking of FNMF and I'll just let the arbcomm clarify any next steps if this particular editor rouses the same suspicions for others; he's gathered enough supporters with dubious histories to make any reasonable outcome arising from discussion at WP:AN/I problematic. FeloniousMonk 21:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else? I checked and I've never edited your talk page before today, you've never edited my talk page at all, and none of the blocks I've reversed previously were made by you. If we've 'locked horns' several times before we somehow managed to do it without ever... you know, talking to each other. :] --CBD 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

FM, in your response to CBD, you said "which was reviewed in advance by four other admins who all agreed FNMF clearly has been contributing in the exact same manner of DrL and Asmodeus". Since part of my claim -- that you abused your authority in making this block -- was based on your failing to consult with other admins on the matter, you could of course set the record straight and provide evidence or diffs where you did exactly that. But of course, before making my claim, I checked your user-talk history and found no such conversation. I suggest to you and urge you, therefore, to make any such counsels a matter of record by using the talk pages. Otherwise some, including myself, might see such a claim as a bald lie to cover your ass. --Otheus 21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No reason for suspicion. Presumably they discussed it off-wiki. --CBD 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Otheus, claiming something as a lie is unacceptable. Claiming something is a lie when you have yourself edited the pages in which two of those opinions were expressed...well, that's more than a little disingenuous.  Guettarda 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, once again you have failed to understand a nuance here. I did not claim FM lied. I said, that if in the future FM does not discuss these things on-wiki, others and I might see [the hypothetical future claim of conferring with others] as a lie. And just because we might see it as such does not imply we would publicly claim it as such.
 * Failing to follow the ArbCom's rulings in a transparent manner harms the project. Wouldn't you agree? --Otheus 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Failing to follow the ArbCom's rulings in a transparent manner harms the project - but it wasn't done in a manner that wasn't transparent. It was discussed out in the open.  So not only were you obliquely accusing FM of lying, you were either being irresponsible in your accusation (having not bothered to look for the discussion, despite the fact that it occurred on pages that you have actually edited since it took place), or you were implying he lied despite being aware of the discussion.  So, once again you are being disingenuous in your accusations.  Guettarda 06:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I scanned his contributions to the User_talk pages between the 21st and time of block and found no discussion. If I overlooked something or he made the discussion elsewhere, then, yes, then you will be right that my particular accusation was irresponsible. --Otheus 06:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am just observing this from the sidelines, but I would argue that out of courtesy, CBD should have asked for clarification from the blocking admin before undoing the block. That is not only a matter of courtesy that should be extended to a fellow admin, but a way to allow the blocking admin to address any concerns that CBD may had and explain his rationale for the block. After that is done, and if there is  still disagreement, other admins can be asked to comment to ascertain  the level of support or lack of support for a block. Unilateral undoing of an admin block, without asking questions first is not the way to do this, gentlemen. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I'd agree with you except for two things;
 * Several people had in fact already "asked for clarification". There was no 'lack of information' on my part when I unblocked.
 * Some blocks can and should be overturned immediately. There isn't any justification for an admin blocking a user they are in a content dispute with . There isn't any validity in claiming that this is a personal attack so severe as to constitute blockable disruption (and if there were, several other participants in this dispute would seem to be missing a block). And there is no way that the ArbCom meant a tiny five day content dispute to be sufficient grounds to ban someone from an article... especially when that person's supposedly 'disruptive' edits to the article were endorsed as valid by Jimbo.
 * Yes, we need to respect our fellow admins. However, we need to respect our users too. --CBD 09:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course that is a given. But asking one question from the blocking admin, could have saved you all a lot of aggravation. If I block someone, I expect anyone challenging the block to contact me first. I am sure you would appreciate the same. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorsed by Jimbo? Jimbo endorsed linkfarming and personal attacks?  Wow, that's news to me.  Guettarda 06:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Heads up
Rednblu is trying to organize an RFC against you by recruiting DrL and FNMF. The link he posts there is DrL trying to get the arbcom ruling lifted against himself and Asmodeus to which you contributed, so there's his angle. 151.151.21.103 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This is nothing new, he's a chronic malcontent and agitator. If the project got 5 bucks from every editor blocked or banned who complained about it we wouldn't need any more fund drives. It's already been explained to both parties that the line they're considering for the lifting of User:DrL's and User:Asmodeus's ban is not an option, RFAR appeals are heard only by the arbcomm or Jimbo, not the community. Simply stirring the pot to fuel strife and find support while posing as the aggrieved won't work against arbcomm rulings and often backfire due to the additional disruption and ill will they create. Considering the weight of the evidence presented in the RFAR and their own contribution histories, getting the ban lifted against editing their own article has an exceedingly low order of probability of succeeding. FeloniousMonk 17:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw your comments to Otheus and whole-heartedly agree with your characterization of the situation. He confirmed it when he split up your comment with his responses (no doubt in order to lessen its impact). Sincw that violates talk page guidelines and makes it harder to follow your thinking I restored your comment to its original form - I hope you don't mind. I too felt his edit summary to me was uncalled for and not civil, so thanks for setting him straight. 151.151.21.101 17:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

framing merge proposal
Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism
Based on what I know of your editing, no one could make a case that would satisfy you, and I'm not going to try. I can only direct you to read WP:NPOV and try to "write for the enemy". Obviously, I'm aware that when I turn my back on the template, you will immediately seek to re-impose your terminology, which is biased, and all I can do is ask you not to. Those who adhere to "dominionism" do not generally call it that. Its opponents do. You are aware of that. Sadly, you are also one of those opponents and seemingly unable to leave your biases at the door. So I can only ask you to consider whether you are approaching this subject fairly, and in particular, whether those you are writing about would accept your categorisation of them. They don't necessarily have to like it, but would they accept that it fairly describes them? Given that it is generally used pejoratively, I think you know that they wouldn't.

You might also like to read Naming_conflict. "Dominionism" clearly has POV connotations. It is nothing like a neutral word. I accept that "Christian reconstructionism" can also be argued to be POV, but at least it is not derogatory. Further on in that same article, it notes that "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles." I think that is sound advice. If a group calls itself the foos, but you call them the bars, you should strongly consider calling them foos. This is a reliable means of resolving difficult clashes of POV. Grace Note 07:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Physics
I noticed you reverted some edits I recently made to Physics. I'll understand if you think they failed to improve the article, but since I spent some time making them, I'd appreciate if you at least explained your reasons. Your edit comment said nothing, and I saw no new comments on the talk page. Can you tell me what you didn't like so I can do better? Gnixon 17:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied to you on my talk page and would appreciate a response. Gnixon 18:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms section removed from United States National Academy of Sciences
User:Kborer may be objecting to the removal of the Criticisms section from United States National Academy of Sciences, and is requesting comment on Talk:United States National Academy of Sciences. Could you address some of his concerns by adding a comment? / edgarde 17:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment?
Your comments on the way this is developing will be much appreciated. .. dave souza, talk 21:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism
Political commentary is not hard to find. Though yours is no worse than anyone else's, it would be better to keep it off a talk page that is already contentious. Further, you would do better to moderate your language on the talk page. It may come across as an attempt to bully or threaten. It is unlikely to be successful, makes your argument look weak, and antagonizes people who would likely agree with you in many areas. Tom Harrison Talk 12:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. Looking back, you'll see that my comments were limited to matters Wikipedia policy and process, not political commentary, and I just call em like I see em. The fact is that those who repeatedly misrepresent reliable sources run the risk being viewed and treated as disruptive editors. Whether it's through the addition or subtraction of information, Wikipedia is not the place for pov promotion, and Category:Banned Wikipedia users is literally full of former editors who thought they could game the system through wikilawyering and specious appeals to policies like BLP. FeloniousMonk 13:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Following Ed Poor
Are you stalking me? I left a comment to a user's essay in their namespace, and I found a rejoinder from you after my comment. If you disagree with my take on NPOV why not air your views in public? I just posted Consensus version and await your comments. --Uncle Ed 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you assuming good faith? Some of your recent comments have begun with a 'reminder' to others that I am on probation. What does that have to do with the content of my edits the import of my comments? Surely you don't believe that an ad hominem attack is good behavior. You have been warned by the arbcom about this, IIRC. --Uncle Ed 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed, are you pretending again that you're not on arbcomm probation? I can see why you'd want to, but pointing out that you are certainly was relevant to that page, given your misrepresentation of the situation at the articles where you ran afoul and that prompted the arbitration in the first place. FeloniousMonk 06:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Request For Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/David Irving, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Please help if you have time
WP:ANI Gnixon is on a vendetta against anyone who stands up to him. I know you had to set him straight once, and I've just plain given up on him. TxMJC is a very smart editor, who, like me and others, doesn't spend a lot of time being diplomatic. Your comments will help. Orangemarlin 22:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

your recent 3rr report
It looks different kinds of reverts, not the same content being removed, and it also looks like the 3RR warning comes after all the diffs. I don't think that's blockable. ··coe l acan 05:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From WP:3RR: An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.


 * Thanks for reviewing this. FeloniousMonk 06:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I grant that, but it makes me more wary of blocking, especially if the editor might not have been aware of the rule. The editor has been here since 19 March 2007. Do you have any evidence that they were specifically aware of the 3RR rule before breaking it? ··coe l acan 06:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Monaghan
I've started a discussion at ANI. Tom Harrison Talk 16:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerned
I don't want to not assume good faith but I'm troubled by something I just read. I noticed your comments, then reversal of those comments, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hostile editor at Creation-evolution controversy. Please review the contributions of User:Gnixon vs. those of User:ImprobabilityDrive. Note when one started editing some of these Creation vs. Evolution articles and when one stopped. Also note the style of editing (massive changes without gaining consensus) and battling over perceived NPOV issues. Finally, note the quick filling of incidents at ANI. Maybe I'm wrong, in which case, I know your style is to directly mention when someone has his head up his digestive tract. Orangemarlin 17:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're alleging that I am a sockpuppet of User:Gnixon, this is a bit of a devious way of doing it, and certainly not AGF. Also, wikipedia policy is to be bold.  I added a section to the Creation-evolution controversy page, and another user started battling me over POV issues while I was in the midst of adding it.  I repeatedly tried to gain this other editor's cooperation, but ultimately filed a complaint for disruptive editing.  FeloniousMonk initially agreed with me, but later withdrew his warning, dismissing the editing as a mere content dispute.  In my opinion, the other editor could have handled it much better, and cooperated with me, but FeloniousMonk ultimately decided that everything was kosher.  While I disagreed with him, I did not persist, as I had better things to do.  If you have an issue with me Orangemarlin, please take it to my talk page first.  I am more than willing to work with others, especially you, my friend.  Also, please AGF, because I think your intimation above may be why I felt a bit ganged up on today at Creation-evolution controversy talk page.  ImprobabilityDrive 07:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just compared contribution log of myself and Gnixon. There are some overlaps. Hopefully this will be sufficient to address the implication that I am User:Gnixon.  Thanks.  ImprobabilityDrive 07:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move: Sternberg/Smithsonian Affair
I see you were a recent contributor to the Sternberg peer review controversy article. I have added a section to the talk page proposing that the article be moved to and renamed "Sternberg-Smithsonian Affair". If you would like to see the rationale, please visit Talk:Sternberg_peer_review_controversy, and leave your thoughts there. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 07:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.

Your recent edit appears to be a form of vandalism/blanking. Wikipedia defines blanking vandalism at Vandalism.

Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, or, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.

If you feel this warning is in error, please provide a non-trivial support for your blanking. ImprobabilityDrive 05:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Template on intelligent design
You changed the protection template on intelligent design. From time to time I go through Category:Protected and choose more specific categories to put its articles in. There are only two realistic options for articles: pp-vandalism and pp-dispute. So basically any protection due to a disagreement about content gets pp-dispute, whether or not the dispute has any merit (and often they don't). I'm not going to revert it until the next time I go through that category (I just did this weekend), but I'll probably change it back to pp-dispute on my next pass. CMummert · talk 17:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive RfC
I agree with your comments and have opened an RfC. Please leave your comments: Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 05:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note the following sockpuppet: Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (3rd). I've implicated ID. Orangemarlin 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ijntelligent design
I've reverted you. You can't just make bold assertions like that on a controversial article. You really do have to justify it being inaccurate, showing what sentences are, and copy and paste in your changes so that the rest of the article can change. If I allow straight, unjustified reversions claiming consensus I might as well block the article again now. Adam Cuerden talk 02:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules
Hi. Please join us at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules. We're currently discussing the very problem your edits seem aimed to correct, and your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -GTBacchus(talk) 06:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of PalestineRemembered
Given that there is now an ArbCom case on PalestineRemembered, you should unblock him so that he is able to contribute on the ArbCom page. As to the correctness of the block, I will give my opinion on the ArbCom page. --Zerotalk 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 sockpuppetry
Have entered a new sock puppet report and RFCU request on Giovanni33, which I note you have previously been involved with regarding sock puppetry. Thank you. Yaf 05:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi FM. I welcome a check on the matter which will prove that this case is completely baseless. I also think Yaf's edit summary stating his accusation as a fact is rather inflamatory and a personal attack.Giovanni33 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

ID
I disagree strongly with using the whole DI quote: They can define themselves, but we should not quote them mischaracterising the opposition without comment. Anyway, there's no such thing as a "whole quote", unless you quote the entire paper. Adam Cuerden talk 12:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

ID
"Restore original structure. the proper way for this is to let ID proponents to say what ID is, how it is received by the scientific community, and then it's legal standing"

I'm not disagreeing with your restoration (though I do wish you had paid attention: You restored the reason I changed the strucure; to try and work in Kenosis' duplication of a fact, which caused the exteded form to be moved, which needed to be rebutted immediately or it'd be highly misleading... well... you get the idea... However, I'm not convinced exactly that the first paragraph actually IS letting the proponents say what ID is: Indeed, if it was, I'd object strongly, as it's misleading to conceal doubt until the second paragraph. Adam Cuerden talk 17:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Potential IAR edit war? Please don't.
I've noted before that you just edit and don't talk. Please talk this one out. There are a lot of stakeholders working on a new version of IAR, and your edits are causing a disruption of the evolving process. Please participate in the process, not step in and stomp all over other folks' good faith efforts. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. You may wish to review a recent comprehensive analysis I did of the editing patterns/trends of WP:IAR, which may contradict your assertion that the version you reverted to "stood for years". At most it stood for about a year. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit warring? Please. Restoring the original version of a policy is not edit warring, but consecutive restorations of controversial changes that do not have broad community consensus are. And agreement between 4 or 5 like-minded editors does not constitute broad community consensus. Recognizing a number of the participants in that discussion, I see no point in joining discussion there, but be assured that I and a number of other admins are watching that page and will not support any version of the policy that does not contain the long-standing and necessary caveat that the purpose of IAR is not to encourage recklessness or to make every single action justifiable. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You reverted my revert of your edit. That counts as warring, as would it have if I had reverted you again (note that I did not attempt to).
 * For the record, I totally agree with you about IAR and recklessness, and have always wanted to include in any version a link to the original phrasing as well as as many references I can that help defray the possibility that some jackass will use IAR to justify unilateral, anti-consensus behavior.
 * What I was objecting to in your edits was that you just waltzed right in and started stomping all over the consensus-driven edits we were doing. Not only did your unilateral edits/reverts blow away any momentum we were building at the time, but you arguably contributed to the protection action that Eagle took to freeze the edits and destroy the momentum and consensus-building. That's what I objected to, and why I wished you would have been willing to do more talking and less sand-castle stomping.
 * Regardless, I'm done with IAR for a while, so please go ahead and do any other actions you feel necessary. I'm finished building sandcastles. There are too many bullies. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A short history of ID
Since the early history of ID seemed to me to be more complex than the current intelligent design lead implies, I've been trying to get the hang of the sequence of events and have roughed out User talk:Dave souza/ID timeline. In my opinion a little more history might help clarify that article, and there might also be a care for a timeline or even a short history article. I'll be grateful if you can have a look and point out any blunders - the sourcing of the timeline is still being pulled together, but I'll try to get it a bit more organised in the next day or so. ... dave souza, talk 21:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not create a separate article for that? Also, lose "cognates".  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Holocaust denial
Thank you for leaving a message on my talk page but I have no idea what you are mean. (A) I do not know that what I wrote is OR. Nor has anyone convinced me that it is. (B) As I understand it article talk pages are there to discuss things like this. Further if my last addition to the article page was OR then how would you explain sentences like the one which stats "Most Holocaust denial claims imply..." (see my last posting on the talk page addressed to Slp1) --Philip Baird Shearer 10:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have this backwards. No one has to convince anyone whether something is OR; if there are not sources per WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:RS, then it simply IS OR. The onus is on you to provide sources, not the other way around. Please let me know if you have any problems with this explanation. Further, if you are concerned that anything else in any article is OR, that is a separate issue - don't discuss other possible instances of OR in the misguided assumption that it somehow validates your OR. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered
Hi, regarding the indef block that you placed on on 14 May. Could you possibly point me to the discussion in which it was decided he should be blocked? I can only find this discussion, which did not reach a consensus. Mark Chovain 05:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also put this question to ANI - you may want to comment there. Mark Chovain 08:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In view of the current status of the arbitration case, the question really is whether there is or is not reason for PalestineRemembered to remain blocked as of now. As noted, your opinion on this issue on ANI would be helpful. Newyorkbrad 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the ANI discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reason for PalestineRemembered block. Please make a clear statement as to your current position.  GRBerry 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Query
What did this edit change? I can't spot it, though it may just be that I edited the text to revert recent to modern, and you reverted it, and this led to minor formatting differences. Adam Cuerden talk 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see the changes either; I suspect it's just an extra space or something subtle like that, but wondered if I missed something. Oh, well. Two reverts at the same time must count as a strong "no". Pretty awful change, at best it's substituting the most specific and accurate word for a less appropriate contender; at worst simply wrong. Adam Cuerden talk 16:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Teach the Controversy
Why did you write "lets work this out together" in an edit summary without actually responding to what I wrote on Talk:Teach the Controversy? I'm happy to discuss solutions with you but I feel like this should be brought to WP:RFC because the only people currently involved seem to be me and a handful of strongly anti-DI editors. I'm confident that uninvolved people will agree that opinionated statements need to be attributed to a source. It's disappointing that when I attributed statements to AAAS you removed that attribution for no reason. Rhobite 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Haldane's Dilemma
Is this article as awfully creationist POV'd as I think it is? I found this Adam Cuerden talk 04:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
I didn't understand your edit. I wasn't trying to edit war; but the commented-out section was explaining the tag there - if you removed the comment, you should have removed the tag also. The way, the truth, and the light 02:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Calton
There is plenty of incivility with Calton...but I ain't going there. I was working on the KXGN article, he put himself into that conversation. I didn't ask for his assistance. When I asked him to leave me be, he got incivil. After 5 times and being asked by another admin (not of my asking), I went to the Admin board. Now you all can continue to defend him, it just makes admins as a whole look bad. You defend someone who breaks the rules while punishing those who don't. Whatever, I don't care. I am not going to "find a corner". I will continue to edit radio and TV articles and whatever articles I see that need a little cleanup. I had to drop one username because of him, I ain't about to make it two. - NeutralHomer  T:C 05:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You know what, I was going to give you a nice page and a half of proof....but what good would it do...seriously? You are just going to support him no matter what.  He will continue to get more and more incivil and none of it will be my fault.  Everyone wants to make me the bad guy, fine.  Go ahead, but I am not the one that people can't stand on here.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to go back to my Radio and TV stations.  Real work is needed. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 06:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I support NeutralHomer 100%. Please not bother adding to my talk page. Thank you! 76.166.123.129 06:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Second request for this user to stay off my talk page. 76.166.123.129 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My 3RR report
Hello,

The reason I reported Jayjg is becaues he made 4 reverts (according to WP:3RR's definition) in less than 24 hours. It is true that even I didn't approve of the material initially, but later I realized that the material was legitimate. 

Also, please note that in 3 of the edits I reported, Jayjg removes sourced material. They can be legitimately considered as reverts as part of an edit war. Finally, I followed the definition as provided on WP:3RR as guideline for my report. Did I miss anything sginificant in WP:3RR?Bless sins 05:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gonzalez
Hey FM, I'm concerned about your edit here to the Gonzalez article. I really can't see the POV and would appreciate your pointing it out. Your change also introduced some factual errors -- e.g., we don't have "research professor" type faculty lines as opposed to regular tenure-track position. My main interest in the article is that I'm also on the faculty at ISU (in a different department); it's a local issue so I can add info from the local press here as well as ISU policies and the like. I have no stake in the outcome one way or the other. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 16:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias

 * You have accused me of "repeated aggressive and biased editing". I would appreciate it if you substantiate your allegation with specific editing history examples.
 * You had previous accused me of being a "well-known pseudoscience POV pusher", twice,, without explanation or substantiation, or on request,.
 * Please also confirm that uncivil behaviour fails one of Wikipedia's key policies, and that reporting it is not frivolous. --Iantresman 11:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would add to FM's comments that it also appears you repeatedly introduced a copyvio (Google Video). Raymond Arritt 13:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See my response on your personal talk page. My questions to FM still stand unanswered. --Iantresman 14:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully asked for diffs substantiating your claims, and trust that you have every intention of meeting etiquette guidelines (ie. "Don't ignore questions"). --Iantresman 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a basic courtesy to respond to a question, and Admins should set an example when they make serious allegations against other editors. Again, I ask you to provide diffs that support your allegation of "repeated aggressive and biased editing" against me. --Iantresman 08:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think I didn't check out your sources?
Oh, right. Nothing. Just your bias against me because I don't agree with your preconceived conclusions. Jinxmchue 01:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignoring sources is one thing, but repeatedly misrepresenting them while deleting them then edit warring to keep out of the article is the very definition of disruptive editing]. You won't get too far using your methods. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk 01:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, you're a fine one to talk about repeatedly misrepresenting sources and being disruptive (esp. with your insults). You cite a source that gives only the titles and an extremely brief description of segments from Kennedy's show and you claim that proves he supports ID. Hardly!  Your claims as to what your sources prove rely heavily on what you are reading into them, not what they actually say. As for sources such as AU and that book, they are highly contentious sources with highly contentious claims that aren't backed up with facts in any way. According to section 5 of WP:Citing sources, I have every right to remove them. Jinxmchue 02:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, you're misrepresenting sources, selectively focusing on Forrest and Mooney while ignoring other sources, such as Kennedy himself. I've asked you if you can provide even a single source where Kennedy rejects ID and we're still waiting. In the meantime I've presented two where he does. There's no material basis for your frothing here. FeloniousMonk 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FA
I've kept away from the article as things seemed to be chugging along quite well despite everything. I was curious if you've kept tabs on its progress, and those involved? Based on your contributions I'm guessing not... but still wanted to drop you line and ask how things are going? - RoyBoy 800 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Johnson
As you'll have noted from Talk:William A. Dembski there is a question as to when and to what extent Johnson began using the term "intelligent design" to promote his aims – I've amended that article and Timeline of intelligent design to reflect that information. The information in the timeline so far seems to suggest that the group calling itself The Wedge were arguing for "the notion of intelligent design" by May 1995 (Challenging Darwin's Myth by Mark Hartwig), and Behe contributed to the 1993 edition of Pandas, but around that time Johnson was still dismissive, telling the WSJ that "...a bit more candor about the nature of the designer might be in order" (Analysis of the Melvindale Science Curriculum Sub-Committee Book Recommendations). Do you have information on when the wedgies got together with the Foundation for Thought and Ethics to develop the movement the FTE had been promoting? .. dave souza, talk 16:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I never thought I'd say this
I was reading through the page history of Ignore all rules and found this insightful diff, and wanted to compliment the author.

Seeing our history, it's very hard for me to compliment you, but here goes:

That particular edit was very insightful indeed, and you have earned my permanent respect by making it.

The scary part is that I'm dead serious. I'm that impressed.

--Kim Bruning 18:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
Is the new draft at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view OK with you? Do you have any comments or suggestions? Tim Vickers 19:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:1938_Horch_853A.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:1938_Horch_853A.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 09:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Return of Raspor?
I strongly suspect that User:Octoplus is a sockpuppet of User:Raspor. Should we check? Here is why I have my suspicions:
 * endless trolling
 * badly formed sentences and grammar and lack of punctuation, similar to Raspor, although he is capable of writing clearly
 * wildly exaggerated indenting on occasion (started when Raspor was chastised for not ever indenting)
 * Raspor's suggestions that evolution is not a hard science or inadequate because of its lack of mathematical rigor, and Octoplus' allusions to a mathematical proof of the inability of evolution to produce life that uses differential equations
 * long and frequent posts to talk pages but never any constructive suggestions to change the article
 * familiarly of Octoplus with the page and the WP rules even though the account is quite new
 * when frequently invited to produce something, Raspor and Octoplus both decline, and blame their lack of output on some sort of discrimination by other WP editors
 * both have a similar attitude and seem aggrieved about something
 * both tried to direct the attention to themselves and remain in the spotlight (when I moved material to Octoplus' talkpage, he deleted it and then claimed he had never seen it). When this was pointed out, he moved on to another complaint, much as Raspor would.

Suggestions?--Filll 12:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that User:Octoplus is walking in the footsteps User:Raspor and Everwill. We should raise your concern with the admin who issued the original block, SlimVirgin, and if she agrees that User:Octoplus is a sockpuppet of User:Raspor/Everwill, she'll block him as a sock puppet. FeloniousMonk 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
I have provided you with the source, which is the Logic of Scientific Discovery, and I have pointed you to an online source where you can check it. Please explain me what exactly you want from me. I kindly ask you to take back your revert. --rtc 16:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)