User talk:For great justice.

This is my talk page - for previous talk, see the history. For great justice. 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page
Hi. Please don't blank your talk page - if you feel that it is getting too large, you should archive it. There are several methods listed on that page. SeventyThree(Talk) 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There seems to be no rule requiring the archiving of talk pages (see Talk_pages. I have no current discussions ongoing, and anyone wishing to see previous talk can see the history, Thanks, For great justice. 21:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * True that. I would encourage you to put a notice at the top of your talk page mentioning that you archive, and suggesting that people look at the history. That way, people will know to check. It's not a big issue though, so I;ll leave it up to you. SeventyThree(Talk) 21:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 'Search Queries'
Yea, I believe a unified search would be better, I guess since the search WILL be made more powerful [its on the list of things to do for the developers, but @ the bottom], maybe Search could also be changed so that it searches for in ALL of the WIKIPROJECTS. Yes, I did mean IN THE WIKIPROJECTS, NOT WITHIN THE OTHER LANGUAGES, but that might not be as important, cause a word spelled the same in another language usually has nothing to do with the word spelled excatly the same in another language.

68.148.165.213 02:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussions about notability guidelines
Hey -- by the way, I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot earlier; I was a bit too harsh on you, I think. I'm finding this discussion quite interesting and relevant. Mango juice talk 18:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Comments
Your comments on the Articles for deletion/Always Postpone Meetings with Time-Wasting Morons page are inappropriate. Wikipedia is a collaborative and cooperative endeavour, not a sporting competition. HistoryBA 23:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Input needed
Hi there. I read your comments on the academics (notability) page. You mentioned that election candidates should be listed on wikipedia. Here is the deletion review on the matter, please vote "undelete". Thanks. Gsinclairr 10:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing notability debate
OK, I see the confusion. I am applying the concept of NPOV to editorial decisions about content. All article content should be written from the NPOV. Furthermore, editorial decisions about which content should be included are subject to NPOV. For example, the articles on democrats and republicans should be written from a NPOV. Furthermore, whether or not to have an article on Democrats is also subject to POV rules. You could not, for example, exclude the democrats simply because you didn't like them or were not interested in them. So, a policy or guideline that has implications for what information gets in or not must be in compliance with NPOV. For great justice. 19:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with you there, but guidelines have very rarely had POV issues. I do see the point, though.  And I do see this happening on AfD a lot: people seem very comfortable calling just about anything "non notable," which can mean extremely little in some cases.  As an example, see Articles for deletion/Alien Workshop, in which people are calling one of the top 12 skateboard manufacturers "not a notable skateboard manufacturer," which is really straining the limits.  But let's talk solution for a bit.  I think your objection to notability guidelines is noted, and is a minority opinion, but not a fringe one.  However, it's undoubtedly the case that a lot of people on AfD are somewhat ignorant of these types of arguments.  I was thinking, what if we made an essay, say Introduction to Deletion Process that tried to inform people of the basic guidelines and policies in a neutral way, while educating them about the process.  Then, we could create a template, say Template:afd-welcome, that would welcome editors to the deletion process, inform them of the essay, and the relevant other policy pages, and start leaving it on the user talk pages of editors making their first forays into the deletion process?  It couldn't hurt.  Mango juice talk 21:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - that would be a good step forward - let's have a go. One thing that I am worried about is that a lot of more mature editors believe that notability guidelines are policy - a framework that explained that they are not would be good. I'm also convinced that very few people have actually read verifiability - I still get a lot of 'but my toenail is verifiable'. Thanks for your ongoing positive attitude! For great justice. 23:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The biggest difficulty is in being succinct. There's so much to say about deletion, and we don't want the signal to get lost in the noise.  Mango juice talk 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Aren't there already some 'deletion 101' pages? I don't know, but it seems like the kind of thing someone would have done... For great justice. 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find any. I started Introduction to Deletion Process.  There is WP:DPR, but it's really not user-friendly.  I've found that there is a lack of pages good at introducing an editor to the community.  Things have been hard for me to find, sometimes.  Mango juice talk 04:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just adding my two cents. The notability guidelines are not consistent. It is also a matter of POV as to what is notable and what is not. I think we can acheive quality articles without using notability as a criteria. DanielZimmerman 19:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Moon
Read what I just wrote there, and explain. Wahkeenah 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not an edit war...
Each edit was modified in response to your expressed concerns, and explained my rationales, which I find compelling, in the history page comments. - Reaverdrop 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC) (In response to User_talk:Reaverdrop.)


 * Talk page now officially used. - Reaverdrop 21:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with your "later indicated..." but see my talk page comments on "aggressive" vs. "assertive". - Reaverdrop 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert until we discuss these points on the talkpage
I am willing to discuss your issues with the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations on the talkpage, but your previous edits were not justified. We are trying to get an NPOV article here not a debate. --ScienceApologist 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --ScienceApologist 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

1942 mod
Stargate: Battle for Mankind is up for AFD again. List of Battlefield 1942 mods AFD may also be of interest. Bfelite 02:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

notablity
Nice essay or cut-and-paste on your user page! Maybe there should be a WikiProject or similar group for people against "notability". -- Chris   Ccool2ax   contrib.  06:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, a good way to help us anti notablity people out would be to support the undeletion of the template User No Notability at this link: (im too lazy to wikilink right now. --  Chris   Ccool2ax   contrib.  21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR
I see from the comment above and yours on my talk page that you are already aware of the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison Talk 13:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reported you at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for voilating the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison Talk 17:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your blatant display of cabalistic, in-bred stupidity. I trust that facts of Tom's behavior played no part in your decision, only the fact that he is an admin. I should have known better than to try to correct his vandalism. For great justice. 17:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You can shout "Cabal abuse" all you like: As far as I can see, there was no 3RR violation on Tom's part. Before you go saying I was defending him, I don't think I've ever intereacted with him before. I have nothing more to say on this matter unless new evidence comes to light. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankfully no 'new evidence' of your fawning toadying is needed - it's all there for anyone to see. I feel sorry that you feel so intellectually impotent that you need to force your opinions on others by technological violence. For great justice. 17:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
I was adding a comment on Talk:Apollo moon landing hoax accusations and happened to notice that you had made a minor spelling error, "proove" instead of "prove", so I fixed it just to make you look better. Now someone is butting in and reverting it. Maybe if you fix it yourself, that wiki-nanny will get off my back. Thank you. 0:) Wahkeenah 02:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you - sorry if the wikinazis nagged you about it - please feel free to correct my spelling - I appreciate it. For great justice. 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Moon hoax
Thanks for your message. I'm afraid I disagree with you though; I think the moon hoax theory seems like an absolute conspiracy theory; it is a theory concerning a conspiracy! Of course I do take your point that it has a rather pejorative sense, but in this case I think that is justified. As a scientist by training, I always look for the simplest explanation, and it just seems utterly incredible that so many tens of thousands (hunderds of thousands?) of people would have kept silent for 40 years about this supposed 'hoax'. Many of them would be Russians too, who, as you'll remember, fell over themselves to sell their former secrets when the USSR collapsed. If real evidence ever emerged that NASA had faked the moon landings, I would be the first to change my mind, but I regard the current "objections" (as fairly listed on the excellent article we both edit) as having all been thoroughly debunked. Hell, I remember seeing the waving flag one debunked when I was 6 or 7 years old and understanding why it happened, as it happened, in 1971 or thereabouts.

So, I regard the Moon hoax theory as I regard the Loch Ness Monster, as a piece of post-modernist pseudo-belief, at best parapsychology, at worst unthinking anti-science mumbo-jumbo. Sorry.

I do hope none of the above is offensive to you, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on the article. --Guinnog 14:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC) It has no meaning independent of "I don't believe it"  No meaning? --Guinnog 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The accusation is that NASA and many others have conspired to mislead the public. If that's not a conspiracy theory, I don't know what is. Wahkeenah 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a term of abuse. For great justice. 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes - the only thing it means is that the person who is using it wants to disparage the thing. It has no objective meaning. For great justice. 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So you would never regard it as an appropriate term? Even for, let's say, mentally ill people who had a theory the government was watching them and listening to their thoughts? Or people who believe that international Jewry are controlling the world? What would you call beliefs like these? --Guinnog 18:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If they were medically diagnosed, I would call them delusions. For great justice. 18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * From this discussion, it looks like the argument is that although the word itself is accurate, it is often used with a negative connotation. Still, it's better than "lunatics", yes? Wahkeenah 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the word is not 'acurate', because it is simply an insult. It represents nothing except the opinion of the person who uses it, and has no objective meaning. It does not mean the same thing as 'a theory about a conspiracy'. 'Lunatic' is an obsolete medical term that, likewise, has no current meaning outside of an insult. For great justice. 21:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying there NASA did not conspire to perpetrate a hoax? Wahkeenah 23:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am saying that a theory about a conspiracy is not the same thing as a 'conspiracy theory'. One is neutral, the other is pejoritive. For great justice. 23:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As a onetime wrestler in the pit of the Conspiracy theory article, I recognise For great justice's point, here; it comes up daily over there. It's not 100% true, but it ain't 100% false either. Conspiracy theory does certainly mean a narrative with a particular kind of credibility problem, ie, if someone supposes that narrative to be true, they're right to be offended by the label (but perhaps wrong to leap to the offensive, themselves). The question is whether or not we can justify its use over the objections of the true believer. If it's used carelessly, it's simply a pejorative term - For great justice's right as far as that goes. But if it's used in defined circumstances - ie, when a particular belief has been demonstrated to have certain regularly occurring features which each subtract from the credibility of the belief - then Conspiracy theory may be legitimately ascribed to that belief. The true believer may object, but then, they would, wouldn't they? 'Hope that helps. Adhib 19:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war and POV-pushing
You push your own POV regarding your pathological skepticism regarding the Apollo landings. All of your edits are from this perspective and you do not adhere to the WP:NPOV guidelines in your edits. --ScienceApologist 19:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You can't justify that statement with any evidence. Which is why you simply revert other people's edits without discussing them. For great justice. 19:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've discussed with you as much as I can. I cannot be held accountable your own ignorance in the matter. --ScienceApologist 19:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You have never come up with anything concrete, except that I want the page to treat the subject neutrally, whereas you will accept nothing but your POV. Your refusal to discuss this on the talk page proves your bad faith. For great justice. 19:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am all over the talkpage and I've shown you in many instances where your POV is problematically peppering your edits. --ScienceApologist 19:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you are all over the talk page with abuse, not discussing edits. For great justice. 20:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A word to the wise: read Avoid personal remarks before putting anything like this in an edit summary again:


 * RV rampant POV pusher who refuses to discuss this issue in any forum!

Not that I agree that the moon landings were a hoax, though. I merely want the article to be well-written. Cheers. --Uncle Ed 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I really need some help with SA, he consistently reverts without discussion - I don't know how to deal with his POV pushing when he refuses to discuss it. For great justice. 20:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to get a discussion going with him. Start by losing the term POV pusher maybe? --Uncle Ed 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, good point. I only started using it however after he repeatedly reverted my edits, refusing to discuss them, and calling me a POV pusher. Any ideas on what to do? For great justice. 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, don't follow my bad example of last week. I foolishly tried to beat the edit warriors at there own game. But I lost count of how many reversions each "side" had and went over 3RR in 24 hours. So I got blocked, same as you.


 * If you have trouble counting your reversions, then try limiting them to only 1 or 2 per day on any given article. There's no hurry. Eventually someone else will notice and join in. If your edits are good, others will support them (though maybe not at first). So, be patient.--Uncle Ed 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
I'm watching the edits you're making to the Moon Hoax landing on my watchlist, and I've noticed your edit summaries have been basically labeled "NPOV".

This is a little confusing (and even a little irksome) because technically everyone believes that their edits are "NPOV". It is also ambiguous as to what you're doing.

Might I recommend giving more specific edit summaries like "removing uncited claim" or "rewording statement".--DCAnderson 20:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! For great justice. 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR
You'd better take it easy on those reverts; I haven't counted but I think you're bumping up against 3RR again. Tom Harrison Talk 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reported you for violating the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison Talk 00:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

how to deal with people who simply revert
What I do is wait till they violate 3RR and then report them. Tom Harrison Talk 22:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking
Please read the notice on Wikistalking. It's very bad practice. Don't get in the habit of it. --ScienceApologist 22:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Connection to indefinitely-blocked user?
Hi, For great justice. (with a dot at the end), can you explain how you chose your user name, and how it happens to be so very, very similar to that of an indefinitely-blocked user? I don't want to suggest anything &mdash; I'm just wondering. Generally, it's very strongly discouraged to have a name that's too similar to that of another user. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 23:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you ever played Zero Wing? I have no idea who that user is, or why they were blocked, and was not aware of their existance. Perhaps you can throw some light on the issue? For great justice. 23:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a variant on his initials, FGJ. His real name is Frank George Justice, a very distant cousin of both Buford T. Justice and David Justice. Wahkeenah 23:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, but, I'm afraid, spurious. For great justice. 23:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You know what you doing, I guess. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm also curious about your handle. I'm guessing that unless it has some specific and (to me) obscure religious and/or political significance, it's just your view of how the world should be, which I can't argue with. :) Wahkeenah 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume it refers to the line from Zero Wing, more famous for “All your base are belong to us” (to which For great justice redirects). — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Wahkeenah - if you don't know what something means, try entering into Wikipedia! For great justice. 05:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Roger. Wahkeenah 09:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks and wikistalking
About this: Please read and abide by WP:NPA and WP:HA stop following around and trolling this person. FeloniousMonk 00:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh for goodness sake. I edited two pages where SA is spewing the same nonsense. That's not stalking, it's common sense. For great justice. 05:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * SA is spewing nonsense? Is there a mirror in your general vicinity?  SA is merely stating fact, you are stating hyperbolic speculation.  Get over it. User:Jim62sch 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's 'spewing nonsense' - specifically, he has no understanding or respect for wikipedia's NPOV policy, instead treating the article as his own undergraduate essay. For great justice. 02:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, he was a bit rude to you but he was also right; these anti-scientific beliefs you seem to hold are minority ones. Check out Loch Ness Monster for a good wiki article on a minority POV. Now, on the other hand, if you ever want help in toning down language you think is NPOV (ie unverifiable and/or giving undue weight), then give me a shout next time, before you get caught for 3rr. I'm a moon hoax sceptic but I'm always happy to try to help achieve a compromise. --Guinnog 02:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The beliefs are held by between 6-30% of the US population, depending on which survey you take, so yes, they are minority, but what makes you say they are anti-scientific? They are pro-science. But all this is beside the point, the point is not whether you or I are convinced, but whether we should include snide editorial comments and strong personal biases in the article. BTW, what is your opinion on undiscussed reverts to versions days old? For great justice. 15:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on June 3 2006 (UTC) to Apollo moon landing hoax accusations

 * Well, once again I have been blocked for trying to uphold Wikipedia policy in the face of barbaric stupidity and self interest. It seems (and some have even admitted) that there is a widespread feeling amonst a small group of POV pushers, that Wikipedia's neutrality policy does not apply to them. Well, I guess I must be doing something right if "the dunces are all in confederacy against..." me. For anyone still interested in writing from an NPOV, this article is particularly difficult because it has been 'occupied' by a group of four or five fanatics who are not open to discussion, but rather continue to revert to version that represent only their point of view. Of course, because, dispite repeated requests, they will not justify their behavior beyond 'but we are right and you are wrong', those interested in writing from an NPOV end up getting blocked. Yes, neutrality means showing some respect to unpopular points of view. Get over it. For great justice. 14:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, you can't make more than 3 reverts in any 24-hour period. I suggest you take it slow.


 * The article can be made more balanced, but not by undoing the reverts of a group all by yourself. Give good reasons for each change in your edit summary, and always be willing to explain or even argue on the discussion page, and you'll be all right. --Uncle Ed 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the fact is Ed, that while I appreciate your support, I'm up against a determined group of POV pushers who will not discuss the relevant issue, which is not 'is the hoax true', but 'should we write a neutral article, or pepper it with our own editorial comments about what we think is true'. Having people do things like revert to a version four days old, and refuse to discuss why they would do that is totally counterproductive. Since the have declared their intention to ignore wikipedia's neutrality policy, and will not discuss the issue, I'm at a loss to know what to do. You will notice that your attempt to restore the article was reverted immediately with the informative comment "Sorry Ed, nice try". Seriously. What are people who care about policy supposed to do about that? For great justice. 01:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * FGJ, I know it must suck not to be able to post, but aren't you doing exactly the same thing to us when you delete post after post based on your own personal interpretation of what Wikipedia policy is? Why should anyone care about your notion of what NPOV is if you don't care about my objection that the article is off topic? Well, here is a surprise for you:  I'm no fan of the government, nor devoted to any particular group's description of events.  There are real conspiracies and coverups going on right now, and I've no doubt that many went undiscovered in the 1960s.  I'd be perfectly willing to believe in a NASA hoax if you could tell me a version of events that better describes what I see in the evidence around me.  I've asked you for this, and you told me that you shouldn't need any, I should just automatically believe you.  That's the problem.  Algr 23:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm used to being censored for standing up for what's right Algr, but the point is not your or my beliefs about the accusations, but the fact that Wikipedia requires us to write a neutral article. I'm sorry if you want to dismiss that as simply 'my interpretation of policy', but I do interpret 'neutral' as 'not one with our own snide editorial comments about what we think' - simply reporting what the participants in the debate say. Whether I can convice you of the veractity of the hoax or not has absolutely no relevance to the article. I don't know why you find that so difficult to understand. Oh, wait. Yes I do. For great justice. 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On the talk page, why don't you write an example of what you would consider to be a neutral approach? Wahkeenah 01:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have done, on the actual page. You reverted it. It consists mainly of taking out the snide editorial comments that you and yours keep putting in. Some examples of the type of thing that I would take out is the whole 'Burden of Proof' section, which is unsourced opinion piece / commentry with no basis other than it is what some outspoken wikipedians think. For great justice. 02:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be a little more specific. It's hard to tell one version from another anymore. And what did I specifically revert? I haven't done much with it lately. Also, someone else wrote the "Burden of Proof" section, which I don't especially care for, as it serves as "bait", which in fact proved to be the case. Wahkeenah 02:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not specifically accusing you, I actually feel you're pretty reasonable, but the page has been hijacked by some pretty extreme POV pushers who feel like the Burden of Proof section is just the start. I'm not going to dig through, but one of them added some nonsense to the first paragraph about 'Moonbats', and another section generally insulting the intelligence of anyone who questions NASA. Plus, the current reversion fest took out a lot of useful edits, like Clinton's comments, and numerous typo / formatting issues. Reverting to four day old versions without any discussion is just not how things are supposed to be done. For great justice. 02:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I said something to the guy who wrote the "Burden of Proof" section that this was going to start a new round of trouble... which it did. Before that, I did my part to try to to neutralize it, but when this kind of thing is going on, there is not much point in trying to make any kind of edits. One thing I would do is try to minimize the use of the word "claim", which is or was all over the article, and like "conspiracy theory", it carries its own negative connotation. But there's no point in trying to fix anything right now. However, I would still like to see how you would write the first paragraph of the article, which would set its tone. Wahkeenah 03:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph is fine - stating that some people claim that the landings are faked, and that most people don't believe it. I like the layout of the history of the claims, the various polls etc, I would substantially edit the claim / counter claim section, I think it's too long, and adds not much. I didn't really realise that you think the word claim has negative connotations. I'm happy to swap it out - what do you prefer? The important thing to me is that the article presents the beliefs of each side, and lets the reader make the determination of 'truth'. For great justice. 04:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply substituting "say" for "claim" would work. The challenge/response section is important because it provides the casual reader with reasonable explanations of the alleged "anomolies". The many pro-hoax links conveniently leave out the explanations since it undercuts their position. However, one could theoretically remove all the point-counterpoint stuff since it is pretty well covered if one reads all the links... and then the article becomes simply a "link farm", which is against wiki policy. And so it goes. Wahkeenah 13:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Say' is fine by me, both seem ok, but if you prefer one... Also, I'm not philosophically opposed to the point / counterpoint, I just think it's ugly, and could be re-written. But what I do oppose is all the little snide commenty that gets put in. I don't get the impression that you and I are a million miles away in terms of what we want. For great justice. 14:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The current tumult will have to subside before I even think about making any more edits. Wahkeenah 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Burden of Proof is now fully sourced and stated as one side's position. Since you kept deleting instead of fixing things I formed the mistaken impression that you just wanted to suppress any examination of how the hoax accusation is being spread. But now that your real concerns about Wikipedia form and structure are addressed, I hope this can bring an end to all the reverting. Algr 15:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to supress anything except unsourced editorialising. I will put the Burden of proof section into this version as a gesture of good faith, but still beleive the section is fatally flawed. For great justice. 15:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mass Reversions
I'll do as I wish -- popular opinion seems to be that discussing anything with you is akin to talking to a brick wall. Were your arguments in any way rational, there might be hope, but they are not and there is none. User:Jim62sch 19:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all - I'm happy to discuss - I get agrevated when people revert without discussion. For great justice. 19:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR
I have again reported you for violating the three-revert rule on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. Tom Harrison Talk 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on June 4 2006 (UTC) to Apollo moon landing hoax accusations
Please don't do this again, or the blocks will start getting longer. You seem to have some doubt about what constitutes 3RR: I suggest you read the policy carefully William M. Connolley 20:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "You seem to have some doubt about what constitutes 3RR"? On the contrary. You should take a good look at your conscience, re-read the policy, and actually read the edits that Tom cited. What Tom claims are 'reverts' are edits made after discussion on the talk page. Of course, Tom would not be familiar with what was discussed on the talk page, because he seems to have a pathological aversion to discussing anything. You are a disgrace to the Wikipedia, and are acting as a tool for the pack of revert-monkeys who have occupied that page. For great justice. 22:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Your hostile incivility on Talk:Apollo moon landing hoax accusations and your personnal attacks  are becoming increasingly disruptive. Please moderate your tone and stop negatively characterising people who disagree with you. Tom Harrison Talk 00:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How are those personal attacks? How is the term AstroNot more insulting than 'Moonbat'? For great justice. 00:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Unlike you, I am on the side of a neutral, verifiable article, not a one-sided rant." Again, please stop this, it's disruptive. Tom Harrison Talk 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Writing from a neutral point of view is disruptive? War is peace? Black is white? Riight. For great justice. 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Writing from a neutral point of view is fine. Insulting other editors isn't.--DCAnderson 19:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point
From this diff I found on the talk page I have gathered that you do not seriously believe the things you say on the talk page of the Moon Hoax page.

Its okay to play Devil's Advocate on a subject every once in ahile, but don't disrupt talk pages by arguing for the sake of arguing and insulting people by calling them "Astronots".

Please do not Disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.

The reason that Nasa and the Moon Hoax theories are not represented on an equal footing are because of specific clauses in the WP:NPOV policy, namely:


 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:NPOV

If you have a problem with those policies you should take it up on the talk page of WP:NPOV, but don't try to make an example of the Moon Hoax page by trolling and acting like a lunatic, and don't use the talk page as a way to teach a lesson in "critical thinking" to other editors. You should assume that we're all all adults and "not idiots" and Assume Good Faith.

If there are unsourced statements in the article, then fine, remove them or try to source them.

But don't revert war and fill up the talk page with polemics to "challenge the way we think."--DCAnderson 04:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What total crap. I have never stated on the page that I believe the arguments, only that the article should be written from a neutral point of view, and that the POVs of the editors should not matter. NPOV is now a blockable offense - how revealing. Also - please read the policies you quote - they are not carte blanche to go on POV jihads - the edits I made were fully in compliance with them. I'm disapointed in your blatant inability to comprehend the neutral point of view policy. For great justice. 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is not a blockable offense, but being disruptive and insulting towards editors is a blockable offense.

In an earlier message on your talk page (which you seem to have deleted) I told you that all editors consider their edits to be the ones that are truly NPOV. Stop playing the NPOV card and accusing other editors of being "POV", and acting like you are the one who is truly "NPOV". It is disruptive and contributes nothing.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt up until this point, but you havn't given me the impression that you are here to do anything but Troll.--DCAnderson 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's rich from you. You are a POV crusading troll, a brief look at your edits confirms it. For great justice. 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Examples?--DCAnderson 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR
I have again reported you for violating the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison Talk 20:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that's the only argument you can win. For great justice. 20:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be an argument I could even make if you'd stop reverting. Tom Harrison Talk 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your POV Jihad must stop Tom. For great justice. 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough
I've had enough of your senseless arguments. This and this were the limit for me. The difflinks were formatted to show what version you reverted to. You've had several block in the past 7 days, and having got off one block you'd proceed to argue or get another block. Blocks are meant to give you time to cool down and reform, and you've not done that. You've pushed me to the limit of insanity and here it is: an indef block. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice. That will mean you don't have to deal with inconvenient facts, or reach consensus on the talk page. You're a petty tyrant with no respect for Wikipedia policy. If by reform, you mean 'learn not to question edits by admins, no matter how stupid they are', then no. I have not. I continue to uphold the Neutral Point of View Policy. How ironically appropriate your username is. For great justice. 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I refuse to waste more time with you. Futher comments directed towards me will be ignored, unless you actually have something useful to say. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Like your ill-concieved breaches of policy, and vindictive, capricious POV-mongering? Of course, that's not useful... For great justice. 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Deskana's abuse
"''Please also be aware that this page is not the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. If you bring such disputes here, we will usually advise you to take them elsewhere, such as mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration.

We really do mean this; this is not the page to bring up accusations of bad faith, or POV pushing.''".


 * Furthermore:

"Disruption — For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for increasing lengths of time. New accounts may be blocked for any length of time or permanently."
 * This not being a new account, Deskana is obviously acting without authority. He is way over the line. His capricous and vindictive actions prove his bad faith and lack of respect for policy. Disgusting. For great justice. 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your activity
Fgj, it seems to me that your goal on the hoax page was to bend over backwards to provide a "balanced" account of what the hoax accusations entail. While you seem to believe that you are not a POV-warrior, you really end up being one because you are basically trying to unilaterally enforce the NPOV policy with very inappropriate tactics. Your modus operendi seems to be that none of the current editors on the Apollo page with the possible exception of User:Ed Poor knew the first thing about how to edit a controversial article, that we were all trying to circumvent NPOV, and that we didn't want to see the hoax accusations described in a fair way but instead were towing some kind of "NASA party-line". Such characterizations do not go a long way toward assuming good faith.

The problem is that some of your comments and suggestions about the actual article were actually helpful once all the vitriol and spite were refactored. Other suggestions were way out-of-line. This is the case with most editors including myself. That's the reason Wikipedia works, because other editors will make sure the problematic edits are removed or changed. The practice of Wikipedia editting is sometimes akin to throwing as much stuff against the wall as possible and seeing what sticks. If no one else disagrees with your contributions, being bold works well and making changes can be done whereby people tweak each other's prose until we get to a pretty happy common ground. Despite the ridiculous amount of rhetoric on the talkpage, by the end of your tenure we had (perhaps without acknowledging it) adopted something like this system. I would wait for you to finish your editting and then go through and see what you did, taking off the stuff that didn't seem to work and tweaking or changing the stuff that seemed to be in the right direction. If you look at the difference between the article when you started and the article now you will notice substantial differences. Some of them are undoubtably due to your influence.

This is all seemingly well and good, but when it came to discussing edits you were one of the most rude, obnoxious, condescending, and intolerant editors I've ever come across. What good will you may have eventually gained in the article space was utterly obliterated by your snide remarks and your seemingly endless appetite for self-aggrandizement. You never once seemed willing to acheive compromise, you didn't reach out to other editors in a way that made it seem like you were welcoming, you routinely insulted the contributions of almost everybody on the talkpage, and the smallest skeptical remark about the subject of the article was enough to send you on an abusive name-calling expedition to rout the AstroNots. Maybe you find that kind of advocacy amusing. Maybe you like the afforded annonymity of the internet and wouldn't act that way in person. I don't know what the deal was, but being that you never seemed to express any sympathy for editors who were actually attempting to discuss things on the page, it's hard to take you at face value especially when you comment that you are playing devil's advocate. That strikes a lot of us as gaming the system.

In your apparent zeal to promote NPOV at all costs, you end up missing some major points. First of all, the talkpage is not bound by the NPOV guidelines, but it is bound by civility guidelines. When people ask you to tone down the rhetoric, they are asking for civility and good faith. You scoffed at those suggestions. Perhaps you did it because you thought that the POV-bias was too one-sided. I don't know. However, the edits you proposed didn't need to be contextualized on the talkpage with abuse. They could have been handled a lot more civilly. Reading parts of the talkpage where you discuss your ideas reads a lot like what we might expect a bully on the playground to be saying. Eventually, people get tired of dealing with this kind of abuse and will fight back. I think that's why you're looking at an indefinite block right now.

I wouldn't mind seeing you come back to Wikipedia if you were to just tone down some of your argumentative rhetoric and make plain-speaking explanations for your edits. However, right now your incivility weighs down your contributions so much that it's hard to look at what you are doing as anything more than trolling. What I would hope is that if you do return you would not fill the talkpage with the tendentious and uncivil attacks that you seemed to revel in.

--ScienceApologist 12:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Castle_of_Riddles_cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Castle_of_Riddles_cover.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CalamariWrestler.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CalamariWrestler.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, are you a flat-earther?
Are you? /Timneu22 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ringgravity.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Ringgravity.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 04:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Castle of riddles screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Castle of riddles screenshot.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)