User talk:Nobs01/Archive 4

There is no remembrance of former things;  neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come  with those that shall come after. Ecclesiastes 1:11


 * Archive 1 (01/06/05 to 05/08/05)
 * Archive 2 (05/08/05 to 12/14/06)
 * Archive 3 (01/23/07 to (04/10/10)

Stepping back from the brink
Consensus across the board is turning against you, and turning against viewing your actions as constructive, not just me, but most everyone that has looked into the issue and participated. Despite your confidence at RW that some how, magically, you would get your way, its just not happening. You need to makes specific suggestions, and you should do it the next time you edit the page. Your skirting the line of flat out trolling at this point. Step back from the brink, I will likely be moving on, unless a) you make a specific suggestions that can be addressed b) if you continue to attack and lie about me and other rationalwiki editors I will simply start removing that material from the talk page without comment. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's what you can do to speedily resolve this problem: unblock me from Rationalwiki and I will post up the material on a user subpage from Rationalwiki 1.0 that essentially proves the point certain Rationalwiki editors named in the WP:RS misrepresented to reporter Stephanie Simon of the LA Times the exact circumstances when, under which they became involved in the Rationalwiki project.


 * This would show good faith on your part. Anyone can understand an over zealous youthful indiscretion years ago, and I'm not interested in the slightest in having head to head confrontations with Rationalwiki users who (1) are cited in the WP:RS, (2) maintain Wikipedia user accounts, and (3) have been and are now activiely engaged in the Conservapedia article.


 * WP:BLP states, We must get it right. Discussion for weeks has produced a consensus that Stephanie Simon 'got it wrong' who the founder of Rationalwiki was. This could only have happened, in my estimation, because Rationalwiki editors made misrepresentations to Stephanie Simon. I have evidence of, and know for a fact, Rationalwiki editors did this. They were not blocked for ideological purposes, they were blocked enmasse when Conservapedia sysops became aware of the Rationalwiki 1.0 website which, in the words of Stephanie Simon, was engaged in "malicious editing" and "by their own admission cyber-vandalism."


 * The owners of Rationalwiki again came under criticism for malicious editing and cybervandalism when a Rationalwiki editor admitted to being the source of a "Hit List" of United States Senators targeted for assassination. Conservapedia is now, and has been an organization under attack by Rationalwiki editors since founding of Rationalwiki, and the creation of Wikipedia's  entry on Conservapedia. I have declared my COI and am here to ask for NPOV in the Conservapedia article. I have no interest in making active Wikipedia users look bad or engaging in personal confrontations with RW editors.


 * tmt, you and I have had a good civil working relationship for several years rather uniquely among RW & CP sysops, and I can tell you I was sincerely hurt and affected by comments you made on RW talk page last night. I only wish that you would step back and look at the consequences of having information from RW 1.0 made public. Even if you are not concerned now about individual privacy rights and what Wikipedia's policies are to protect them, I must be. And I know from first hand experience. I am on record in the Wikipedia Review forum arguing with Daniel Brandt to work within Wikipedia's processes, which were non-existent or rudimentary in those days. Personal pride, and impatience, and an explosive atmosphere is not how these matters should be handled. And I've learned this from my own experience in Wikipedia. There are editors here willing to help. We must get it right. nobs (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears you are threatening to "out" editors. I strongly suggest you stop doing this, immediately. Any further threats to violate the privacy of contributors here will be met with severe repricussions. Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Read what I said,
 * Even if you are not concerned now about individual privacy rights and what Wikipedia's policies are to protect them, I must be.  nobs (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is over Rob. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this is being linked as a summary of the dispute I will reiterate what I have said in other places, many times. First, your original research will never trump a reliable source. Beyond that your original research is flawed. You are equivocating to different websites, the first was created before the mass blockings were put into effect (though many of us had been blocked). It was not a wiki but was designed as an informal gathering place and a closed discussion group. CP banned everyone that participated at this site, at this point we decided to start what is now RationalWiki, and it is to this second incarnation that the Simon article refers. Perfectly accurate. Also no one involved in this dispute or named in the article ever vandalized CP or did malicious editing beyond arguing and maybe some harsh words here and there. We were definitely blocked for ideological reasons, many times over. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * tmt, I'd be happy to share with you the contents of non-public material retrieved from Rationalwiki 1.0 were vandal attacks were coordinated. I'd be happy to review the material with you and User:JzG for context.  nobs (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything that needs to be said has been said. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP has a policy to protect privacy of wiki users & living persons, whether those WP users are aware of the protections or not. It also has a policy to protect persons and organizations from defamation and libel and recourse method to deal with it. Those policies and processes are now in motion. Let's allow the process to work. We've seen it fail before, and the result isn't pretty. Now let's let it work and prove it can work.


 * Again, strip out the reference to real life people from the LA Times article and the problem is solved. And that reliable source is not even being used properly -- an article about CP is spun into a promo for its critics. Where's the NPOV? We haven't even discussed this yet.  nobs (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything that needs to be said has been said. Its over. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I would take issue with Tmtoulouse saying the original Rationalwiki was a private discussion group. It was hosted where anyone could start a group and totally viewable by the public. I would also point out that it isn't up to Tmtoulouse to decide when discussions are over. If he doesn't want to participate in discussions or mediation, that is his right, but to simply state "its over" is rather autocratic and elitist IMO. --TK-CP (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence from a public source
Evidence of Peter Lipson's involvement in Rationalwiki 1.0 is public from Rationalwiki's own website:
 * RationalWiki#History:
 * The original wiki was wiped and RationalWiki 2.0 was created as an open editing wiki, on May 22, 2007.

In an article about the mass blocking of editors, PalMD weighs in with a comment about sockpuppetry a week before Rationalwiki supposedly was founded:


 * Great Purge#That's it:
 * I hope youre wearing socks, cuz aren't you permabanned?PalMDtalk 19:48, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

nobs (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User misconduct
I will be moving forward with a user misconduct claim against you if you don't stop repeating the same disproved, irrelevant attacks on various talk pages. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Disproved? nobs (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of talk pages
Per WP:TALK, The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. You appear to be misusing the Talk:Conservapedia page to do something else. You should not edit the Talk:Conservapedia page if you are not proposing a specific edit to the article or evaluating a proposed specific edit to the article. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded to specific questions from three users. Thank you. nobs (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre
Rob, my sometimes amusing friend, how does writing a sentence like "please note the privacy concerns cannot be considered resolved [2] because non-public details have yet to be submitted." make any sense whatsoever? You address "privacy concerns", and then go on to offer to share "non-public details"? My head is spinning. Although I am sure you mean well, and to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia it can be, your statement leaves me confused. Huw Powell (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The non-public information has been forwarded to the functionaries mailing list, as I understand; likewise it is now public via the Talk:Conservapedia page per David Gerard's request in Wikipedia, and at Rationalwiki, to release our correspondence.
 * Does that explanation help? Thank you. nobs (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I'll try reading it a few more times.  Thanks for trying. Huw Powell (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments about other users
Nobs01, I have repeatedly stated that article talk pages are not a suitable location to discuss the actions/intentions of other editors. This comment had nothing to do with the discussion, and I have therefore removed it. As I have said numerous times, if you have a problem or a concern about another editor you must go through dispute resolution. Raising those concerns on article talk pages is highly disruptive and is preventing other editors from improving the article. If you do it again, I will be forced to temporarily block you from editing. I really hope it does not come to that.

Instead, please do the following to address your concerns:
 * 1) Discuss the issue/concern with the user personally on their user talk page.  Explain to them very clearly what you think they are doing wrong and make an exact, unambiguous explanation of how you would like their behaviour to change.  Hopefully, you can come to an agreement amicably.
 * 2) If you can't agree, ask for a third opinion.
 * 3) If more than one person has raised the exact same concern with the editor and no progress has been made, then you should make a request for comment.

If you have any questions about the dispute resolution progress, please feel free to ask. Papa November (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Currie1939a.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Currie1939a.gif. 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 tagged, 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) 11:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Fitin.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fitin.jpg. 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 tagged, 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) 11:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)