User talk:Numskll/archive1

Hint
I think you said that you were going to do a major rewrite of tha Apollo hoax article, and it would take some time. You might want to add to the top of the page before you start the edit. That requests that other editors don't make a change until you have finished with it, and remove the tag. Bubba73 (talk), 03:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks. I did it Numskll 12:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your efforts on the Apollo page
The Apollo page is a disgrace to the NPOV policy. Thanks for taking the time and energy to correct it.24.7.34.99 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move
Hi Numskll, appreciate your effort, but the term 'conspiracy theory' is a perjoritive term that is used primarily to disparage. It is not neutral, and has no place on the article. One might just as well call it 'How NASA faked the moon landing'. Hope you don't mind me changing it back, yours, Carfiend 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. The term conspiracy theory is not suitable. But overall, I approve of what you want to achieve.24.7.34.99 21:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theory is literally descriptive and ties the topic to a broader phenomena where it belongs.Numskll 14:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep the draft here
Until you've discussed it - it's just going to cause everyone pain to go off on a POV Jihad. Carfiend 21:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And the article will remain it's present poor shape becuase zealots are either side won't permit it. Blanket reverts of my edits are not helpfulNumskll 22:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

test intro
The Apollo Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theories are a set of related beliefs that the all or part of Apollo Moon Landings did not occur as they are described by mainstream historiography. While a number of different theories do exist and some versions of the theories make specifc claims that do not agree with  items in the list below (See Specific Claims below) key elements of the Moon Hoax beliefs are that:


 * NASA and possibly others faked all or part of the Apollo moon missions;
 * The Apollo Astronauts did not land on the moon;
 * NASA and possible others manufactured, hid, or altered evidence like photos, telemetry tapes, transmissions, rock samples, etc. for the purpose of perpretrating the hoax.

In addition, Apollo hoax theories imply, or openly state, that the current mainstream understanding of the Apollo Moon Landings (and to varying degrees the mission that supported it) is the result of a deliberate conspiracy created to advance the Apollo mission hoax, thus, maintaining the belief that the moon landings occurred as they are generally presented and understood.

A 1999 Gallop poll indicates that an 'overwhelmling majority' of Americans (89%) believe the Apollo landings happened as reported while a small number (6%) believe that 'the US goverment staged or faked the landings.' The mainstream scientific and technical communities reject the claims as baseless.

Hoax Theory Claims
There are numerous versions of the hoax theory put forth by various sources link to list of sources. Illustratiuve of the range of theories is the list below:


 * 1) Complete hoax - The idea that the entire human landing program was faked. Various sources argue that either the technology to send men to the moon was insufficient and/or that the Van Allen radiation belts made such a trip impossible. Bill Kaysing says that the sound stages at Norton Air Force Base in San Bernadino, or in Area 51 were used for this.
 * 2) Partial hoax / Unmanned landings - Sibrel typifies this argument when he says that Apollo 11 and subsequent astronauts had faked their moon walk and their orbit around it using trick photography, and that they never got more than halfway to the moon. A subset of this theory is advocated by those who concede the existence of laser mirrors and other human-made objects observable on or from the moon. Marcus Allen represents this argument when he says "I would be the first to accept what  [ telescope images of the landing site ]  find as powerful evidence that something was placed on the Moon by man." He goes on to say that photographs of the lander would not prove that America put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem - the Russians did that in 1959, the big problem is getting people there." His argument focusses around NASA sending robot missions because radiation levels in space were lethal to humans. Bill Kaysing claims that all communications traffic was faked at NASA Greenbelt in Washington DC . Another variant on this is the idea that NASA and its contractors did not recover quickly enough from the Apollo 1 fire, and so all the early Apollo missions were faked, with Apollo 14 or 15 being the first authentic mission.
 * 3) Manned landings, with backup stagings - Dr. Brian O'Leary once suggested that while the landing took place, NASA created a parallel fake landing in case of accidents or failures, although he now believes otherwise.
 * 4) Manned landings, with cover-ups - William Brian and others believe that, while NASA did make it to the moon, they covered up what they found. While Brian focusses on what he says are gravitational anomalies, others have suggested alien artifacts. Phillip Lheureux, in ‘Lumieres sur la Lune’ (Lights on the Moon) says that astronauts did land on the Moon, but in order to prevent other nations from benefitting from scientific information in the real photos, NASA published fake images.
 * 5) Hoax with whistleblowers - a subset of any of the other hoax hypotheses. David Percy has argued that the errors in the NASA photos in particular are so obvious that they are evidence that insiders are trying to 'blow the whistle' on the hoax by deliberately inserting errors that they know will be seen.

Alleged Motives of Hoax perpretrators
Several motives have been put forward by hoax proponents for the U.S. government to fake the Moon landings - some recurrent elements are:


 * 1) Distraction - The U.S. government sought to distract the public from the Vietnam War. Bart Sibrel and others, say that lunar activities stopped abruptly, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the U.S. ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War. However, that that assertion is not chronologically correct. First, the cancellations of the later flights occurred during the budgeting process in 1970 and 1971, when the War was still raging.
 * 2) Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it were possible, would have been risky and expensive (though JFK famously said that we chose to go because it was difficult). Despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, it would have been easier for the US to fake it and consequently guarantee success than to actually go.
 * 3) Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity.
 * 4) Risk - The available technology at the time was such that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted. Bill Kaysing (as well as others, including Sibrel) say that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017 (1 in 600). They say that this information comes from a Rocketdyne company report from the late 1950s.

3RR
Please respect the 3RR rule. If you continue to revert you will be blocked. Carfiend 17:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I intend to. I expect you to do likewise. Numskll 18:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I, unlike you, have not broken this rule. Carfiend 19:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I did. If so, certainly not intentionally though of course, you won't believe that. I'll be more mindful of the clock. Numskll 19:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You did. I'm sure you didn't do it intentionally, which is why I posted on your page rather than making a complaint. I meant no hard feelings. Carfiend 20:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you weren't trying to take advantage of my newbie status. It seems as if you should not have removed the tags in the first place, that's akin to vandalism as I understand it. My replacing a tag you unjustifiably removed (several times) would seem to be a sort of anti-vandalism, and if you look at my edit commnets they certainly support that Numskll 21:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC
In all honesty, I think it's approaching time for an RFC on Carfiend. He has so far violated WP:VAND, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:TPG and WP:OWN. I've not gone through his edits, but 3RR is a good possibility, too. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * and that's just today . . . Numskll 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've noticed. He might be one the the most trollish people I've ever run across on Wiki.  Ugh.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you've led a very sheltered life. Carfiend 04:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, your behavior speaks for itself, child, though I've no expectation that you'll recognize it. Numskll 11:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "one the the most trollish people I've ever run across on Wiki". There are pro-UFO and other pro-pseudoscience ones that are as bad.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll go check it out momentarilly. Did anyone second it yet?   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how the process works. I know that the purpose is to be a way of getting intracable editors to work in good faith or to get the dedicated ass-hats banned, but that's about it Numskll 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think an RFC is past due, if not an RFA. The RFC should come before the RFA, I think.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried it for NPA, AGF and OWN but don't think I understand the rules or how the stupid page works and it seems to be somewhere in the ozone (perhaps where all this stuff belongs . . hehehehe). Plus, all things being equal, I'm not interested in messing with people. I've every confidence that Darwin is sorting it all out for us. However, if things get worse or stay too much the same I suppose it will be the most rational path to take the time to figure out the process. she's obviously way out of the wiki box. Numskll 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never done it either. I thought about this about five weeks ago.  An RFA is more involved and an RFC is probably required first.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

expert on Apollo hoax?
I don't think it takes an expert to edit the article. It is not very technical. Jusy my two cents. Bubba73 (talk), 00:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking about a different kind of expert: a socialogist, a scientific historian(historain of science???) or a cultural critic. But I've reverted till I've thought some more. Numskll 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Apollo
While you're at it, maybe you could rename the article to capitalize "Moon", as per the talk page? Also, I'm sure you know that one user will have a cow over the freer use of the term "conspiracy theory". Maybe the article will have to take more pains to prove what's as obvious as the nose on everyone's (except that user's) face, that it is a conspiracy theory. Wahkeenah 11:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There already is the conspiracy theory section and we've talked through it at length. Perhaps there are some other telling details to be added to it, but the user your referring to seems intractable and uninterested in engaging in discusion. I'll certainly keep trying to engage him, but past experience has taught me that like efforts are rewarded via personal attacks.Numskll 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop it
You know what you're doing, and you know it's not allowed. Carfiend 17:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, you've got some nerve accusing me of poor behavior. You walk all over WP as it suits you. I'm trying to improve the article and move it to NPOV territory, within the framework of wiki. You seem to be seeking to turn the article into your own personal fan page, Don't behave badly. Numskll 17:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't improve it to repeatedly move the page to a mis-spelling. Stop your POV Jihad. Carfiend 17:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Only the last one was a misspelling. Again, please consider your own bias in this matter and I'll advise you for the umpteenth time to WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Numskll 18:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Discus your problems on the talk page, as you know you should. Blanket reverting is counterproductive, since no one knows what you have a problem with. Carfiend 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

and dozens of little reverts (your tactics) equal one blanket revert. simply claiming that stuff is POV when it doesn't fit your pet theory is silly. Alsoi you're discourse style is fundamentally dishonest so there isn't mucch hope in engaging with you in any meaningful way. But whatever. Let's see what happens now. Numskll 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

rfc
Do the others know about this RfC? I only found it about 12 days ago because I was looking in your recent contributions. Bubba73 (talk), 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not cooked yet. I'm trying to make it resprentative of the scope of the issue but, I find the effort depressing. You have to manually add it to the list on the RFC page. If you've got the time and energy edit, it at will. When it is added to the page, by whomever, I'll notify the involved parties on their talk pages as well as the hoax page. It's gotten much worse. Numskll 00:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got to cut down on the time I spend on Wikipedia. That article is taking more of my time than all others combined. I've got to cut down. (I've been saying that for over a month.)  I've got to stop feeding the troll!  (Again)  Bubba73 (talk), 01:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I call it "feeding the squirrels". Like you, I need to to focus on important stuff, like work, and the baseball season. d:) Wahkeenah 01:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't dedicate my life to this stuff either but I am interested in working through a what I will be relatively complex revision process and it doesn't look like that can happen unless everyone adopts some ground rules. Numskll 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * there seems to be a 48 hour period between posting and endorsing. i'm not sure but I'm thinking you'll need to endorse it again, if you so choose (within 48 hours) to make it valid. Once that's done I'll post it on the RFC page.Numskll 16:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly will. Bubba73 (talk), 23:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Better let me know on my talk page, because I've overdosed on the article for a while, and haven't been following it. Bubba73 (talk), 16:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Numskll/apollo
The page you created at Numskll:apollo has been moved to your user space to keep it out of the article namespace. Regards,  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reversion of Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations
I have reverted this as I think it would be better to discuss it in talk. In general, reverting another editor's work without discussion is considered poor wikiquette. --Guinnog 11:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am very disappointed to see you have done it again, without responding to the note I left you or in the article's talk page. Once again, this is considered very poor form here. Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour and by undoing the many changes I made (all of which I can justify under Wiki policy), you will win no friends here and may even be putting your editing privileges at risk if you continue in this way. Please stop, and consider trying to improve the article. --Guinnog 11:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Numskll. I am an admin here on Wikipedia and haven't previously been involved in editing (or indeed reading) the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations article. Guinnog has asked me to take a look at the situation with recent edits to the article as a neutral thrid-party. Looking at the edits you've made it appears to me that some of them improve the article while some of them merit further discussion. As examples, I think that your addition of the "Challenges and responses" header is an improvement. On the other hand I am concerned that changing the sentence "Members of the mainstream scientific and technical communities who have commented reject the claims as baseless." to "These claims are widely dismissed as baseless by NASA and interested members of the mainstream scientific and technical communities." has potential WP:POV problems that need to be discussed before this edit is made.

To avoid further edit warring on this article, can I urge you to please go to the article's talk page and discuss the edits further. I think the only way to resolve the current dispute is to examine the different versions one change at a time. It is important that changes of this magnitude, especially to a controversial article like this are discussed before they are made. Simply trying to impose your preferred version without talking with other editors is not helpful.

I hope this makes sense. Please feel free to talk to me if you have any further questions. Best, Gwernol 12:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the time Gwernol. I'm sure you're correct on the process question. Numskll 12:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm coming at this from a process perspective, not a content one. Best, Gwernol 12:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of NPOV policy
This is the policy I was referring to. It's quite long, but worth reading in full. I hope you'll agree with me that it makes a lot of sense, and that it utterly applies in this article.

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.


 * From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. WP:NPOV

--Guinnog 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, the bit above seems to bear out my position. I've read it before and am familar with its content. Beyond that, I'm not sure how to respond. Why do you think this argues against the NPOV tag? Numskll 02:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, in which direction do you think the article is tilting so badly at the moment that it needs the tag? --Guinnog 02:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Without irony or humor, my answer is that you can pick whatever diretion you like, depedning upon what sentence your referring to. I've answered this reasonably, carefully and concisely not five minutes ago. Please take those answers as sincere statements of my position on this matter (and defer to them where applicable) to obviate the tragic waste of key-strokes this conversation is beginning to represent. I'll ask again. Why do you believe the NPOV tag is invalid Numskll 02:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings
I noticed that you voted early on this, and wanted to let you know that the article has substantially grown (and will likely grow further) into a useful list of evidence for the Moon landings that has nothing to do with hoax sites. I'd like to invite you to take another look, and to consider changing your vote. Gravitor 19:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Chilli peppers
Sorry - it got lost while I was reverting vandalism. Gravitor 18:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a hoax page.
Please stop trying to make this into a hoax page. It has NOTHING to do with the hoax - use the talk page. Gravitor 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Were it true that it had nothing to do with the hoax you wouldn't have framed it in a pro-hoax context, laced with pro-hoax editorializing, or peppered with quotes from hoax proponents. While, I'm somewhat baffled by your inconsistency, I vaguely suspect that wp:own and wp:point could provide you with some guidance on this issue.  Numskll 04:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not peppered it with quotes, or put it in a 'pro-hoax context'. What inconsistency? Gravitor 04:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you expect me to say to such a blanket denial of obvious behaviour on your part? Are too? I named the inconsistency in the sentence above as well as on the talk page and on your talk page. Please be serious. Behave maturely and ethically. We can work this out. Numskll 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please use the talk page
Arglebargle and the rest of us are trying to reach consensus - your repeated reverting and violation of policy is not helpful. Gravitor 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning on Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. BTW, I'm warning User:Gravitor as well. It's a content dispute, let's try discussing it non-pejoratively for a while. Both of you should hold back from the article page for a while. -- ArglebargleIV 02:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I understand completely. I definitely have an opinion and a POV on this, but I'm trying to do the best I can to stay neutral. Personally, I think this is headed to an RFC soon, but I want to make sure we at least try to do it right. -- ArglebargleIV 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Apollo
I have become convinced that Gravitor/Carfiend are using this latest page as a playground, sucking all of us into their trolling game, as they did last summer. Painful as it is, I think the solution is to boycott the page for awhile, let them have their way with it, and then see if they go away again, or if they escalate, i.e. take steps to try to bait us into further debate, which is presumably the point of their game. Wahkeenah 04:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm totaly guilty of being sucked into stuff like this. Sadly, it happens to me practically everyday. My GF says, with equal portions of truth and mockery, that I "fight on the side of rightousness." But it's worth doing. A trustworthy and complete encyclopedia of everything, available to everyone, is worth doing. Numskll 04:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your stance on this. The trolls know this about us, and use it to their advantage. Remember the classic Star Trek episode where an alien "spirit" invaded the Enterprise and drew energy from conflict on board? Wahkeenah 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily assuming you were a Star Trek geek. Even if you had never heard of Star Trek, I wanted to paint a brief word picture of a somewhat similar situation. The way the conflicting Earthlings and Klingons fixed their dilemma was to agree to ingest laughing gas, which turned the conflict into positive energy and drove the creature away. Truth to tell, it was not necessarily one of their better shows. But the situation seems to fit this one somewhat. We don't want to feed the squirrels, but they know how to push the right buttons. :\ Wahkeenah 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see that link. A dissertation on wikipedia? Interesting. A study in social dynamics, among other things. I got into it about two years ago because I wanted an outlet for stuff I like to write about. Not heavy stuff, at least not very much; more along the lines of Paris Hilton. Well, sometimes, anyway. :) But it's been interesting to see the range of behavior here... something that Mr. Wales might not have fully expected. Or maybe he did. Maybe wikipedia is an elaborate experiment of some kind. :) Wahkeenah 05:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice, if you will, how Gravitor ran out of reverts and disappeared, and by an amazing coincidence, Carfiend jumped in. And they've everybody playing their game now. Including me, unfortunately. >:( Wahkeenah 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad_Luck_Schleprock
Yeah no problem, I've believe that I've heard it on the program you stated -- a few more sources and maybe a little more info and you've got a good article. MrMacMan 05:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Web 3.0 namespace protection
I have just requested that admins User:Coredesat and User:Nightstallion review the namespace protection on Web 3.0, --Peter Campbell 10:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I spent a hour or so last night googling references. I found a number of news-based non-blog articles that define the term. I'm sure detractors will say these articles are not ABOUT Web 3.0 (they each have their particular slants) but only mention it. However they do each, obviously, seem to define it in ways that are consistent with the way proponents have described it. Numskll 12:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Gravyfiend"?
I like it. :)

I've given up trying to talk to those conjoined twins. They aren't really interested in discussing anything, they're just playing a game. They won't offer a direct explanation for anything, just a "mantra" as someone called it. However, I've already used my 3 reverts, so I'm done for the day on that score. Wahkeenah 17:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is the disuption and inequity involved. Especially given that Carvitor is apparently operating on the 6 revert rule. I'll look into sock/meat puppet issue and begin to take the necessary steps. This should add a few lines to my diss chapter: "wikipedia's collaborative methods for dealing with disruptive users in a pseudonomynous environment" or some such nonsense. Numskll 17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Or more to the point, "How to deal with wikipedia vandals, short of assassination or incarceration." Be careful about using anything that sounds like "Caritor", as I did once, having forgotten that there is a high-class Indian consulting firm with that name. I think of wikipedia, sometimes, the way Tom Lehrer characterized folk songs. "The reason folk songs are so atrocious (sp?) is that they were written 'by the people'!" I could make the same analogy with wikipedia. With nearly-unrestricted editing, you end up with a "suspect" product. I go to wikipedia for information on topics I don't know about, like maybe medical information, and wonder if what I'm reading is true, or just a pack of lies that no one has reverted yet. Wahkeenah 17:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * strangley enough I get the same sensation with just about all of the non-fiction I read. bleed over of wikiparanoia? Numskll 17:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this much I can tell you... when I'm reading a book, and I run across something I know or suspect to be in error, I find myself looking for the "edit" tab. My wife says I'm addicted. No, it couldn't be. Could it? Wahkeenah 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My liv- in girlfriend says I need intervention. I counter with, my interest is purely academic . . really . . This is all research for school/work . . . these are all chargable hours . . . Numskll 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Can I use that one? Wahkeenah 18:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all my lame excuses are public domain . . . Numskll 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have inadvertently suggested a subject for a new article. :) Wahkeenah 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you go to WP:RFCU and type in gravitors user name? There is no obvious proof that they are sockpuppets. Lunokhod 18:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just recently read the sock-meat puppet policy and I doesn't seem to matter which variety they are. Numskll 19:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Heimstern Läufer 20:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Steal This User Box!
Technically, it's public domain. =|:)# Wahkeenah 02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm wearing my 01-20-09 T-shirt today and was inspired
 * Ah, yes, the countdown to when the Clintons take over the White House. Again. Or whoever. :) Wahkeenah 02:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Parrots
Ever since I told Gravitor on my talk page to confine his comments to the project page, he's been citing that statement without attribution. However, that's also public domain. Main difference: I did not delete his comments from my talk page. I wear insults like a badge of courage. Or something. :) Wahkeenah 02:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He's a mirror image of Carfiend. I've been reading some stuff about how conspiracy theorists treat evidence versus how normal people treat evidence and it seem to fit at least part of his behavior. Especially the double standards of what counts as truth and unwillingness to examine their own behavior. At any rate at some point he'll address his problems relating to other editors, blow a gasket,  or whip off his Gravitor mask(transparent, we can see underneath it) and reveal --no surprise-- it was Carfiend all along . . . April . . . Fools . . . Numskll 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I was vaguely just reminded of an early bit that Norm McDonald used to do, about some dope who got talked into murdering his family because "the devil told him to do it." After he had done the devil's bidding, the devil pulled off his mask and said, "It's me... Bob!" Wahkeenah 01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW the stuff he's erasing is almost all just the nasty things he says coupled with a few peices of wikipolicy, not imsults. I wouldn't replace the stuff if it was mean or nasty stuff(that people had said). I'm hoping he'll read it over and recognize that his behavior is not helpful or mature. Numskll 02:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hope. It's a good thing. A thing with feathers. As Woody Allen pointed out in his book, Without Feathers. It's no surprise that conspiracy theorists hate being called conspiracy theorists, eh? I am trying to keep my own rhetoric level a notch below where I was last summer. I became convinced that arguing with these characters is a thing without feathers. Wahkeenah 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * err . . Allen must have ripped off Emily Dickinson . . "Hope is the many feathered thing that perches atop the soul" but I get your point. Numskll 12:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rats. I misremembered the line. At least this one doesn't have a hyphen or a comma issue (the dash doesn't count). "'Hope' is the thing with feathers— / That perches in the soul." Numskll 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I recall, Allen was indeed quoting Dickinson, and then turning the quote around in his usual, playfully cynical way. Meanwhile, as you may have noticed, I finally figured out why Gravitor was (supposedly) misunderstanding your sentence. It's just part of his/their game. Wahkeenah 01:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * -- ArglebargleIV 01:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The internets are so cool Numskll 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Simply put, they're just [hide your eyes if your offended by profanity] dicking around between Star Trek reruns Numskll 01:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not easily offended. Except by morons. And parrots. Maybe those two are like those aliens in Galaxy Quest, who think fiction is real (and presumably vice versa). Wahkeenah 01:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's nice to know you have robotic friends pointing things out to you as if you just fell off the wiki turnip truck. Wahkeenah 01:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No kidding. I think someone sicked that thing on me. I must have passed some "forgot to sign comments one too many times" counter to merit a message on my talk page. SIGNED Numskll 01:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
I'll try to stay more on topic. I figure Gravyfiend is going to push too far and eventually get blocked for good. But we'll see. I don't have any major problems with the "consensus" version at present. Meanwhile, the important thing: The beautiful Blue Ridge. Yeh, baby. So, do you say Apa-LAY-chun, or Apa-LATCH-un? :) Wahkeenah 03:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Apa-LAY-chun that other pronounciation is for turists[sic] . . . I think . . I've picked up weird pronunciation from reading more than talking. Numskll 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Or North Carolinians. I've become convinced that Apa-LATCH-un is correct. But it kind of depends on which side of the mountains you're on. Meanwhile, the baseball team at Asheville is called the Tourists. Wahkeenah 04:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Gravitor went to User talk:Crum375 to plead his case, complaining about everyone. Crum375 is the one who blocked him. He also admonished me for being overzealous, but did not block me. Anwyay, I wonder if you would you be willing to post the chunk of Gravitor's name-calling that Gravitor keeps deleting from his own page? I doubt he'd be so brazen as to delete it from another user's page. There are new additions even since the previous posting. Or if you don't want to, I could. Wahkeenah 04:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Put it on a subpage of your talk page. Refer to that page when you talk to others. Work on getting diffs for the statements. Don't put it on Gravitor's talk page again -- he isn't going to read it, you can't make him respond to it, and I'm not really sure that you can force him to keep it there.  You'll just get blocked for 3RR. -- ArglebargleIV 04:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Numskll, I suggest you all try to conform to WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and if needed, our dispute resolution procedures. If all else fails, and mediations fail, there is always ArbCom. Also, any clear disruption or personal attacks can lead to blocks. Crum375 04:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try to wade through it. I don't blame you for not wanting to get too involved. Take care. Numskll 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more effective for you to do it on your own, as you will learn a lot more about WP's workings and be able to deal with similar situations more easily in the future. In cases of content disputes, it's always better for the participants themselves to take initiative than to be led by an admin. If you do see any clear unequivocal evidence of disruption, like WP:3RR or WP:NPA violations, then by all means let me know with a diff. Crum375 04:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks and sorry. Where do I stand with discussing stuff on his talk page? He seems to think it is forboden. This seems to equivilent to a wiki privacy fence -- which seem contra productive. I've the impression that our talk pages are like any other articles talk page -- the place to hash out differences. The content he is deleting is soulely discussionn of his nehavior

RfC on Gravitor
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Gravitor. -- Lunokhod 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am pretty well convinced that nothing is going to happen with Gravitor. >:( I've taken these pages off my watch list. Unlike Gravitor/Carfiend, I have other topics I can edit. Thanks for trying, anyway. :) Wahkeenah 01:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. User:MECO's judgment of "equal fault" and "equal blame" has left a bad taste in my mouth. There seems to be an inherent bias against the accuser in these cases, especially if evidence of conflict exists. Also, Gravitor/Carfiend are bound to see this as justification and vindication. An impression that MECO doesn't seem too terrible concerned with one way or the other. I'm likely going to turn to reading and research and let the trolls run wild. Numskll 01:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Others have weighed in since the admin spoke. I just added a point that he needs to ponder: That if Gravitor wins, then he takes ownership of the page, which is against policy. Meanwhile, with spring approaching, I will turn my attention towards baseball articles. Unlike Gravitor/Carfiend, I have other interests. d:) Wahkeenah 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I envy you. Unfortunately wikipedia and I are bound at the diss. Numskll 02:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been on wikipedia for about two years. I saw it as an outlet for my occasional desire to write. I've learned a few things, one of which is that the notion of an encyclopedia written by "the people" (including anonymous IP addresses) is only slightly more trustworthy than a blog. But I have also learned a few things about how to write. So it has been somewhat worthwhile. Things could be worse. Can you imagine what's probably on with pages on Evolution, various religions, etc.? Not to mention the constant vandalism on pages having to do with controversial commentators, sexy actresses, etc. I sometimes think that Jimbo Wales started wikipedia for the purpose of conducting a grand social experiment of some kind. Wahkeenah 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Larry Sanger the self professed co-founder of wikipedia has some pointed things to say about the anti-elitist, anti-expert structure of wikipedia. It's an interesting read Numskll 02:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent info... and a feeling of deja vu, as what he describes is what I've seen. The low-key response of that admin says he's in the "let's all try to get along" school, which is the anarchy approach, and which doesn't work because it's excessively idealistic. That article was written in the fall of 2004, and I see no evidence that things have gotten better... which leads me to suspect that this really is a social experiment. Wahkeenah 03:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * or a marketing ploy designed to position Wikipedia favorably to go against Google in the coming web 3.0 wars. . . Numskll 03:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could be. It's certainly the case that wikipedia turns up more and more when you do searches for things. One scary thing is the number of sites that blindly copy wikipedia entries. There can be a spurious statement in an article, and in a day or two it's turning up all over the internet. I think Stephen Colbert has made fun of wikipedia for that very reason... that because any moron can edit wikipedia, with its wide circulation, anyone can plant a rumor. On a number of occasions in the past, I've referred to wikipedia as "a pretentious weblog". I've seen little to convince me otherwise. But it's still fun, somewhat... as long as I stick to things that are safe, which is exactly the point the co-founder was making... as well as a coleague of mine, who put down wikipedia as being basically worthless, since you can write something that you know a lot about, and various fools will screw around with it. Wahkeenah 03:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * it is interesting how ideas from sources get passed around and mutated (on purpose and inadvertantly) like a giant game of telephone. Anecdotally it seems (and all things being equal), the more edits a certain sourced piece of text gets, the further it tends to move away from what the source actually said. I've seen this quite a bit on various conspiracy theory and pseudo science articles, where a certain world view tends to allow for increasingly selective and divergent use of otherwise authoritative sources. On the other hand there are some folks who think that the combined forces of editors constrianed by the  structure and policies of WP will hold it in a sort of half-assed, almost good enough state forever. It will never get much better or much worse. Wikipedia is 95 percent accurate (if mediocre and pedestrian.) Most mistakes get corrected within eight minutes. QED: Wikipedia is 95 percent accurate every eight minutes . . . synchronize your watches . . . 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's funny, and sad. It's the electronic version of where legends start: Robin Hood, King Arthur, etc. The difference is that no one takes those stories fully seriously. It's the apparent-truthfulness of stuff that's scary. Like Will Rogers said, it's not ignorance that bothered him it's things people know for sure and which "ain't so". In effect, it's like one of those meetings where everyone "brainstorms" and comes up with an almost-good idea. Like the old joke about a camel being designed by a committee. EB is a horse. Wikipedia is a camel. Wahkeenah 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back
I was worried for a moment that you might have abandoned Wikipedia to the trolls, zealots and greifers. Carfiend 00:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Help report
Please add comments: Suspected sock puppets/Carfiend. I think that the evidence is pretty strong: they act in tandem, tag team, and have very similar editorial styles. --ScienceApologist 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Carfiend/Gravitor
As far as I know, they are now blocked. Celebrate! Wahkeenah 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been consumed by RL projects recently, which apparently is just as well, as I see my name got dragged through the mud a bit. I probably deserved it as I've let my temper get the better of me in a couple of cases. But, as you say, we can celebrate to a certain extent, though obviously this user will simply create new accounts and continue on unabated. Plus, given the history they'll likely do stuff to avoid this particular kind of 'outing' in the future. Still, good work. Numskll 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)