User talk:FeloniousMonk: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:29, 23 May 2008

feloniousmonk

Heads up

You'll want to keep an eye on NPOV/FAQ‎ for pseudoscience issues, and oh, you might want to keep an eye on Mackan79: He's taken to deleting the majority view from the Expelled article.

You should probably have a look at the Marks article where a particular editor seems to have a COI issue and is edit warring. Odd nature (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCain: intelligent design advocate?

Hi--I see you added the category:Intelligent design advocates tag to John McCain. I hadn't heard that he was an ID proponent. Can you point me to an article about his connection to the ID movement? I've started a section on the McCain talk page about this (Talk:John McCain#Category: intelligent design advocates?); if you could reply there, that would be fantastic. Thanks much! -- Narsil (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned your name in an RfC

I mentioned your name in this RfC:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley_2#William.27s_violation_of_Wikipedia:BLOCK.23Disputes_with_others

If I characterized your response incorrectly let me know and I will change them. Any background information or anything else you can give would be welcome. Inclusionist (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThomHImself

FM, it may have come time to do something about that editor. He is basically a reincarnation of Moulton, only with a different ID proponent. He has literally caused disruption on every single article he has edited with regards to Marks plus he has a serious COI that needs to be addressed. Should I take this to ANI for a report? Baegis (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, he has become disruptive. Let's give him another day or two to settle down, and then if he hasn't, bring it to the community. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a sec

Would you mind commenting here. I think I've done a better job of framing my concerns. Thanks! Angry Christian (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sternberg controversy

I see you made changes to the Richard Sternberg page, removing the contributions shown here: [1]. Can you please provide an explanation for removing this information from the paragraph? Especially on a subject so controversial, it's important to articulate information in as neutral a fashion as possible. The previous version only presented a single side of the controversy, biased against R. Sternberg in the initial paragraph. Presenting Sternberg's position on the issue (with references) is not only more informative for the reader but also maintains an accurate account of the controversy itself.

Tony Zirkle userfication

When you have a moment, could you userfy that article for me? I'd like to expand it and make it into an article that demonstrates his notability. (The closing admin seems to be AWOL) JoshuaZ (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expelled POV

I am trying to figure out why you removed the POV notification I added to the Expelled article yesterday. The article reads like an enormous, exquisitely detailed and interlinked refutation of the film. It doesn't present any material in the film except for the purpose of debunking it.

Not having seen the movie, I wanted to know if it was worth watching, but the article postively exudes POV. I didn't find out most of what I wanted to know, even after reading a few thousand words. It's just too long and too negative. keno (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

...at my talk page. Thanks for the note. Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skype invite

Hi, would you be free for a Skype chat? Please e-mail and I'll give you my ID. :) Durova^Charge! 05:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does one of youse own stock in Skype? Jim62sch^dissera! 02:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jinxmchue was deleted under WP:CSD#C1 – it was an empty category that was left empty for several weeks. Feel free to re-create it, if appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

Felonious, neither of the sources that are cited for the first half of the sentence provide any verification for the second half which states: '... the list is intended to lend support to other Discovery Institute campaigns, such as "Teach the Controversy", "Critical Analysis of Evolution", "Free Speech on Evolution", and "Stand Up For Science"'. Neither of those sources even mentions this list, so they certainly could not be used to source the claim that the list is "intended" for such and such purpose. Now, I fully believe this claim, but it still needs to be cited. I'm looking for an adequate citation, but without one the tag must remain.PelleSmith (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleanty of other sources do. Either you're promoting the Discovery Institute's obfucation line or you're clueless on the subject. Which is it? FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well its not the former since I believe the claim to be true ... that the DI is using the petition to further the promotion of ID. To your second point I suggest instead of calling other people clueless you help the project and just provide the sources. Clearly in my clueless naivete I cannot find a source to back the assertion that I believe is true, but you probably can, given how not clueless you are. So please do. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source you have found does not substantiate either the disputed claim at the Picard page, that the petition promotes ID, or even the non-disputed claim that I have asked for sourcing for at the petition page, that the DI uses the petition in its campaigns. Would you care to explain what exactly you think this source tells us?PelleSmith (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone objective it does. But since you insist, I'll add another. I've literally a dozen more. You can reject them one by one and we'll see how this ends up. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a source that actually connects the petition to "other campaigns." Unfortunately this is of no help to us at the Picard page where we need a source that connects the use of the petition directly to the promotion of ID, something not mentioned in the second source at all. Providing such a source would be of great help. If you have one, or two, or ten please do post directly to the talk page there. As I said it would be a very big help. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two primary sources have been provided supporting the content and saying the same thing, you have simply just rejected them. I can keep adding sources and you can continue rejecting them. Fine by me. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about the Picard page I assume. Neither of your sources say what you want them to. In fact, the one you just added states emphatically that "challenges to Darwinian evolution are not the same as proposed solutions, such as the scientific theory of intelligent design." Oddly you have just strengthened the opposition to the point you are trying to prove by showing that the DI itself does not conflate those who challenge Darwinian evolution (e.g. those who signed a petition to that effect) with those who support intelligent design.PelleSmith (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you say, the person who thinks partisan primary sources are to be taken at face value and ignores Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources... FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Evidence of Meatpuppetry

I admit, I edited for Moulton. However, 1)I did not make changes word-for-word, but close to it, 2)I support Moulton's unbanning and have edited Wikipedia under another account, 3)I support Moulton's rewording of the text, and 4)Meatpuppeteering is when an editor is recruited, not when a person says something should be done and an editor feels it's the right choice and does it. I don't see what's wrong with Moulton's proposal. Instead of attacking me for agreeing with his proposal, why don't you offer some constructive criticism on the proposal itself. --PlatanusOccidentalis (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this little meaty needs a block as well as the other account. Great job with being a front for a user who left the community only after exhausting every last shred of good faith possible. Awesome. Baegis (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks in the article User:Moulton

Removed provocative and unjustified warning. Please don't template the regulars! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

What is this nonsense? There are no personal attacks on that page, and its not an article either btw. This template is nonsensical, could you possibly be trying to open discussion?If so, please try again. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The puppy speaks wisely and kindly. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I'm a newb, and even I know the rules on that one. Of course, me ma always said I was a fast learner... :) --Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a nice message on my talk page. I enjoyed it. I mean, you still suck, but yeah, I had fun. the_undertow ^talk 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moulton

It would not be good for Wikipedia if you and your friends were out-witted by yourselves. You guys are a great help in keeping Wikipedia NPOV in evolution-related articles. But you are now involved in BLP articles. Ask for advise from friends. Please. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN#Moulton (un)ban may interest you. .. dave souza, talk 11:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threat?

Keep it up and I'll take a personal interest in seeing that you are prevented from making one again. Please do not threaten other users because they attacked you first. WP:CIVIL does not allow you to do "eye for an eye" and make threats against other users. Be the better person here, like is expected from everyone in such situations. Mike H. Fierce! 22:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping an incivil editor from being uncivil is one of the jobs of an admin. Saying that you will do so is never a threat. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The manner in which you said it sounded like a threat to me, or else I wouldn't have brought it up with you. "Stop it or you will be blocked" is not a threat. "I'mma make sure you won't make another incivil comment again!" is a threat. See the difference? Mike H. Fierce! 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to proportion my tone to the level of disruption I'm addressing usually. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the important thing to keep sight of is that you are talking to another person on the other end, not a dog or something you need to shame. People tend to like it when you treat them like people. :) Mike H. Fierce! 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The road runs both ways, good acts beget good acts. That wasn't his first CIVIL warning, but I take your point. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moral support

This is a move in the right direction. Thanks for taking the time to assemble the evidence. Somebody with a strong constitution is needed to clear the stables. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop.

Stop trying to drag me into the dispute with the blocked user Moulton by labeling me a "meatpuppet" or "WR editor." It's completely false, a personal attack, and I had no interest in dragging this out further. krimpet✽ 02:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"That's right folks, I forgot to mention we re-programmed Krimpet a week or so ago and we are finally putting her to use." If you don't want to be seen as acting on behalf of a banned editor you shouldn't be making the exact edits at the exact article that a banned editor is calling for. And don't say you weren't aware of Moulton's requests, I've diffs showing you were. You involved yourself the moment you started editing the Picard article with the very edits Moulton was calling for. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone mentioned the article in passing on IRC and I clicked on it - as a fellow woman in computing, her article piqued my interest - and I noticed it was a BLP mess and a COATRACK, so I made a couple tweaks to improve it. This is meatpuppetry? The "diffs" you claim to have are a canard. I was only tangentially aware that Moulton had his prints on the article on the past - I thought his ban was for creationist POV pushing in general. And as far as I can tell, Moulton when he was here was trying to rip out the whole section that I tweaked, not improve it. (And that random smartass quip on WR wasn't sanctioned or approved by me at all - "re-programmed?")
I'm kindly asking you to stop dragging me back into this. I was glad to see that woman's BLP improved in the end, through whatever roundabout means it ended up taking, and I don't want to squabble more. But it seems like you're just trying to continue this dispute and seek a pound of my flesh. Don't. krimpet✽ 05:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the story you want to stick to, then please, by all means go ahead. It's laughably improbable given your edits exactly match Moulton's requested edits verbatim and their precise and limited nature, but if that's what you want us to believe, it's your call. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I know why the heck are you adding evidence to a RfC that closed almost 9 months ago? Please, if you have evidence that shows Moulton doing meatpuppetry, then use a proper forum, aka, one that is active and where sanctions can be taken. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've included the recent evidence of Moulton engaging in meatpuppetry on the talk page of the RFC, not the RFC itself. Furthermore, doing so is established convention at Wikipedia, not without precedent, and well within Wikipedia policy. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But one of the reasons because User:Moulton was nominated for deletion was because it linked to evidence collected by one user, instead of just linking to "official" pages like RFCs, ANI threads and arb cases. What you are doing amounts to trying to run around the discussion at the MfD. You are adding your evidence right behind the "enough" section that User:Moulton links to, which has almost the same effect as linking directly to a page with evidence collected by you. Please remove that evidence and post it on a page on your userspace or post it at ANI. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's your impression of why it was nominated for deletion, there are others. You don't seem to have a firm grasp of how RFCs work or this situation; individuals compile all the evidence in an RFC, period. And editing RFCs is open to all, with the one caveat that you do not alter the comments of another. Since Moulton is already banned for disruptive editing, there's noting to bring up at AN/I. All there is for us to do now is compile any evidence of any further disruption he causes from offsite such as recruiting and directing meatpuppets, and keep it in a central location for any admin or editor seeking more detail can find it, and the right place for that is his RFC's talk page since some of the community is not comfortable with it on his talk page at the moment. I suggest you become better accquainted with the situation and the policies and conventions around dealing with banned editors and RFC before deleting the evidence presented there: That is the proper place for it as was suggested at the MFD. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that Random832 has blanked the page where the evidence was originally hosted as a courtesy[2], and note his comment on wheter the evidence should be posted anywhere [3]. According to a comment by Krimpet, and older version of the page being discussed appears to have evidence against him[4]. From context, it appears to be the same evidence that Krimpet is removing from the RfC[5]. I'll just make a comment on the MfD for others with more knowledge of RfCs to review this matter. I think that adding the information there after removing it from the user page could not be totally correct, and I would like other people to take a look. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, I won't do the comment at MfD after seeing Fill's comment. If he thinks that it's ok, then that's enough for me~~ Ah, I'm not sure, I'll sleep on it. I still think that you should ask an uninvolved admin to review this. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the end I decided to add myself to the list [6]. Since the MfD is closed, I went to ~~bitch~~ complain to ANI [7]. Notice that I later changed the section headings for technical reasons unrelated to the rest of the issue[8] --Enric Naval (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS denialism

Would you mind commenting on the talk page what "undue weight issues" lead you to revert my change (which was also accompanied on the talk page by a thorough analysis of the section and its sources)? This section has been the subject of discussion and a turtle-paced edit war for well over a year, and undue weight has in fact been a point for keeping it out. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More AIDS "denialism"

Excuse me. Could this edit by MastCell [9] be regarded as "disruptive editing" per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive

If your answer is negative, could you please explain me why it is not?.

There´s no consensus at the talk page (we are tied 3 to 3), I am providing reasons for that text being in the article [10][11] and trying to rework the text to reach consensus [12] and then MastCell appears like a Deus ex machina and with no comment at the talk page just deletes again a new re-worked (and very shortened) version of the stuff he deleted in 2007 [13].

Maybe it is out of my naiveté, but I thought this kind of edits were frowned upon here.

And no, this is not an issue of "denialists" versus "mainstreamers". This user summarized very well why "denialist" views should be detailed and refuted [14]

Thank you for your attention Randroide (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no voting for content. It either is acceptable or not. MastCell is one of the best editors of medical articles out there, so I doubt you'll get support here or anywhere else. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, it's not disruptive. Read WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "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 should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THen, I do not understand why you restored that content [15]

The article compares no views. The article is about a minority view, that of the "denialists". Anyway, if you think that´s a good edit, that´s more feedback for me. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case evidence request

Would you be able to number the bullets in your evidence section on the evidence page? I agree with some of your evidence and if numbered that would make it easier for me to outline a response in which I go line by line by number and either stipulate to what you've presented or disagree and explain why. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 158: / Line 158: @@
 ::The article compares no views. The article is about a minority view, that of the "denialists". Anyway, if you think that´s a good edit, that´s more feedback for me. Thank you. [[User:Randroide|Randroide]] ([[User talk:Randroide|talk]]) 07:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
+==ArbCom case evidence request==
+Would you be able to number the bullets in your [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Cla68 evidence section] on the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence|evidence page]]?  I agree with some of your evidence and if numbered that would make it easier for me to outline a response in which I go line by line by number and either stipulate to what you've presented or disagree and explain why.  Thank you. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 06:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)