User talk:FeloniousMonk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

FM cleaning up with style!feloniousmonk

 

Archives

Thanks for un-blanking my user talk page. Despite our disagreements re: NPOV policy, you have always been a gentleman in all other respects. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Felonious, hi. I noticed you just reverted a paragraph in the AGF policy. Seeing as that edit was made amid talk page discussion with several editors, could you please address your disagreement to the talk page? I think the changes were good, and I'm prepared to defend them in a discussion. Can we talk about it? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need your input on sentence in ID article

Hello. If you're following changes in Intelligent Design, you might recognize me as the newcomer with the lousy browser. Jim62 and I have discussed the second sentence in the passage below.

"Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, the designer, intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data."

The sentence has undergone a few revisions and may no longer convey the meaning it was intended to. In its current form, it has a grammatical flaw that can't be fixed without knowing what that meaning was. Jim62 thinks you wrote the sentence originally. He suggested that I consult you about it.

Successive pieces of the discussion so far are on his and my talk pages. Cognita 01:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted: duplicate post. It looks like I have TWO lousy browsers. Cognita 01:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is a bit odd as well. •Jim62sch• 10:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gehockteh leber

Actually, the original block was based on a false assumption. Do you seriously think "Gehockteh leber" is a sockpuppet? If not, you should remove your block. CJCurrie 22:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, "Gehockteh leber" is Homey. Don't start playing his game too here. FeloniousMonk 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Gehockteh leber is acknowledged as a new account, not a sockpuppet. Don't you think this is inappropriate? CJCurrie 00:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins

Hi Felonious. I note that you improved the lead para in the Criticism section of Dawkins, but two of the regular reverters have removed it. I put it back once but I don't want to "mindlessly revert". IMHO it sets the tone (as you have it) rather well, and would lead into 3 sub-sections on +ve, -ve and equivocal reviews. I'd suggest you might want to restore your wording, and would certainly support you, but you are a much more experienced Wikipedian. 22:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why did you protect "Harvard referencing"?

Greetings,

Could you tell me why you put protection on the "Harvard referencing" page?

In particular, why did you say there was "vandalism" when you wrote this? --

13:37, November 10, 2006 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Harvard referencing: vandalism, redirects [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

Thanks.

TH 00:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Because of the repeated page moves over objections, not to mention the incessant reverting to a version that did not enjoy any form of consensus. FeloniousMonk 01:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasons for blocking changes to the page.

Please tell me what brought this issue to your attention. Your Contribs list shows that you usually pay no attention to Harvard referencing and similar pages (style, citations, footnotes). It seems unlikely that you just stumbled across the problem. I would guess that someone asked you to block changes to the page. Is that correct?

Thanks.

TH 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello FeloniousMonk. I have added a suggestion to the Talk:Harvard_referencing page. Obviously I would not suggest you take this suggestion yourself since this would only invite more harassment - I just wanted to inform you about it. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uh but

You said "other three" and then only listed two... I know it's early in the morning. Wjhonson 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of policies

That change SV made is disputed; please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of policies. Yours, (Radiant) 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cites and the Evolution article

I think we should let the fellow add cite needed tags wherever he wants: We can, after all, cite them, and it'll make it *very* hard for an FAR to get anywhere if we can show everything's referenced. Adam Cuerden talk 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a sensible limit. Take a look at the references section of intelligent design to see an example of how accomodating every single partisan call for cites can go wrong. Furthermore, Standonbible's constant objections are 1) monoplizing the talk page, preventing any other discussion, 2) causing long-term contributors to a science article to spend their time shagging down cites for a fringe viewpoint, creationist objections to evolution, instead of contributing to the subject at hand. As I said, there's a limit. FeloniousMonk 16:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
In short, he's disruptive. Should we take this to AN/I and get an uninvolved admin to do what they can with him? Or what? He's astonishingly contentious and disruptive everywhere I've seen him. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought people were supposed to AGF around here. Seriously, though, since I don't have the same viewpoint as you guys I tend to notice statements that need citing. Also, before you start labelling me as a POV-pusher, please note that I have been entirely open to hearing what about my statements is POV.
The foregoing notwithstanding, please note that I have given the Talk:Evolution page a breather and don't plan on taking it up again for a while due to the overwhelming (though incomplete) consensus against my viewpoint that certain statements are inadequately cited. standonbibleTalk!
No, I see you just decided to have a go at the Natural selection article instead. That's hardly dropping the issue. FeloniousMonk 04:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
What outright disregard for AGF. There was nothing POV about my edit to the natural selection article - another editor agreed with me although he wanted to use different grammar. Your bias is so obvious. standonbibleTalk! 04:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as at other evolution-related articles your edits at the Natural selection added weasel words and made a clear statement ambiguous. Though WP:AGF enjoins me to assume your good faith, it also says I am not required to in the presence of evidence to the contrary. A range of editors have raised objections over an apparent bias in your contributions at evolution-related articles, something I've confirmed myself. And in so doing I've now seen enough "evidence to the contrary" to agree that you are indeed promoting a particular viewpoint at the expense of properly balanced and neutral articles. To avoid having others draw the same conclusions I suggest you rethink your approach at these articles. FeloniousMonk 04:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
My edit to the Natural selection article didn't use any weasel words at all; those were added by other editors. I simply wanted to add information content regarding mutations working in conjunction with natural selection because this is an important part of evolutionary theory. Don't attribute weasel words from other people to me.
I've stated before that I have a different viewpoint on certain topics, which allows me to see statements that need better sourcing in order to avoid ambiguity. I have always been open to hearing what it is about my statements that are so POV. My "approach" is to note unsourced or badly stated statements in any article - I don't go around the evolution-related articles looking for places to slide in a creationist POV. standonbibleTalk! 05:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand your desire to have others believe that you possess a unique viewpoint on evolution and science topics which allows you to identify which statements "need better sourcing in order to avoid ambiguity." But I do not acknowledge that this is indeed so. You see, all these topics just happen to run counter to your ideology, while all of statements you feel need cites just happen to favor that ideology over the topic. FeloniousMonk 05:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Not true. If you look over my edit history you will notice that I have added {{fact}} tags to many articles and have edited many articles that have nothing to do with my personal beliefs. I keep an eye out for unsourced statements on all the articles I read. It's just that because of my viewpoint, people rarely concede the need for a change on articles regarding evolution and so it becomes a talk page conflict - which is usually resolved relatively quickly despite several zillion comments being made. standonbibleTalk! 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(red ind) I need hip-waders for that one. You've not got one edit on a page that does not involve your belief system. This edit summary is pretty much indicative of your POV: 21:13, 24 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Oort cloud (Added a mainstream defense to appease all the lefty evolutionist editors :-)) Have a blessèd evening. •Jim62sch• 00:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course I have a POV! Everyone has a POV whether they like it or not. The question is whether an editor's edits reflect that point of view are so influenced by that POV that they are no longer neutral. Even in the example you gave (which is quite a while ago before I was aware of WP policies) I had introduced information favorable to a viewpoint other than my own. Oh, by the way: a smiley face generally indicates humor....
Just this month I have made unchallenged and unobtrusive changes to Creation-Evolution controversy, First Council of Nicaea, Christianity, Gene Duplication, Evolution, Frank E. Peretti, Mutation, Bursitis, Grammar, and God, to name a few. Try to avoid personal attacks, Jim. standonbibleTalk! 01:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss before deleting section

On the peer review article you deleted a section I had written with the comment "rm unsourced pov". The section was neither unsourced nor POV in any way and I even suggested in the edit comment that the ultimate sources in that section be located so that it would not link to an AiG article (I know how much AiG articles get under y'all's skin so I didn't want it to be there too long). This section is relevant to the article and that particular part of the article. It ned not contain any references to creationism or ID in a positive light (in fact it paints both in a very negative light as-is). Please refrain from deleting sections and dropping in the "unsourced pov" comment until you have discussed the change on the discussion page. Thank you. standonbible 18:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already been removed again by another editor, and if he had not removed it I would have. It's an editorialised treatment of a minor event of no provable significance in an article discussing the concept of peer review. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spade

Your input and edits would be appreciated on my recent essay, WP:SPADE, regardless of your agreement or disagreement with such. JBKramer 19:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

PS:It's not about Sam. :)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 21:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that you're considered a party to the case at this point, with your block of the Fishers under discussion. Although you already know this, I'm officially notifying you that I have listed you as a party in the proceedings. Dotting the i's etc. Thatcher131 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Re:Cowman; perhaps, but Fred is not considering any proposals directed against him, and he is against you, so I thought you should be listed. I'm not saying it is or isn't justified, just that you're actions are specifically being considered. Thatcher131 12:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but Fred will be shortly, so you may as well add him. FeloniousMonk 17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I meant to drop you a note thanking you for the refs that you added to Evolution recently. I'm intending to do some formatting, but for some reason, I keep getting distracted...

And now I can thank you for your support on the talkpage as well. I feel like I've gone out on a limb by taking some unilateral actions with insta-archiving, so it's nice to get some positive feedback from "the regulars". --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-evolution controversy

Hi! I'm afraid that after taking a closer look at the article, I kept finding problems. Would you mind lending a hand with getting it up to an appropriate level of quality? Adam Cuerden talk 10:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, looking forward to that. FeloniousMonk 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arb comments re RFCU

Based on your checkuser request, it looks like you are alleging DrL is editing disruptively in tandem with Asmodeus. Generally, just being Joe Smith and writing about Joe Smith is not enough to get you in trouble, but editing disruptively is bad no matter who you are or what you are writing about. If you would like the arbitrators to consider disruptive editing by DrL, you should add evidence to the evidence page. I have listed her as a party to the case and notified her on her talk page. Thatcher131 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hillman/dig

User:Hillman/Dig and subpages linked from there in the deleted history. JBKramer 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haldane Fisher

Unless I'm missing something, you yourself said that user:Haldane Fisher is a role account with the sole purpose to harass Asmodeus and claim he is this Langan fellow. I'm not sure if you're aware, but if you look at his contributions, you'll see that he harasses this user in his edit summaries in articles which appear to have absolutely nothing to do with WP:AUTO violations, therefore I'm asking for clarification as to why you unblocked the role account. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm also confused by the history page of Crank (person), in which Haldane Fisher reverts an account other than Asmodeus, user:Henning Makholm, accusing him of vandalism and being Langan, as well. I mean no offense, but I honestly see no way how this is not harassment and wild incivil accusations of vandalism by other users. Thanks again. Cowman109Talk 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be more careful

You blocked my account, User:2005, because I reverted a weird spam entry? I could have let someone else do it, but that is incredibly silly. Please remove the block and the comment on my talk page.

Judging by the block comment, you were blocked because you reverted too many times. Unless something is very clearly vandalism, then yes, you should let someone else do it. I also see that you have a habit of deleting good faith critical comments without addressing them[1]? Please don't do that. Whether or not you believe the comment is justified, the correct behaviour is to explain your position, and to try to understand why the comment was made. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've unblocked 2005, because the last rv was indeed rvv [2]. At least in my opinion. However, I now realise there was no good reason for not saying this here and giving FM the option, so my apologies to FM. OTOH 2005 didn't mark the edit as rvv, and given the history on that page "rv strange addition" is easy to misinterpret William M. Connolley 10:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] American Legislative Exchange Council

An anonymous user has been engaging in large-scale deletions on this article. I've reverted a couple of times, but don't want to breach 3RR. As you've edited it recently, I thought you might want to take a look.JQ 01:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent revision

Dear FeloniousMonk,

thank you for your interest in the article on the theory of everything. However, please do not revert it any more. It is not random oddness. Please take a closer look and you will begin to understand. THanks -Archetype —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.20.139 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Dear FeloniousMonk,

did you ever read the article carefully? Since you have not replied I'm assuming you didn't and thus I'm restoring the article, which removes several inaccuracies. sincerely, Archetype

[edit] William A. Dembski

Is there a less harsh wording than you made here. I doubt that he would think he was explaining "manipulations" or "evasion" tactics. Maybe, "Dembski has stated he employs various strategies to counter criticism of his work:"? The reason I post here is in the hope of limiting conflict. Rkevins82 06:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive. Asmodeus is also placed on probation indefinitely and is cautioned to be courteous to other users. He may be banned from any article, talk page, or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing or incivility. All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern. Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher are banned indefinitely. FeloniousMonk is counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way. ScienceApologist is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who may edit their own article or advance original research. Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tom tomorrow language virus.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom tomorrow language virus.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Schaefer's page

I'm letting you know that I've left you a note on the talk page there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathchem271828 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Re your last edit - no problem, but I doubt AAAS supports ID. Do you think it does? --Bduke 06:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Most followers of the ID debate think of the American Association for the Advancement of Science when seeing the acronym AAAS, not American Academy of Arts and Sciences; that's the reason why I changed it. FeloniousMonk 06:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. I misunderstood your edit summary. It is best spelt out anyway. --Bduke 07:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sarfati

That IP looks like it may be in the range covered by the arbitration. JoshuaZ 08:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is. FeloniousMonk 08:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked for 24 hours and am sending you an email related to the matter. JoshuaZ 08:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/l/User_talk%7EFeloniousMonk_476a.html"