User talk:Morton devonshire/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

9/11 Conspiracy theories

Sorry, Morton, CheckUser does not give any indication that these editors are sockpuppets of one another. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Of course, I could be conspiratorial, and advance the theory that these conspiracy theorists have some radical new technology to mask their IP address, and further elaborate a conspiracy theory to address the facts, but that would be just too wacko now, wouldn't it. Morton devonshire 19:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing Afd tag

Please do not remove an AfD tag that has been properly placed.

  • You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.

Please post a note at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fry Mumia to explain why the article should be kept. Thanks, -Will Beback 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, from Wikipedia:Vandalism

  • Avoidant vandalism: Removing {afd}, {copyvio} and other related tags in order to conceal or avoid entries to risk deletion.

Further deletions of the tag may lead to your being blocked. Please respect the process. Thanks, -Will Beback 02:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The AFD tag was improperly placed. The article, which is still being edited, was up for less than 2 minutes before it was marked. Not much of a process if you don't have a chance to even edit an article. I think you are harassing me, and if you continue, I will report you to an administrator, which seems to have happened to you numerous times. Morton devonshire 02:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
WP:AGF Ashibaka tock 03:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Before all other disputes, please do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer of another Wikipedian because we both share the same point of view. Looking throught AfD pages reveal many people with the same point of view, and they are obviously not sockpuppets or sockpuppeteers.

Secondly, the tag {{totallydisputed}} is allowed to be set if there is at least a single dispute. It is not illegal to place that template on an article.

Thirdly, in the defense of Will Beback and Wikipedian policy, WP:AFD states that an article can be nominated for AfD despite the time since creation if the article meats AfD requirements. Placing an AfD tag within 2 minutes of an article's creation is not abuse. SycthosTalk 03:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It just seems terribly suspicious to me when 2 or 3 people chime in almost instantaneously with delete and NPOV tags, and leave supportive messages on each other's talk pages. I can't tell if you're a sockpuppet or not, because I don't know how to run checkuser, but it sure seems like you all are the same person when you all mysteriously support one another almost simultaneously -- Guettarda, leaving sympathetic messages for Will Beback, Will Beback instantly chiming in with a revert of a Gamaliel change, Sycthos, King of Hearts, et al -- big mystery how all of you could have seized upon one article in less than a 5 minute span. Too mysterious if you ask me. Please remove the NPOV tag and the Afd tag and allow me to edit the article without further harassment, whoever it is I'm really talking to. Morton devonshire 03:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Marking an article for AfD and totallydisputed is not harassment. Again, if you look through the AfD pages, there are many users that agree with and debate against the deletion of dozens of articles. It is highly improbable that all users agreeing with each other are the same person.
I have replaced totallydisputed with disputed to lessen the severity of the message. SycthosTalk 03:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the disagreement. I have a problem with the coordinated attack. Morton devonshire 03:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at this AfD page. (Note: Large page) This page lists examples of many "coordinated attacks" which are simply many users agreeing with one another. SycthosTalk 03:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There are millions of articles on Wikipedia. Why all of you would converge upon one at the same moment is what seems suspicious to me. Particularly when I haven't even had a chance to properly edit the article. Please allow me some time to actually write the f___ing thing. Morton devonshire 03:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I don't think there are that many articles on the English Wikipedia. Last time I checked it was under one million, and far less than two million (< 1.5?) if you include all the wikis. You may want to read Wikipedia Statistics. As far as everyone converging at once, there are a number of factors involved, including the public listing on AfD, user talk page notices, and rc patrols (including new page patrol). --—Viriditas | Talk 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Rather than engage in this mechanical war, I have redirected the page to try to make it more acceptable to all. Thanks. Morton devonshire 05:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

And then there was none

Well, well. Got an answer only from one of the comrades, and now all have ceased their edit wars, and their replies. Is it live, or is it Memorex? Morton devonshire 06:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, again. I think it's best to leave the page alone until the Afd process is completed. Unless your move is reverted, the redirect may have to be put up for deletion, further compounding the problem. --—Viriditas | Talk 06:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

oh man

me and User:ClicketyClack worked so hard at making this NPOV. Can you be specific about what isn't. We'll get on it. Gah!!! Saboteurs destroying our hard work. I meant to check the updates but I've been busy, so if you can pinpoint some that would help! JamieJones talk 12:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Saccharine-sweet, hagiographic, puff-piece, and you're wondering why it's labeled POV. You can't honestly believe what you're saying -- if you do, you're terminally stove-piped. Morton devonshire 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Fished In

Yes Morton, that was pretty funny! SkeenaR 07:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually liked that. But where are you going to go with that? SkeenaR 07:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure yet. Lots of possibilities. Trying to get people to lighten up right now, and just laugh. On both talk pages things are spelled out clearly, yet you still doubted the plain words -- You gotta admit that's funny given your interest in conspiracy theories. I officially dub you King of Conspiracy Spotters. Morton devonshire 07:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on the first part Morton, but I could point out that you seem to have an infatuation with sockpuppet conspiracies, even when you are given 'proof' otherwise. I'm not a bloody sockpuppet, you should know that by now. Anyway, conspiracies whether real or imagined are pretty interesting don't you think? I'm not just talking about the sociological aspects like what causes these to be prevalent in society and I'm sure you agree with me judging by your conspiracy theory loitering and your sockpuppet fetish. :) SkeenaR 07:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking to your less scary looking alter ego from now on. SkeenaR 20:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC) And I jumped on it first chance I got. I admit it. It was too funny. SkeenaR 07:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's made itself more than a bit of a joke...

The Vast Left-Wing Wikipedia Cabal
The Vast Left-Wing Wikipedia Cabal

I just saw the comment you added to my discussion page. Sorry I didn't respond sooner. It raises my blood pressure and aggravates my disability to spend too much time on Wikipedia, so it can be weeks between visits. I was just editing the article on Rush (correcting some really bad writing, e.g. "independent freethinking" and "totalitarian dystopia"; can you say "redundant"? I can.) And, not that it was political, but the article was littered with POV, making statements about Rush's music that are merely opinions held by just one faction of their vast fan base.

I agree 100%. Wikipedia simply cannot be considered a reliable source of information unless its confirmed by at least one, preferably more, sources. The Left-Liberal bias reins here--regardless of the injury to the facts or reality.

the article on the commie and admitted liar Rigaberto Minchu was absolutely ridiculous. And people were down playing her lies! Lies I documented by using, among other sources, the Lib bible, the New York Times. It just goes to show you that anything that contradicts the Lib-Leftist canon is rejected regardless of the source.

Like you I've noticed that not only is Left-Lib (and outright Communist) POV tolerated, its positively encouraged. Only a conservative view point is labeled as such. I'm not advocating for conservative POV. The constant refrain from the worst of the Lib POV'ers is that wikipedia is supposed to be a "real" encyclopedia.

OK. Fine. Quit filtering the articles through the daily DNC talking points fax and you've got a start.

I find it more sad than amusing that some people, specifically this gamaliel person, clearly have so little to do that they watch so many pages like a hawk to ensure they adhered to the Left-wing kook blogosphere's "ideology"* (I freely admit I borrowed the phrase from the Maha-Rushi).


  • If one can dignify what is nothing more than a muddled collection of hatreds, half-baked hypotheses (e.g. "global warming") and anti-family moves (e.g. gay marriage; I have no problem with protecting gays/lesbians from discrimination in the work place, housing, etc, but marriage is in big enough trouble with redefining it into meaninglessness) and propaganda with the term ideology. But this what modern Liberalism has become. For all his mediocrity in office--and failures as a person and his unique status as the only President elected by La Costra Nostra--Kennedy was a tax-cutting Cold Warrior. He'd puke if he could see what the McGovernites have turned Jefferson's party into. Jefferson himself would go cataleptic.

Ciao.


PainMan 10:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be taken as a reputable source, unfortunately. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:File_Allocation_Table, Error List (Scott is right), for example. I'm not saying that people don't make honest mistakes, but they aren't exactly always using the facts at hand to create articles.
MSTCrow 22:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow... far be it from me to waste my time on hateful ideo-losers, but hot damn, that was a diatribe for the ages! Hats off to you, sir, for upping the ante on insanity.--Baltech22 00:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Mumia" -- "Don't confuse me with the facts!"

His supporters, however, strike me in the way that LaRouche supporters come across -- you could have a 4-hour conversation with a LaRouchian, and never approach common ground. They have drunk the Koolaid, man, and are ready to tie on their trainers and matching track outfits, and take the ride to the sun. Out there, and so far beyond reasonable belief that you really wonder if psychosis isn't at the root of it. I'm not sure what it is that motivates the Mumites in their obtuseness -- it certainly isn't righteousness of their cause, or justice, because the evidence against Mumia is so compelling (see http://www.danielfaulkner.com/mythsdir.html) -- so what is it really? Whatever it is, of one thing I'm certain -- there is no possibility of reasoning with them. Mars and Venus have a better chance of convening than do the Age of Reason and the Mumites.

I think the motivation behind people who support this thug is pretty obvious. His guilt or innocence is irrelevant to them. He's a "symbol" of "The Man's" "oppression" ("the Man" murdered my great-great-great mother and drove my Cherokee family out GA @ gunpoint).

It is a classic cause celebre. In a way it reminds of the anti-Dreyfusards during the controversy of Alfred Dreyfus. They simply refuse to believe overwhelming evidence because that supports their weltanschauung. Protecting the French Army became more important than injustice done to one man (and the fact that an actual traitor was still on the loose!). Despite the mountain of evidence against this cop-killer (and where's the sympathy for the families of the murdered cops?), his "supporters" close their eyes and mindlessly chant slogans. In the vacant reflection in their eyes you can see the vicarious thrill: "Dude, this is what the 60s was like, dude! Like, fight the Power, bro!"

To take a mirror example, look at the OJ case. I realize as a so-called "white" person (tho' in fact I'm mixed race, Anglo-Celtic-Germanic-Cherokee-Jewish-African-American), I'm in a minority in believing that OJ should not have been found guilty on the evidence. That's not to say he didn't do it or hire it done. Just to say that there were holes big enough in the case to drive a truck through. One of the homicide detectives takes a vial of OJ's blood from the crime lab and disappears with it for at least three, perhaps five hours. The infamous white Bronco is left completely unguarded in an impound yard--where LA city workers actually steal stuff out of it to sell! The blood-stained socks in his bedroom, supposedly one of the main pieces of "evidence" against him, were created by someone with an eye-dropper! The stains on one side are identical to the stains on the opposite.

But the biggest piece of exculpatory evidence in that farce was the fact that I watched the deputy LA County Corner say, in the Preliminary Hearing, that one victim had been killed by a left-handed person, the other by a right handed person. OJ's one of the greatest pro athlete's in history, but he ain't ambidextrous. (This deputy coroner, for having the audacity to speak the truth, had his reputation trashed and was forced out of his job.)

I could go on and on. The point is that vast numbers of people are just as convinced of his guilt as the tiny number of "Mumia" supporters are convinced of his innocence. It's taken on almost religious overtones. "Don't confuse me with the facts!" The willfull suspension of belief in contrary facts in the very diagnosis of fanaticism.

But the country's getting more and more like that. For too many people it doesn't matter what the truth is--the Left questions the very concept of truth!--but whether it benefits the agenda and the ideology. When reality and my ideology part, I go with reality every time.

PainMan 10:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Bigplankton

Just saw the charming note you left for User:Bigplankton. I find it hard to believe you have so much anger over the fact that I submitted your stub article for deletion a while back. That's pretty routine here and certainly nothing to justify so much rage, but I can't change how you feel about things. However, before you attempt to recruit new users for your righteous crusade, consider that you are only encouraging the rude and uncivil behavior that could eventually get Bigplankton banned. Getting newbies to join you in shaking your angry fist at The Man may make you feel good in the short term, but will accomplish nothing and do neither of you any good in the long run. If you really think that you and he are the victim of "abuse", feel free to start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment about me. That might not be as much fun as ranting, but would be a lot more constructive. Gamaliel 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not angry about the Vfd -- I think that was inevitable given the strong feelings people have for the Mumia cause, and I understand that now. There are some subjects on Wikipedia that people feel so strongly about that it skews the entire Wiki process -- objectivity will never prevail. What I am upset about is the behavior you exhibit when people disagree with you--I don't think you even realize what it is that you do. Admins need to set a better example, and should remain neutral for the most part. I am hoping that you will take that into account in your future actions. Morton devonshire 05:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you have attributed strong feelings to me regarding the Mumia case which I simply do not possess. Since you've placed me in the "cult of mumia", whatever that is, I doubt you'll believe that I am neutral in that matter, nor do I care. What I do have strong feelings about is the creation of articles about insignificant T-shirt slogans.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "better example" as an administrator, as I've performed no administrative actions regarding you, and my sole interaction with you (that I can recall, and I only remembered that after I checked my list) has been submitting your stub article for Vfd, a normal and routine non-administrative editing action. My sole interaction with BP has been to ask him to be more civil and productive in his comments. How that adds up to administrative abuse is beyond me. Gamaliel 05:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The only reason BP is angry is because you prodded him -- I saw his comments, and he was Wiki-civil. I don't think you understand how insulting and subjective your comments and edits are. And now you add more on your todo watch list and remove BP's comments that are critical of you as an admin. Incredible behavior from an administrator. Morton devonshire 07:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Hardly. BP started out angry, before I said a word to him. His first comments to me were a series of rants: "But wait, Gamaliel comes along, doesn't care about anything except that they don't like Savage, and reverts. And this is an administrator. Doesn't care about the encyclopedia, cares about their own bias." This is not anything resembling civility. My sole response to this attack was "There is no reason to make this personal or adversarial. Please keep your comments civil and productive." We must live on different planets if you see an attack upon me as civil and my plea for civility as "insulting" and "prodding". Gamaliel 08:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Trying to sort this out myself -- I think the reaction you get comes because you are an admin, yet you make substantive edits. That practice makes people feel very uncomfortable, and less confident in the neutrality of Wikipedia. Morton devonshire 08:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe most if not all administrators on Wikipedia are active editors. Gamaliel 08:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure you're not in a mood to take advice from me, but maybe you would get into fewer fights like these if you created a firewall between the activities -- one suggestion would be to exercise admin-like functions only on those articles for which you do not engage in substantive edits, and to engage in zero admin-like functions for those pages that you substantively edit. Maybe even staying completely away from deleting peoples comments and the like when you are making substantive edits. I think that would cut down on the disputes you find yourself in. Trying to step back and be helpful here. Morton devonshire 09:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe I already do have such a firewall. I do not block people I am in disputes with, I do not lock articles (with the exception of simple and obvious vandalism) I am editing. While I am more than willing to accept advice from anyone, I don't see how any of this applies to the matter of BP, whose first act in relation to me was to attack me on the talk page unprovoked. I exercized no administrative functions in regards to BP or the Michael Savage article; all I ever did was ask him to be civil. Deleting his final attack on me was not something I do often, and I only did that after spending several frustrating hours attempting him to act in a reasonable manner while ignoring his previous attacks upon me. Gamaliel 09:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy BS

Morton, I am glad to see that I'm not alone. Too many people belive that crap. Kurt Leyman

Hi

Lol@ att message. Is there any barnstar for that? peace :) --Striver 18:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambig' on top of Protests against Iraq war page

I agree, the "this article is about ... for ... see ..." line at the top of Protests against the Iraq war doesn't add much. I have removed it. See Talk:Protests against the Iraq war#Disambig'.--JK the unwise 14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Flat Earth Patrol Squad

One of the more annoying aspects of Wikipedia, an aspect which hurts its credibility, is the concept that every point of view, however poorly sourced, must be represented. This leads to the truly strange phenomenen that when someone says the Earth is round, the page may contain an "alternative" theory that the Earth is considered flat by some persons. This is just nuts. I am recruiting a squad of editors to combat this obvious flaw in the Wikipedia system. If you are interested in contributing, please let me know. Peace. Morton devonshire 16:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia: a big colossal joke?

The noise of wikipedia criticism is still a low chatter in the background, but I see it continuing to grow as more cases of vandalism, inaccuracy and bias filter to the surface and become news stories. I look forward to it. One of the problems with wikipedia is its prominience in search engine results. To an unsuspecting user, wikipedia has an air of authority because of the word "encyclopedia" and it looks polished and professional. Lurking underneath is awful bias, inaccuracy, and power-tripped administrators. For example, if you Google "New York Post", the wikipedia link is second! Little does the person know who clicks on it that some of the Post article was edited by two people who know very little except their own narrow bias. You know one of them. It ain't me. Luckily, there's a "disputed" tag above the article. There should, however, be a "disputed" tag on the main page of wikipedia. "The entirety of wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia is disputed." So who cares, someone can come along and fix the page right? That's the whole idea. But right now, the page is as it is, a biased mess. I can't be bothered arguing with people on the internet, I was done with that 4 internets ago. So, wikipedia does have tons of cool info on it, but it's weaknesses are going to be exposed eventually and changes are going to have to be made. Soon the internet meme of how bad wikipedia can be will spread faster than an owl at a O' RLY convention. --Bigplankton 19:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy jeez have you been to the admins alt. user page? That is some scary psycho sh-t! I was just there. I'll tell you what, you're not going to win an argument with that obsessive compulsive disorder. --Bigplankton 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Helpful miss

Mistress, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would let it go. This sort of practice makes Wikipedia an unpleasant place, particularly that you, as an Admin, do your boyfriend's dirty work after he misbehaves. Thanks. Morton devonshire 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking down the pictures?

Why? - CorbinSimpson 02:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Mistress User:[censored] insists that I violate some pretend WP fair use construct by using them on my user page. I insist fair use is permitted under US Copyright law. However, she won't leave me alone unless I give in to her threats, so rather than fight some silly pedantic[1] war with her, I choose to remove the pictures so that she goes away and chooses another to harass. Ironically, she cites Ignore the Rules and Don't be a dick as two of her most cherished precepts. Morton devonshire 08:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Dot dot dot. No comment here. - CorbinSimpson 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
nderstand-uay, our-yay, oncerns-cay. Kay-oay? Morton devonshire 18:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Left/Right Paradigm

Hi Lonely Troll! Hey, I was looking at Prison Planet like I enjoy doing because it's so interesting and I found this. Here is an excerpt out of an article that has to do with what we were discussing above. I just figured you'd want to read it and it's kind of funny too.

"In an interview with Alex Jones this week, a liberal radio talk show host for GCN Radio Network, Sheen relived his thoughts and shared his theories on what happened that historic day four-and-a-half years ago," states the article.

Alex Jones a liberal? That one's going to keep us laughing all through until next winter! Alex Jones cut his teeth bashing Bill Clinton and in his youth even campaigned for Republicans before waking up to the false left-right paradigm. Within 10 seconds of meeting Alex Jones anyone would know that he is not a liberal. But in the upside down world of neo-cons and neo-libs, where the drumbeat of state worship has flipped them over so many times that they aren't even sure of their own phony political labels, Alex Jones is a liberal.

If George W. Bush, an assault weapons ban supporting, amnesty loving, abortion supporting, biggest spender on federal government ever, faux cowboy from Kennebunkport Maine is a conservative then I guess we're all Hollywood liberals. In truth both Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen are real conservatives, adhering to the legacy of the founding fathers who advocated constant vigilance of government.

SkeenaR 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm Confused

[[Image:[censored]Pres GW Bush in Army jacket.jpg|thumb|150px|left|These pants are waaay too tight!]] I got an invitation from you concerning the deletion of an anti-Bush page. I happen to be pro-Bush, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm for deleting an anti-Bush article. Some propaganda and lies can be so silly and obviously off-base that it's better to leave them up and have them exposed.

But I'm still not sure what the whole "delete" campaign is all about. Maybe you can the basics to me? Loomis51 19:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Loomis -- I encourage you to analyze the issue and come to your own conclusion. I can't speak for the whole delete side, but I can tell you my own thoughts, which are this: (1) the Bush Crimes Commission is an extremely small, partisan off-shoot of another already small partisan group (Not in Our Name), and as such, doesn't get much notice from the press, so there's no way to verify through reliable sources what it is that they say and do; (2) because of this lack of notability, almost anything that's said about them is original research or POV pushing from persons that agree with the political slant of the group; (3) because of (1) and (2), the article doesn't attract enough editors to keep it NPOV. As such, the article will always be dominated by Not in Our Name and Bush Crimes Commission supporters, endlessly pushing their POV. In my opinion, it's better to delete those kinds of articles because they will never been encyclopedic, and therefore don't belong on WP. I would say the same thing about any highly political article where the ideas presented in the article are non-notable and stridently advanced by a small group. Wikipedia seems to be replete with those kinds of articles. I don't think that WP will truly work as a project until we have found a mechanism for controlling advocacy-planting, and am open to your ideas. As to the keep argument, I can't speak for it. Consider both sides, and vote as you see fit. Cheers. Morton devonshire 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

well taken

Ok, peace. Sorry to be grumpy. I changed my name after what happened to Gator1, and it seems to be freaking people out. This I do not understand, so it's made me a bit defensive. Brillig20 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the kind response. Cheers. Morton devonshire 23:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yabbadabbadoofus

See "Yabbadabbadoofus" at User:Morton devonshire/Finding your inner sockpuppet. I added that without asking 1st. I hope that's ok. Merecat 16:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Brilliant! Thanks man. SkeenaR 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)n

Not to be rude, but...

Who are you? First, you invite me to make changes, then you clean up my userpage for some reason. I'm just seeking an explanation. Thanks. --Michaelk 06:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm nobody important, just another editor like you. I had invited you to vote on an article, because I thought it might have been of interest because of your edits/interests on other articles. If you don't want to be included in such invitations, let me know. The vote is over, so I'm cleaning up after myself. Sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 17:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem :) I was glad to be invited. I always look firward to battling Bush Derangement Syndrome where possible. Was just curious where you got my name from. Thanks for the invite. Peace. --Michaelk 19:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Temptation

[[Image:[censored]Tempts-page-display.jpg|230px|thumb|right|The "Classic 5" lineup of The Temptations, circa 1965. Left to right: Melvin Franklin, Eddie Kendricks, Otis Williams, Paul Williams, and David Ruffin.]] It was all I could do not to change "Lay commissioners" to "Play commissioners." Tom Harrison Talk 19:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

dumb libs: they just aren't worth it.

My time is precious.

Crazy socialists don't value their time: because they are so dumb.

So they can spend tremendous amounts of time posting online and not even care.

They are so close-minded they wouldn't listen to reason anyway.

So I wonder why bother?

I do admire people like yourself, who do fight the good fight.

I just can't seem to get to worried about what a fool thinks.

And: how do you motivate yourself to persuade a fool to be wise? Perhaps you have to be a natural salesman? An extrovert with a masculine drive to conquer the wills of others? A fighting spirit?

I salute you.

--Capsela 04:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with your Talk Page

Wikipedia's fair use policy does not allow for copyrighted pictures on user pages. Therefore, you need to remove Image:Tempts-page-display.jpg and any other pictures here which are not released under GFDL or similar. If you have questions about this, please see WP:FUC #9. This is non-negotiable. Contrary to what you claim above, this is not your page, it belongs to Wikipedia. No one WP:OWNs any page here and all pages must abide by official policy.

Also, the picture of Woohookitty could be a humorous joke or it could be a personal attack. I suggest you ask him if he minds that you are using it here as part of a little joke.

Happy editing! Johntex\talk 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To which pictures are you referring? I will remove the offending ones. Morton devonshire 21:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The only one I've checked is the one I listed above, Image:Tempts-page-display.jpg. If you click on that image, it is clearly labeled as being copyrighted, meaning it can only be used in the article space under appropriate fair-use rational. I haven't checked all your other images, but you should be sure about them. It is your responsibility to ensure you are complying with the policy/law. Best, Johntex\talk 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Got rid of it. Will look at the others tonight. Morton devonshire 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Johntex\talk 21:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for egregious POV vote-stacking and talk page spamming in regards to an Article for deletion. Please don't do it again. That is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Afd is about the merits of an article, not how many users each side can recruit. --Cyde Weys 22:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, there is no WP policy against notifying people of votes. As such, it's not appropriate for you to block me. I believe you have violated the block policy, and used your Admin powers to inappropriately stop an Afd on the article, which was just listed for deletion on 2 May.Morton devonshire 23:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to my world. --Striver 23:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You are my brother. Morton devonshire 00:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I have unblocked you. Cyde's actions were inappropriate. They are certainly open to the interpretation that he violated blocking policy. You are free to raise a WP:RfC against him if you wish. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. As to an Rfc, no thanks, I'm not here to punish anybody, just to edit Wikipedia. Also, would you consider re-opening the Afd? Thanks again for your help. Cheers. Morton devonshire 00:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Morton, see the talk page for the AfD: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)#Premature vote close. Sorry about this. Nescio roped you in. Don't rise to his baiting. He does nothing but talk in circles. As for you inviting people to vote, I agree with you 100% on that too - there was no rules violation, your block is ad hoc and unjustified. Cyde is out of line for the early closure and the blocks. Merecat 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Nescio -- yikes! I won't edit where he edits just for the reasons you mention. That sort of thing makes Wikipedia the NO FUN ZONE. The early closure is what really concerns me. I've watched Cyde's edits, and believe his actions, although not malicious, were politically motivated. Morton devonshire 00:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Still blocked, even though Admin Jtdirl (ÉIREANN) unblocked me

See above message from Jtdirl. Please help. Morton devonshire 00:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Working on your request, and I have a request for you

I am working on getting consensus to unblock you. Please see:

In the mean-time, I see Woohookitty has requested you to please remove his picture from your page. I think you should do so to ensure you are complying with WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Johntex\talk 04:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, please use this time to remove all copyrighted material from your talk page. For example, the Will Farrell animation is copyrighted. Johntex\talk 04:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Morton. I'm sorry, I've campaigned hard against Cyde's actins. I've taken the issue to WP:ANI, Deletion Review, and to the off-wiki mail-list. It looks like the majority of people think Cyde did the wrong thing to close the AfD early.
However, I've not been able to get consensus to unblock you. If you've read the discussion, you already know that I find this appalling, as we have no policy against what you did. Unfortunately, people are now trying to remedy that by actually writing a policy at [5]. Hopefully they won't get the necessary super-majority to do that. We'll see.
Anyway, I will not start a wheel war by unblocking you without consensus of my fellow admins to support my doing so. You were only blocked for 24 hours, so your block will expire soon anyway. I'm sorry I wasn't able to do more for you. On the bright side, the unencylopdeic POV-laden article is back at AfD.
On another note, thanks for removing the picture of Woohookitty and for reviewing your other photos. See you around soon when the block wears off. Johntex\talk 17:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

AFD policy

Your note on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination) is incorrect.

Actually, the Template:AfdAnons tag is Wikipedia policy. Says so right on WP:AFD "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight." Also on WP:GD "Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not." AnonEMouse 17:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. I read WP:AFD, and what I gather is that even newbies or people who have never edited an article get to show up at an Afd and express their opinion -- their opinions may get discounted by the Admin doing the review before close, but they still get weighed. Isn't that correct? Morton devonshire 19:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. And that's what the Template:AfdAnons tag that you criticised said, too. Which isn't the same thing as "go ahead and vote". It's more like "newbies are like a non-voting member at this UN: you have to persuade people." AnonEMouse 20:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that we ALL had to persuade, as there is no such thing as voting on Wikipedia -- the Afd is a consensus development tool. Morton devonshire 00:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to impeach George W. Bushsecond nomination

i am afraid that they're going to try and close my vote out of process please help--Ham and jelly butter 02:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Their true color is red!

Congrats, Morton!

You've been so effective: you've forced the liberal wikipedia admins to show their true colors! Don't let the trolls slow you down.--Capsela 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

An Opportunity for Masochism

Here is an obviously bad page that I've been trying to address for awhile now: Nick Berg conspiracy theories--DCAnderson 22:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

3L

Heh... I am newly minted. I did not work to death during 2L. I was as lazy a bum as possible - and I got two A+'s, which bumped up my GPA from a 3.1 to a 3.2 - go figure :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely getting Afd'd

Tin-foil heaven: Bush family conspiracy theory Morton devonshire 09:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's gone. Morton devonshire 07:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Award

Thanks for the award.

Sorry I haven't acknowledged it sooner. I haven't spent much time on wikipedia lately so I only just noticed it.

Just when I was feeling really, really isolated this comes along. Thanks very much.

PainMan 21:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Over the line

Please don't do this [6] anymore. It's too easy for things like this to cross the line and become harrassment, which I'm sure you don't intend. Tom Harrison Talk 23:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, sometimes I just get completely fed-up with the crap that gets put on Wikipedia. Most of the time the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is entertaining to me, but some days the rewriting of history done by the conspiracists just drives me insane -- I feel like I'm inside one of Orwell's novels. As an Admin, I don't know how you take it (i.e. the insane editors). Morton devonshire 05:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I usually take it with club soda, or water; no ice. Tom Harrison Talk 14:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Sweet. Morton devonshire 17:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My Current Pet Project

Thanks.

As for my next project, here is a text book POV fork/Walled Garden:

Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report

I figure it doesn't need to be deleted, because once all the OR and unverifiable stuff gets trimmed out it can just be merged as there is probably an iota of legitimate criticism in there.--DCAnderson 04:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Justin Alvarez Jr.

Hi. I left a complaint on his thread. Someone else edited back, which shows there's some sense on the thread. However if you want to refer him to the admins you can cite the fact he was warned by you and then he still deleted other people's comments. Thanks for the heads up. John Smith's 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't want to turn this into an Admin war -- I just want him to stop deleting other people's edits and to focus on his own edits. Wikipedia doesn't need to be so contentious. Morton devonshire 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
A lot of editors find your comments and such maybe a little too provocative, at least until they know you a little better. IMHO that's the main source of the conflicts you run into, aside from your Bush luvin'. But I'll say that your above comment is a good example for everybody to follow. Good on ya! Just thought I'd drop in. See ya. SkeenaR 05:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theory redirects

Morton, you seem to be prodding redirect pages that point (or pointed to) 9/11 conspiracy theories. Why bother? Since they are redirects, all the content is there. And you haven't proposed deletion of that page (nor would I suggest it). --Kchase02 (T) 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they're meaningless redirects, and should just be deleted. Morton devonshire 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see much point in deleting redirects, so I reverted them. They're right at the top of my contribs list now if you really want them deleted. --Kchase02 (T) 00:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Merecat

Morton, I saw your message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Merecat has been blocked because he edited John Kerry which is a no-no for User:Rex071404. And since Merecat has been deemed a "sockpuppet" of Rex, then the logic follows that Merecat can be blocked for breaking conditions which apply to Rex. However, not all alternate accounts are "sockpuppets" and in point of fact, alternate accounts are allowed (see this). Even so, the check user feature is being abused by some to thwart this. See dialogs relating to Merecat and this topic here Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. At that page, some editors are being accused of being "Merecat", but since it's clear that at worst, those editors are non-transgressing alternate accounts, there is no justification for a check user against them. Even so, User:Mr. Tibbs seeks to kick them off the wiki. Please keep these points in mind 1) Currently User:Rex071404 is blocked by User:Cyde on a false basis. It is absolutely true that Rex himself is not a "sockpuppet", yet Cyde called him one and blocked him. 2) If Merecat is Rex and Rex is not currently under ArbCom block or ban (he's not) then there's no reason why Rex can't be unblocked, change his user name to Merecat and drop the Rex name. However, if you look at the talk page history for User:Rex071404, you will see that a few editors keep deleting "unblock" requests made on his behalf. Personally, I think you might get better success if you ask User:172 for help. Other than that, keep an eye on whoever it is that Mr. Tibbs is complaining about at any given moment as they tend to edit along the same lines of thinking that you do. You'd be likely to find new friends that way. Also, if you were to leave a "hey, see this article" message on Rex's user page, anyone interested in the articles you draw attention to, might follow up and edit where you point them to. Signed, a friendly anonymous editor. 216.22.26.46 07:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush family conspiracy theory (2nd nomination)--DCAnderson 23:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Hi. I just reverted your change at Wikipedia:Spam because I didn't see any discussion of it on the talk page or anywhere else. If you think that guideline needs to be altered, why don't we talk about it? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that guideline needs to be altered, why not talk about it? Seriously, why not? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It's obvious from your dialogue on that page with IronDuke, Johntex and Supplicant that you've made up your mind, and that you're not really open to other people's thoughts. So I thought, why bother discussing it. You don't WP:OWN the subject. Morton devonshire 07:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually quite open to other people's thoughts. I haven't heard any thoughts that convince me that the Wikipedia community is generally in favor of allowing talk page spamming, as long as there's an effort to keep it balanced. Can you point me to evidence that experienced Wikipedians tend to think that way? You're right, I don't own that page or that section or anything here, but I am rather interested that our guidelines not be changed to reflect what one person happens to think, when it's a variance with the actual guideline, which is what most experienced Wikipedians tend to think. So, I'm happy to consider any evidence you have that our true guideline is as you edited it. If you're right, all you should have to do is bring the edit to the attention of more Wikipedians, and the clear consensus will set me right, I'm sure. Editing a guideline without discussion is simply an ineffective strategy, unless your goal is to be quickly reverted. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
So, you are the consensus decider? I don't understand. From what I can see, it's 4 people who want to change it, and 1 person (you) who insist that it stays a particular way. Just because you're an Admin, it doesn't give you the right to determine an article's contents -- your job as an Admin is to interpret the rules on behalf of Wikipedia, not have an opinion of your own about an article's contents. Morton devonshire 22:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No, the consensus decider is the community at large. That means, not one person, not four people, but the community at large. I have asked you for evidence that the community at large feels that spamming is ok in the circumstances you outline. Threads at AN/I would constitute good evidence, as would ArbCom decisions, or any record of someone doing what you describe, and it going over well. Without that, you haven't convinced me that a few people really wanting to spam talk pages is sufficient to reword the guideline. Your failure to use the relevant talk page to communicate about your edits is somewhat disturbing, by the way. If you can't answer my arguments, that doesn't mean you can just ignore them. I have posted a section addressing you at Wikipedia talk:Spam. I hope to see you reply there. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, that the relevant place to discuss these changes in ordinary circumstances is the talk page. But when I go to the relevant talk page, I see people making reasonable arguments, and I see you disregarding their opinions. Hence, my frustration. Yes, there are threads out there, but I don't know how to link to them -- please walk me through the mechanics. I see people getting asked to comment on issues all of the time, and I see them acting responsibly in the way they comment -- that's what I'm trying to drive at, that there are responsible ways of notifying objective people about issues that doesn't violate Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Morton devonshire 02:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've replied at Wikipedia talk:Spam as well. As far as the mechanics of linking to threads, the best way is probably to link to a relevant "diff". For example, let's say I want to link to your post here, to which I'm replying right now. I just click on the history tab ([7]), find where you made the post, click the link titled "last" to see the diff, and paste the URL from my browser address bar into this conversation, with single brackets around it: [8]. That provides a permanent link to your posting - even if you archive this talk page later, that link will still show the content in question. I hope that helps; please let me know if I can clarify.
I really haven't tried to disregard anybody's argument; I thought I replied to them, which I don't think of as "disregard". Am I not also "making reasonable arguments" on the relevant talk page, or are the other people's arguments the only reasonable ones? I agree that there are reasonable ways to notify people about things that don't violate Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and I'm ok with letting this guideline reflect that fact, but we ought to get on the same page about just what kinds of notification are actually considered cool. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Pedanticism has no bounds

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Forum:The_Nerve_of_Some_People#Please_help_me_tweak_the_ego_of_Wikipedia Et tu Uncyclopedia? Morton devonshire 22:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes things aren't what they seem I guess. It looks like you wouldn't have found this out unless you had pushed their buttons right. BUM, BUM, BUM! SkeenaR 09:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe instead of a fruitcake

I can offer this as a means of restraint for consiracy theorists.--MONGO 08:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How sweet of you. SkeenaR 04:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bush Knew is bascially a speedy, but I'll leave that one up for a full week and deal with it after the 10th if someone doesn't beat me to it.--MONGO 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask your doctor about...

Panexa. Tom Harrison Talk 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Jewish conspiracy

Hey, I didn't take it personal (OK, so I did, but I'm over it) about the page, but, what else could work. The main page of 9/11 conspiracy theories is said to be too long, so I thought that the Jewish section was an appropriate lift, as it was somewhat self-sufficent. Something's gotta go, but what can we do to help the page? Scoutersig 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) --P.S. How can I check to see if a page was made (and deleted) before I make it (again?)?

I apologize -- given that the article was deleted by an Admin just two days ago, and that there was lots of talk on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, I assumed that you went against consensus and created the new article because you were pissed about the deletion. My mistake -- sorry, I should know better. This subject is one of the most controversial on Wikipedia, in that there's a determined camp intent on promoting the alternative theory arguments (e.g. my friend SkeenaR), and a determined camp intent on keeping out material that is not supported by reliable sources (e.g. me)(my characterization of the battle, of course). We each come to Wikipedia with our own set of beliefs and prejudices -- mine is that the common account of 9/11 is the only plausible account, because thousands of competitive journalists examine the story every day, and what we see in the press is an account that has withstood the crucible of examination. Others believe that somehow the true account is being hidden from us. Neither of these sets of beliefs is, however, relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Articles on Wikipedia must be notable, and information in those articles must be verifiable and rely upon objective third-party accounts, not original research. In my experience, this means that blogs and political sites (like prisonplanet.com, 911truth.org, DailyKOS) are not reliable, because they have no independent, objective oversight, such as occurs in a newsroom -- instead, they have a point of view to advance, and are therefore subjective and not a worthy source according to Wikipedia standards. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not very organized, so there is no central place to keep track of things, but Rhobite keeps a nice list at Rhobite 9/11 watchlist that you might want to place on your watch list. BTW, my bark is worse than my bite. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 19:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey man, I'm just the new guy, trying to be bold, not be stupid. Most of my contributions through now have been for highly non-controversial topics (Boot Monument, two dollar bill, etc.). I'll be doing much more observation on pages such as this before testing the water with both feet. Thanks for the kind words and good advice. Scoutersig 20:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Yeah, it seems like a battlestation sometimes. Thanks for pointing out that what you said was your characterization of it too. I'm not trying to promote any point of view, from where I sit I see a supression of material eg. the Undue Weight policy being violated, so if people disagree with me on that point, I guess it seems to them I'm a promoter. People should be able to disagree without being enemies, but it gets tough when people take a subject seriously, and it seems like this one takes the cake. It's in our nature to fight I guess, but I think this can be a better place if we try to keep that in mind. At the very least we have a cool platform to write and discuss. Talk to you later. SkeenaR 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for msg

I'd love to. Unfortunately I haven't a clue about these things. Someone else did mine for me. It is [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> You need also to click the Raw signature (no auto link; don't use templates or external links in this) box. I hope that helps. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


RfC

I appreciate the comment that you left on my RfC in support. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you mistook?

As a hard case POV Crusader? Have you thought about the issue?SkeenaR 08:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow what you mean. Morton devonshire 08:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It just seems like you are doing your best to try and discredit anything that doesn't fit with your POV, for example the thing about using the word researcher among other stuff. Don't take it in a bad way, but all the edits seem to be decidedly one directional. Of course I'm open to anything you might have to say about my editing, and I would appreciate any constructive criticism but it seems really obvious that you will try and discredit even minor things to make it fit your POV while at the same time completely ignoring anything else. I hope that's not too forward, but that's what it seems like. SkeenaR 08:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I can understand how you might come to that conclusion, because I don't spend much energy trying to debunk Moon Landing Hoax articles, JFK magic-bullets, or Vince Foster conspiracy theories. Occasionally I will challenge some baloney that gets hoisted in Hilary Clinton articles, but none of those issues are as relevant to our culture today, so I tend to be less interested. 9/11 conspiracy theories are important to me, because they are so subject to politicization and can be used to conjure fear in people's minds -- some founded, some not. That's the danger -- that we would be deliberately distracted by people using half-truths in order to achieve a particular political objective. Terrorism is a real thing, and we should be afraid of it. Our government sometimes does the wrong thing in response to that terrorism, and we need to be diligent against that threat too. We've got enough to worry about without creating Bogeymen that don't exist -- which is what Hoffman, Jones and the like do. You'll notice that I leave alone articles that discuss the government's attempts to surveil the American public -- that's a real, and credible threat to our civil liberties -- credible, because it's been widely reported by credible, and reliable, sources. I'm hard on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, because they lack credible, and reliable, sources. Five years have passed, and the theories aren't any more well-supported then on the day they were hatched. When credible researchers examine these theories, they find them easy to debunk, and move on. So who are we left with who follow and "research" these theories? Advocates! Thats all. Only advocates are left to chew over again and again the small morsels and to try to make them fit some evil plan. So no, they are not "researchers", and they are not interested in the "truth". What they are interested in is distorting the truth to fit their own political objectives, or to sell their books, or to get on Art Bell. Wikipedia requires reliable sources and verifiability before an item can be included in an article -- that's just something that can't be provided by reliance on Alex Jones' blogs. Ask yourself this: why is it that the mainstream media has been able to uncover credible evidence of the Bush Administration's distortion of Iraqui WMDs, or the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal, but have been unable to uncover credible evidence of LIHOP/MIHOP? If there was credible evidence, wouldn't the same free press revel in its release? It's the primary reason I discount the conspiracy cruft. Morton devonshire 09:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You take a respectable position for sure, but I disagree with you about a whole bunch of stuff. It's late, but I'll be back tomorrow. Thanks for the reasoned argumentation dude. But before I go, I must point out that no WMD's were found. Ask yourself, whos interest does the corporate media really act in? The publics? The shareholders? Are politics involved? Is it as simple as you make it sound? SkeenaR 09:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Skee -- the WMD story is exactly on point. There was a situation where our government deliberately or mistakenly misled us, and the mainstream media revealed the misleading information. This was a HUGE story that the media was anxious to report, despite the fact that it hurt the Bush Administration, and embarassed many mainstream media sources, including folks at the venerable NY Times and at Fox. Skee, you have a strange view of journalism -- I think it's the crux of the problem -- you have the truly weird opinion that the "corporate" media is somehow jaundiced because they have a profit motive and some media conglomeration has taken place. The problem with that hypothesis, however, is that there are MANY competing medias, all of which would love terribly to scoop and embarass the other corporate media empires. There is no secret cabal -- journalism is a cut-throat world of competitiveness, all of them waiting for their own Deep Throat. No, there's no Deep Throat on this one, because it didn't happen. On this issue, you are ignorant about what it means to be an American -- in America, we can't wait to "Stick it to the Man". It's in our blood. Many people who have served in Government, including myself, would feel it their duty and privilege to rat out some high muckity-muck to an eager journalist -- that's the American way Boyo. Morton devonshire 04:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Like you say, there are real threats we should be aware of. One of the dangers that you pointed out are people being deliberately distracted by the use of half-truths to acheive political objectives. The mainstream media completely and utterly fails miserably as a reliable source of information when it matters the most. Ask the average person if they are aware that the event that pushed public opinion in favour of the first Gulf War was a lie. And make no mistake, this was not an error. The baby incubator story-Nurse Nayirah In reality, Citizens for a Free Kuwait, organized by the exiled Kuwaiti government, had hired Hill & Knowlton to gain support for the US counterstrike. Hill & Knowlton was paid US $14 million by the US government for its help in promoting the Gulf War. It was not revealed until later that the girl was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. Frieda Construe-Nag and Myra Ancog Cooke, two maternity nurses in that ward, later said that they had never seen Nayirah there and that the baby-dumping had never happened.

As another example from an endless supply of deception: Lauri Fitz-Pegado, later Assistant Commerce Secretary, invented Nayirah's story and coached the girl. She also prepared Iraq-invasion testimony for the UN which was later discredited, and later promoted a book about the rescue of PFC Jessica Lynch during the 2003 Iraq War. [9] "They used me to symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things". She also stated "I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees. And that's the last I remember." She reported excellent treatment in Iraq, and that one person in the hospital even sang to her to help her feel at home.

Indeed, it seems that in some cases we have the same old behind the scenes propaganda pushers. [10] Call it what you will.

Did the media reort that these were deceptions on anywhere near the scale that they hyped them? No. And the effects could never be reversed.

The WMD story is a perfect parallel to Nurse Nayirah. The mainstream media acted as a mouthpiece for the administration. Tell me, when did the mainstream media reveal that the information about WMD's was "mistaken"? After you country was firmly entrenced in a bloodbath and a quagmire right?(the quagmire wasn't going to happen either). The media would have had to manufacture their own WMD's to report otherwise.

It would be a mistake to undermine the threat of terror. But my point is that the mainstream media is almost useless for dependable information when it is actually needed. I love America and I hope you are able to keep your freedom. Excercise your rights and stay vigilant. SkeenaR 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (if these these so-called reliable sources of information are not challenged, then freedom is already lost)

Point proven [11] SkeenaR 07:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Man, that's screwed up. Should've known when I saw that Ed had only 8 edits to his name, and never really did anything substantive. That TruthSeeker is full of hot air. Yes, it proves how screwed-up and unreliable Wikipedia can be. Morton devonshire 17:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I find it very analagous to what were talking about above. SkeenaR 23:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. On Wikipedia, when someone deliberately distorts the truth, nothing happens if they get caught, except maybe a temporary ban (which is what TruthSeeker1234 will get). However, if you're a NY Times journalist, and you deliberately distorts things, you get fired, and competitor journalists relish in outing your behavior. Mainstream journalism is self-correcting, that's why it's superior. I understand your point that factual accounts can be temporarily skewed by well-organized propaganda campaigns, but even that element is self-correcting. My point is, that if there truly were a 9/11 conspiracy, we would know about it already through the self-correcting mechanism. No planted story can long hold off that Juggernaut. Morton devonshire 01:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

On which planet does reality shift to fit your version? I'll make up a list of journalist bullshit artists who still have their jobs for you and a list of people like the one mentioned above who get promotions for inventing this crap. One thing I will not be able to provide you with is a list of any problems that the media created that they managed to "self-correct". If you consider mainstream journalism superior when all they can do is say "oops, sorry" after they have convinced people to sacrifice everything on false pretenses, then our ideas of superior are vastly different. Are you making this up, or do you actually believe yourself? One thing I do agree with is that if there was such a huge conspiracy, it would probably be exposed eventually. I'm not sure how long it would take though, if it actually happened. SkeenaR 16:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) (sorry, I don't mean to sound so cantankerous)

I was referring specifically to the WMD story and the NY Times reporter -- she got canned and disgraced, and the story HAS come out. What are you talking about -- the no-WMDs story is the biggest story of the past 5 years! Morton DevonshireYo

Which reporter was that? I want to read her story. Never heard much about her. I remember hearing a lot about some threat in Iraq though. And how easy it would all be. All networks, all channels. At least all the ones I saw coming out of the U.S. anyway. This doesn't change anything I said about them being unreliable sources. SkeenaR 05:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq and the War on Terrorism

Wikipedia:WOT is up for vote now. Rangeley 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyrus Farivar

Hi, thanks for your prompt feedback. I don't feel you addressed my reasons for tagging the page, and these reasons are not affected by what happened last year (I have read up a lot of the past discussion, but I'm not at all convinced). On consideration, I feel the Cyrus Farivar page will eventually go as it is clearly:

  • decidedly not notable - the subject is not notable in himself, and greenlighting was not a notable hoax
  • the count of the last deletion vote (Aug '05)came down firmly on the side of 'delete' - how does this come to mean 'keep'?
  • mainly based on a trivial subject - a non-event, in fact
  • a page intended as a self-promotional tool, rather than to be informational
  • refers almost entirely to itself - no importance in the wider world
  • a bad precedent

The issue of CF 'criticising' WKP is simply begging the question, I wasn't aware that he did so. I note that my notability tag has been removed without any notability being added. I am determined to have a debate about this page on principle, and if notability is not discussed, will take it further. I'm also confident that if I take the discussion wider, I will find reasonable support for my stance. IMHO the majority of the 'keep' votes are based on weak arguments, and/or a lack of perception of the issues: the hoax, notability etc. Further, I am aware from my background reading that past raisings of this issue have disappeared. See Mrtourne's comments during the Aug '05 deletion discussion. I should add that I am also going to push for the related 'Greenlighting hoax' page to be merged to 'hoaxes'. Again, it is extremely trivial, and almost entirely self-referential. I would draw your attention also to the following comment by user Snowspinner (during Aug '05 deletion discussion). Quote: Keep. I don't care if it was vanity created, it is a notable subject. In fact, I will go a step further. This article is being kept. I do not care what the outcome of the usual VfD suspects straw poll is. The article is being kept, and I will undelete it until the arbcom or Jimbo tells me to stop. Snowspinner 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC) End quote

I note also that the announcement of the result of the Aug '05 deletion vote being a 'keep' was made by the same user Snowspinner. As a new user, I respectfully suggest that he made a bad counting error. My suggestion is that the page be deleted, and perhaps userfy-ed. Centrepull 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you've already made up your mind. Okay, if that's the way you want it, I will be equally determined to keep the article up, as the criticism of Wikipedia alone in his Slate article is notable enough to keep things rolling. Morton devonshire 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, go ahead and delete it -- Cyrus would probably welcome being free from having to maintain eternal vandal vigilance on the article. Morton devonshire 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.