User talk:Morton devonshire/Archive09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

New MONGO RfC

CTer making another run at MONGO. - Crockspot 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Two pieces of toasted white bread.

Can you say ‘Toast’! The Arbcom was derided as “frivolous” by an arbitrator and declined by four Arbitrators, and withdrawn before it was “officially” declined. Now the bringer is trying to weasel-out and say that there was no definitive decision – well, if the Arbs call your request frivilous, then that’s pretty decisive if you ask me. The bringer has now gone all passive-aggressive on us and is threatening to meatball:Wiki-Goodbye, and refuses to accept the community consensus. He said that he was going to “stand by his statement in the RfA.” Well, good luck with that! Nothing like closing your eyes and completely ignoring what your community says. Sounds like another way to say “have a nice day/F-U” if you ask me. MortonDevonshire Yo · 01:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Franklin Coverup AfD

I'm puzzled why you reverted the closure of the Franklin Coverup Scandal AfD. First, it was in fact well within process -- it had run 5 days, there was a clear consensus for Keep, and the deletion process permits any non-involved editor to close an AfD as Keep. But more importantly, I'm somewhat surprised since you did a lot of good work to improve the article and convert it from a nest of OR-type conspiracy theories to a factual article documenting the hoax. There's a lot of totally nutball cruft on the net about the case, and Wikipedia was one of the only places with actual factual information. --MCB 17:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a conspiracy theory, I'm suspicious of any non-Admin getting involved in closing an Afd, because you never know what people's agendas are, and I don't know the person who closed it (or why he or she as a non-Admin would inject themselves into the process) -- CT theories seem to attract a lot of true believers that will do anything to preserve their soapboxes. Although there are some Admins who are also CT'ers, you can generally expect an Admin to act objectively, because they know they will answer for it later if they don't. So, I think the outcome will probably be the same, I would just rather that an uninvolved Admin makes these kinds of decisions. Yes, I think the article is in decent shape now, and should probably be kept. I'll weigh-in if I need to. MortonDevonshire Yo · 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. As it is, I don't think there's any question about the outcome of the AfD, although the deletion process does recommend that non-admins only close "unambiguous Keep" AfDs. I'd close it myself, but have posted in it and therefore must recuse myself. Best, --MCB 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that non-admins were allowed to close AfD's. Learn something new everyday around here. - Crockspot 19:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That is news to me as well. I am now beginning to wonder about some AfD's that were closed out a while back. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

They can if the Afd is a "keep"...but wasn't aware they could close Afd's that are consensus based deletes.--MONGO 06:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Morton

This lighthouse's beautiful brightness has led me to this talk page,
so I could finally meet you, and thank you for all you do,
and leave you a modest gift wishing you all the happiness
and peace you deserve, dear Morton. You are great! :)

Love,
Phaedriel
18:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Trend Micro's advice on the Boeing 757 Hoax

Hey man! Check this out. And quote: Trend Micro advises the recipients of this email hoax to ignore, discard, and NOT forward it to anyone else. Wow! - Not only do they protect computers from viruses, they have a good sense about them - Later... JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Judy Wood

Dental materials engineer, huh? Someone apparently slipped too much mercury into her fillings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.182.24 (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

For your consideration

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy Con. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David MacMichael--Ray McGovern's buddy. Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I think we're on the same page regarding the lunatic fringe on Wikipedia. As you're obviously experienced in this area if you know of any articles or projects I might help balance with a bit of common sense then please drop me a line. I've put the conspiracy articles for deletion page on my watchlist. Nick mallory 07:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

misanthope

OK. Murderbike 02:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's spelled 'misanthrope', btw. MortonDevonshire Yo · 05:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just stopping by

From the "State Terrorism" page:

I would also like to point out that your last comment violates WP:CIV. I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would endeavor to abide by the guidelines.Stone put to sky 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad Boy Stone! No cookie for you! MortonDevonshire Yo · 17:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it. Stone put to sky 03:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? MortonDevonshire Yo · 06:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Once more, also from the U.S. State Terrorism page:

Also, i would like to point out that your last post violates WP:AGF. This is the second time today that i have felt the need to remind you of wiki guidelines. Please, reconsider your current rhetorical habits.Stone put to sky 06:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I just thought you might like the heads up. Stone put to sky 06:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I should let you know that these sort of false accusation tactics don't work on me -- I've been around the block. The burden is on the editor making the insertion to demonstrate that a source is WP:RS -- you haven't. MortonDevonshire Yo · 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

David MacMichael

I'm curious, why did you list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David MacMichael on your so-called "IlluminatiNoticeboard"? I understand you don't think he's notable which is fine, but do you really think he's a conspiracy theorist? What's your evidence for that? There's nothing in the David MacMichael article or the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity article that suggests that MacMichael or the group are "conspiracy theorists." I don't think MacMichael is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist which seems to be the main concern you have as far 9/11 CT propaganda making its way onto wikipedia (and I probably largely agree with you on that incidentally). VIPS has suggested that the intel books were cooked at least somewhat by the Bush admin prior to the Iraq war, but that's hardly a conspiracy theory--it's a widely held opinion (including by a large number of prominent Democratic politicians) with a good amount of empirical evidence. So I don't see how the current AfD on MacMicheal even remotely qualifies as a "conspiracy theory-oriented Afd" which is supposedly the purpose of your IlluminatiNoticeboard. It's your user space and you can of course do whatever you want with it, but I for one am pretty skeptical of your whole "get rid of conspiracy theorists" project when you seem to lump in people who aren't conspiracy theorists but rather are people you simply don't think should have articles written about them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The AfD is obviously closed now, but I really was wondering about this (not merely trolling or trying to score points) and hoping that you could address my question. Any chance of a reply?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just object to Wikipedia being used to promote notoriety, which is a tactic the 9/11 conspiracy nutburgers and the hard-core anti-war folks have in common -- the tactic violates our rules WP:NN, WP:NOR, and WP:SPS. BTW, I believe that the WMD intel was pitifully bad, but that doesn't make living-room-sized organizations pointing this out any more notable. MortonDevonshire Yo · 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure that addresses my question, but okay. BTW, "notariety" is spelled "notoriety."

PS--Ahmed Chalabi actually edits here on Wikipedia from an anon IP address. Apparently he's been leaving a bunch of misleading information on user talk pages in an effort to convince the English-language wikipedia to invade the German one (it's completely unclear why at this point, but I'm sure he has his reasons). Fool me once Ahmed. Fool me once.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to propaganda, that's the common thread. And yes, I blame that asshole Chalabi for pitching the WMD crapola, and our intel folks, Administration and Congress for believing it. Chalabi is one of the most effective propagandists of our century -- he actually hired a lobbying firm to push the WMD story years ago, and just kept hammering on it. Eventually, it worked, mostly because people WANTED to believe the romantic notion that Chalabi was an Iraqi version of George Washington. Instead, he turned out to be just as corrupt as the rest of the Iraqi politicians. But I blame the Iraqis too -- we bumbled into it, but we also handed them the opportunity in one fell swoop to remake their government into a liberal democracy -- instead, they chose the same old pocket-lining oligarchy of their predecessor. MortonDevonshire Yo · 00:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Chalabi stinks, agreed. Thanks for replying, and obviously my comment about him in my last post-script was meant solely to be humorous and not start a debate about Iraq or anything. Hence its ridiculousness. Obviously, if the English-language wikipedia was going to invade anyone it would be the Swedish or Spanish-language wikis--they have fewer articles so it would be easier.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

An essay right up your alley

User:Blaxthos/Policy shopping seems to have a flawed premise that violates AGF, NPOV, and I'm sure plenty of other policies that could be "shopped" :). He's asking for input, thought you would have something cogent to say about it. - Crockspot 12:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Now an MfD. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blaxthos/Policy shopping - Crockspot 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh

[1]--MONGO 08:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If at first, you don't succeed . . . And check this out. Fetzer now trying to brainwash skulls full of mush! MortonDevonshire Yo · 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't he give it all way when the introduction calls it 9/11 terrorist attacks? Is that the faux pas slip of the fraudulent tongue? --Tbeatty 02:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice piece of work, guys. You're two years of effort finally paid off. And it only took 5 nominations, wow! ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It takes time for people to come to their senses, lets hope it rubs off on you too.--MONGO 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd bet you couldn't gotten "Gravity" deleted quicker, though. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want gravity deleted? Gravity is true. Nutball theories about 9/11 are not. Now if there were such a group as the "Gravity Scholars for Truth" that advocated that gravity was a myth, then we might have a cause celebre. --Tbeatty 19:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Next thing you'll be telling us is that an airplane didn't hit the Pentagon. MortonDevonshire Yo · 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously irony didn't hit Tbeatty any time recently. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Tbeatty, your answer betrays you true motivations. Articles can't be deleted because you disagree with them. Even if there was an "Gravity Scholars for Truth", there should be an article if it is notable. Not notable was the stated reason for deletion of ST911, not not true. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 21:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Gravity = notable. "Gravity Scholars for Truth" ≠ notable. Conspiracy theories are notable. Just not all the individual groups as independant articles. They can all be lumped into one article. Nutball Theories for Truth and Controlled Demolition Using Energy Weapons from Space with Decoy Planes Filled with Thermite is my personal choice for an article. --Tbeatty 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Gravity Scholars for Truth" isn't notable because you just made it up. But if it existed, it might be notable. Why can we have an article on every character in the cartoon Pokemon, but a group of 300+ people isn't notable. It seems you are using a fig leaf of notability to cover your personal bias.... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I know 300 people. Can I make an article 300 people Tbeatty knows? And couple that with the fact that all 300 are covered elsewhere? The reality is that if you have a problem with Pokemon notability, put it up for deletion. I'll vote for it. The fig leaf of notability is way to big to cover the tiny subset of an organization previously known as the 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Normally I'd rather be dead than red, but I like the look of that. --Tbeatty 21:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with documenting that Ct's about 9/11 exist, but over emphasizing nonsense by having articles about every wacky theory that is floating about simply makes Wikipedia look idiotic.--MONGO 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD "trigger finger"

What do you think about my thoughts on the matter? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Very tempting, but creation of these obviously POV articles would be a violation of WP:POINT. Instead, let's just do the right thing and start the Afd on the current WP:NPOV and WP:OR violator on the 25th. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just being sarcastic, but it illustrates what is wrong there bigtime. WP:OR is very important. Yes, I preach to the choir here! ;-) I need to stay away from this computer and take a break. Later - JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I just pulled the trigger: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination) Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your awesome userpage.

Your "Into the Cruft Abyss" is awesome, especially with the tin foil hats. I see so many people saying 9/11 is a conspiracy. What people should tell them is "There is no 9/11 conspiracy, however the moon landing was fake and the fluoride in your drinking water is mind control. Also the US government is a puppet government by aliens in area 51. But 9/11 had no conspiracy." Or "9/11 was no conspiracy. The notion that there is one is spread by aliens, the illuminati, and the CIA by their mind implants." SakotGrimshine 09:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Firestone

TA! Mobile 01^Talk 14:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

about: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (3rd nomination)

Hi Morton, I have no real objection for deleting these article- but I vote on the opposite since I think that too many deletions of Jewish categories already been made . I don’t think that this category some how promote any kind of position-can you please explain me why you think/feel that it does?--Gilisa 10:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC) BTW you do have an amazing user page.

FYI

State terrorism by the United States just got moved back. --MichaelLinnear 06:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Crikey! Seemed to solve several problems. Why do people insist on pushing propaganda here? MortonDevonshire Yo · 06:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's silly, because your title was what the article is actually about. --MichaelLinnear 06:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved it, and I really don't like doing things like that, but I really think the consensus move from the AfD (and apparently an earlier poll) was to put "Allegations of..." at the beginning of the title, which I would be quite happy with it. A the AfD no one really latched on to the move you made, so I think it at least needs to be discussed before being executed. If a lot of folks want to bring in the "international law" aspect to the title we could do it, but that title does have it's own problems (e.g. "state terror" could still have been committed even if it did not violate international law, much of which is fairly new and therefore may not have been codified at the time of the "state terror" events) and I think some of the same POV problems would simply be solved by putting "Allegations of" at the beginning.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident (2nd nomination). - Crockspot 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

MfD

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Striver/9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder if Abureem or Mujinga will now show up to defend? MortonDevonshire Yo · 22:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. This is a bit odd. Without any sort of notification, Abureem shows up and complains about you. Abureem=Mujinga=Striver? Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD

I opened an AfD, any expertise on POV forking you can lend would be appreciated. - Crockspot 05:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I know we dont get along well in the past, so the kinds words on my user page was valiant and an extremely terrific jester of good will. Thanks Travb (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You caused a disturbance in my household

... with the loud laughter from reading this edit summary. (*Thinks of AfD page, shudders.*) CWC 14:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Puppetmaster's userpage at Gooddoggy. MortonDevonshire Yo · 17:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Gobsmacking stuff.

Somewhat related: I liked the Star Wars paraphrase here. How do you strike an article down? Cheers, CWC 19:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

foucault's pendulum

Did you ever read Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco? After all these months of dealing with conspiracy theory cruft I think you'd love it. GabrielF 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In a now-funny irony of ironies, that book almost ruined my life, as I was reading it while I should've been studying for a huge post-grad school exam (the kind you spend a month or two preparing for). When I got to the point in the book when the characters realized their lives were being consumed and destroyed by their silly game, I "woke up" and threw the book out, knowing that if I just put it away I would have my nose back into it again in a day or two, rather than my studies. A few days later, I dug it out of the trash can and made a bargain with myself that I would allow myself to read it for 30 minutes after each 6-hour block of study. My head was so confused by the endless days and weeks of study that like the characters in the book, I actually believed that the bargain took on some sort of mystical power (i.e. that if I kept my "bargain", I would pass the exam). It worked: I kept the bargain, and aced the exam. Looking back, I realize I was completely frickin' delusional during that period because of the stress and mountains of information I had to learn in a short period. But I also realize that my delusional mind came up with a clever trick to get myself through. Even today, I can't look at that book without recalling that soupy molasses of thought -- a world where Eco's miasmic dystopia fused with my own. MortonDevonshire Yo · 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)