User talk:MSTCrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

Moo. Just don't be a jerk and then Wikilawyer your ass off.

Contents

[edit] Thompson/Nashua

I had to revert your addition, because we can't reliably source it, making it WP:OR. WP isn't for breaking original news. I think you can probably file a report about your encounter on Wikinews however. - Crockspot 01:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson_to_Announce_His_Candidacy_on_June_28th - MSTCrow 01:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Blair vandalism?

What vandalism? This IP address hasn't edited the main article, only asked a question on the Talk page! --90.192.92.21 01:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Trolling a talk page with inappropriate commentary is unsatisfactory. - MSTCrow 01:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicide

If you're upset with the way an afd turned out, you should probably take it to DRV. Accusing the closing admin of sock puppetry is probably not the best move, especially when that very same admin is a regular closer of SSP cases. I would suggest you withdraw your case, and request speedy under G7 of your accusation at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/unknown which could be seen as a personal attack, and head over to deletion review instead. Just some friendly advice, don't accuse the admins! -wizzard2k (C-T-D) 00:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Admins and bureaucrats have a habit of being frequently caught sockpuppeteering. This may or may not be the case here, but it is suspicious, and worth looking into. Noting suspicious behavior of an admin can hardly be qualified as a personal attack. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks for criteria. If he's not the sockpuppeteer, that's fine, I certainly have nothing against him personally. The AfD clearly was badly mishandled by one of the newer Wikipedia editors, and as AMDZone is clearly a sock, it has to be someone. With the current evidence, MastCell appears to be the most likely candidate at this point in time. MastCell might be closing sockpuppet cases, but he doesn't have checkuser status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers/checkuser). - MSTCrow 00:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
And that's not wikiciding. Look up wikicide on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Some censor happy overlord blocked hyperlinking to ED. - MSTCrow 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I still think its suicide (on Wikipedia -> my own definition of wikicide), and a bad idea. Editors are granted sysop status because they've been trusted by the community to handle the admin tools with responsibility. Accusing an admin straightforward with nothing more than a single "suspicious" event, can and often is, seen as harassing an admin. I looked at the history of your SSP case, and noticed initially you listed it without naming a puppeteer. I'm just trying to help, as it seems as though your actions might be a little hasty, when there might be better alternatives. Are you sure you want this case forever tied to your username in the future? If you're ever in an RfA, this could come up. Just trying to help! -wizzard2k (C-T-D) 01:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Editors are not granted sysop or admin status "because they've been trusted by the community to handle the admin tools with responsibility." It is impossible on a project of this scale, with near zero applied managerial principles, for any single person to be trusted by the entire community. It only takes the most minute fraction of the total number of editors on Wikipedia to elevate someone to admin or above, often with disastrous results. I understand and appreciate that you're trying to help, but it's in the history, and without it being purged and whiting out WikiCite and Google, it's not ever going to disappear. I've been here over 3 years. I've seen Wikipedia get worse or stabilize, but rarely improve. If other users want to RfA me for some reason, ok, but I'm not going to RfA myself, and Wikipedia is way too much of an out of control mess to be all that attractive for me to take a leadership position in. I tidy things up and make correction. I don't enjoy playing new Secretary of State. - MSTCrow 01:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I understand you're upset about the AfD. If that's the case, I'd suggest taking it up at deletion review. It's by no means a clear-cut case - I explained my reasoning in the AfD close, but it's a gray area. I'm not infallible; I make judgement calls, and there are mechanisms for reviewing those calls if you disagree with them. As to the sockpuppetry allegation, I find it ridiculous, but it's your right to file one and I won't take it as a personal attack or harassment. Certainly admins are not de facto above reproach or incapable of sockpuppetry, but you have to admit that the accusation is not just a logical leap but a gigantic assumption of bad faith. For the record, I saw a request on WP:AN/I for an admin to close the AfD. I watch AN/I; I went to close the AfD. I'm perfectly capable of nominating articles for deletion without using a sockpuppet; I do it every now and again. I agree with you that AMDZone is probably someone's sockpuppet, but it's not mine. MastCell Talk 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link spam

Link spam *is* vandalism. See also Wikipedia is not a link farm. Please work your links into relevant sections as references. Thanks. Jdb1972 01:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know which of the given criteria you have interpreted as being applicable in this instance. As the links were not intergrated into the article body, however, I do see the logic of your position, and may get around to adding them to the "conservatism" section per your request. - MSTCrow 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your allegation of sockpuppetry by MastCell (talk · contribs)

I have closed this discussion as a frivolous nomination on your part. It is important for Wikipedia to root out violators of the WP:SOCK policy, and administrators such as User:Runcorn have been found to be abusive sockpuppeteers. However, if you wish to accuse an established administrator of such a violation, you need compelling evidence, not just a passing suspicion.

It's possible that the nominator of the AFD was generally an IP editor who created an account because anons can't create AFD pages. More likely, as MastCell suggested, he's the sock of some other established user. But if MastCell's arguments in his own defense weren't enough, let me point out one more thing.

Theoretically, if MastCell were a rouge admin, he could have just deleted the article without telling anyone. Why would he take the time to nominate the article through a sock, and then delete the article against the majority vote in the discussion (which, by the way, was the correct decision)? Think carefully before you accuse someone of policy violation again. Shalom Hello 03:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings from my end... I understand you're not happy with the AfD; I've been there. Take it to deletion review, is my advice if you want another set of eyes to look at it. MastCell Talk 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Jim Inhofe

What is the basis for your claim that "The "consensus" [on human influence on climate change] is someting on the order of 1 in 10 climate scientists?" This is certainly not something I've ever heard, and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concluded that the chances that human activity is the primary cause of climate change is over 90%, certainly seems to contradict you. I believe you are mistaken in your statement; if not, could you please provide proof to the contrary? -Elmer Clark 05:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Not everyone that is listed on the IPCC reports is actually in agreement with the results issued by the political layer. Many of the scientists listed as contributors disagree with the findings, and others are peripherally involved, not having taken a position one way or the other. Anyone that has come into contact with it is generally listed as a contributor to give the appearance of critical mass.
2) I got it slightly wrong. According to Dr. Benny Paiser, senior lecturer at Liverpool's John Moores University, who reviewed nearly 1,000 papers since the early 1990s, 1/3rd back the "consensus" view, and only 1% do so explicitly. Ergo, the "consensus" view is anything but, as a conensus view is some sort of percentage well over 50%, not 1%-33%. - MSTCrow 16:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It's also occurred to me that when there is actual consensus, there is rarely debate about the existence of said consensus. Using real-world examples, the theory that HIV causes AIDs, and the theory that high cholesterol is bad for your health, are both consensus scientific viewpoints. Both are subject to debate and criticism. However, their challengers do not challenge the existence of consensus, but the factual basis upon which the consensus rests. When it comes to man-made global warming, you have both. - MSTCrow 01:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I still do not think that it's correct to claim that no consensus exists. Just because there's debate about the consensus doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and I have heard of at least one study that had practically the opposite conclusion of the one you cited - it concluded that about 50% of the articles about climate change in popular magazines and such questioned the consensus, but only something like 2% in scholarly journals did. I'm afraid I can't remember its name at the moment though. At any rate, many Wikipedia articles reflect the consensus, such as Scientific opinion on climate change, and I think if you really want to challenge it, Jim Inhofe's page isn't the place to do it. -Elmer Clark 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You are exhibiting a logical fallacy. First you admit that the existence of consensus is debatable, and then that consensus exists because it exists, or because you say/want it to exist. You are not even aware of the actual content of the latest IPCC report. That is not sound reasoning. The Inhofe page isn't challenging anything. It is simply reflecting the current state of affairs. - MSTCrow 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear: by "debate" I meant "people saying it doesn't exist." However, the vast majority do not hold this view - consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. How have you come to the conclusion that I am "not aware" of the content of the IPCC report? It clearly indicates that a consensus exists on global warming, and there is no real debate, just a small number of high-profile detractors (such as the Oregon Petition) to the consensus on global warming. Your assessment of the "current state of affairs" as "the "consensus" [on human influence on climate change] is someting on the order of 1 in 10 climate scientists" lies nowhere near the truth. But, like I said, if you want to debate this point, bring it up somewhere more appropriate, like Scientific opinion on climate change. Simply making a clearly inflammatory edit like changing "scientific consensus" to "mass media consensus" without establishing consensus on the change on the talk page is certainly not proper Wikipedia behavior. -Elmer Clark 22:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You are stating that anything that doesn't agree with your views are "inflammatory." I have located my source that indicates fewer than 1 in 10 climate scientists believe climate change is primarily caused by human activity, a Dennis Bray, climate analyst from Germany. He had submitted these results from an international study to Science magazine, which rejected it as it "didn't fit with what they were intending to publish." This contradicts your OR that the 1 in 10 figure "lies nowhere near the truth." I also would request that you read the actual IPCC reports, and not only the political prefaces, or worse, third-party reports of what the IPCC does or does not state. I have come to the conclusion that you are not aware of the content of the IPCC report in that much of what you appear to think is supported by the IPCC report is not in actuality supported in the said report, or at least not to the level of certainty that you think it is. This is why reading primary sources is so important. - MSTCrow 00:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is the Dennis Bray paper, for your review: http://downloads.heartland.org/17407.pdf. - MSTCrow 02:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Fox News Channel Reversion

I find your reasoning flawed. I have never seen a instance where a unbalanced source is appropriate in a Encyclopaedia. Please get a better source about that report and I have no problem with it. - Mike Beckham 04:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's false, how is he suppose to get better sources for lies! How dare you ask the impossible of him. Tat 06:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fox News Citation Response.

It's a little bit odd you jumped from Slashdot to find me on Wikipedia, though it makes total sense. Here's my reply to your "source":


Oh, pulling it out of somebody else's ass? Ann Coulter? Really? Wow, you should have said you pulled it out of your own ass.

Also, you're making a distinctly different claim than she claims the book made.

-- "Even employees of Fox News, which is widely regarded as a conservative channel, donate 81 percent of their contributions to Democrats."

81% of contributions are made to Democrats is the claim. 81% of employees donate to Democrats is a massively different claim (really MASSIVE). In fact, I would be astounded if 50% of run of the mill employees donated to anybody. Also, note that the claim is "81 percent of their contributions" - beyond the obvious problem the book has of lumping most charity organizations as "democrats" even though they are just non-profit and work toward the common good. There's the problem that Democrats are usually poorer and get by with large numbers of small donations. If you looked at my donation history you would find roughly 4 donations toward "Democrats" -- if you think that it is anywhere close to one $5000 donation, you're kidding yourself. The vast majority of donations are grassroots little 25 and 50 dollar donations.

And again, they aren't the ones making the decisions. They are the working stiffs, the camera men and wardrobe people... they are the nuts and bolts who work to put food on their tables. They aren't the ones who supply Fox News with their trademark bias. And number of donations is a completely stupid metric.

Lies, damned lies, statistics and this idiotic bullshit.

The statistic may well be true, but saying 81% of employees are democrats is obviously wrong (and not even close to what the original statistic said). Also, the implication that those are the employees who are making the decisions is completely off-base.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatarize (talk • contribs) 00:57, 29 July 2007

If anyone stumbles across this, I request that a personal attack review not be conducted against Tatarize, as this is a CC from a Slashdot post, and this should be handled on Slashdot via user moderation and meta-moderation. I have responded to his post on Slashot. I also believe personal attack claims are often attempts at wikilawyering to shut out opposition, and am very suspicious of their implementation. However, if Tatarize attempts to be elevated to the level of administrator, I request that the above be submitted as evidence in disfavor of the hypothetical request. - MSTCrow 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I request that you learn the difference between shredding your nonsense citations, of misapprehending Ann Coulter reviewing a hack book with misleading information as a personal attack against you. Oy. Tat 06:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FNC (part 3)

Please read the reliable source guideline when adding information to wiki articles. Ann Coultier's blog is not a reliable source, and the claims she makes in the article (as well as the book it references) are obviously biased and, frankly, flat out wrong. There are countless academic studies (that are peer reviewed) that contradict the dubious claims made in a for-profit (and not peer reviewed) book (fiction). I would also counsel reading the neutral point of view policy. Thanks! /Blaxthos 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV policy does not prohibit sources or citations that disagree with your personal POV. Books are allowable sources, and being for-profit does not discount a source. If you can locate an academic study that contradicts my source, you can add that to the article. Stating that it's "fiction" without any supporting evidence is in very bad form. - MSTCrow 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Account age for RfA

Concerning some of your comments on recent RfAs about account age, what do you consider an appropriate amount of time for an editor to have an account before considering adminship? I think it would be more constructive to let the users know how they do not meet your criteria. Leebo T/C 20:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A year, possibly. - MSTCrow 20:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason in particular, such as a display of dedication to the project, that you feel a length of time like this is necessary? I think it's still possible for editors to gain the necessary experience in less than a year, but you may disagree. Leebo T/C 20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe an editor less than a year old, generally speaking, would have full familiarity with the Wikipedia bureaucracy and its personalities, or has had enough first-hand experience with abuses of power to fully appreciate the proper and conservative wielding of that power once it has been granted to them. Although in your case, it is of interest that you appear to value transparentness in your actions as an administrator, logging any and all actions you have taken in an administrative capacity, for easy public review. - MSTCrow 20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That is something I value, and something I think Wikipedians should value. Administrators are trusted by the community, so displaying a log of administrative actions seems to fall hand-in-hand with that. You may have realized that I've only been around for about 8 months, which was why I was curious about your opinion. Thank you for clarifying it. Leebo T/C 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coal

Even you must be aware that linking "coal as a cause of global warming" to one specific minor group, e.g. RealClimate, is blatantly misleading. It's like saying: "According to Bryant Gumble, the sky is blue", it suggests the authority for the position falls only on the specific speaker even though the position is much more widely held. It is a factual statement that coal is blamed for global warming (even if you don't believe it to be true, you certainly must acknowledge that many people do blame it). Dragons flight 19:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a factual statement that coal is blamed for global warming, but also inaccurate. The who or what doing the blaming, or a representative grouping thereof, must be mentioned to ensure the maximum level of accuracy possible. As per the editing notes, if you can find others or a representative grouping to list, then do so. I have increased the specificity of the sentence. This is desirable. The previous revision was misleading in that it implied that everyone supported the contention, whereas this is not the case. The sky analogy is a false one; to begin with, the sky is not actually blue. - MSTCrow 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reworked the introductory paragraph into a NPOV, one that acknowledges both sides and advocates neither. Please see the coal talk page as well. Thanks. - MSTCrow 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Widely regarded" would be considered inaccurate and "weasel words" if used in the article body. If a person or persons believe the usage of coal is leading to global warming, then they should be cited as believing so, ensuring that the person or person's being cited are in actual agreement with the proposition. This would be more effective, I believe, in maintaining accuracy and reliability. Also, please consider creating an account on Wikipedia. Thanks. - MSTCrow 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from IP talk page. I have no interest in purchasing an account. I think Skyemoor gave a good summation of my concerns. As to the above discussion, about coal causing global warming being a factual but inaccurate statement - make up your mind, it is either factual or inaccurate but not both. However, please carefully note that the coal article does not say "coal causes global warming" it says CO2 "is considered the primary cause of global warming". It is a subtle but important distinction. If you eliminate all coal burning you may or may not impact global warming. Ditto for oil. It all depends on the quantities involved. While "is considered" is definitely weasel wording, don't forget that all the experts got together recently and issued a report (IPCC) saying that they are "90% sure" that human activity is causing global warming. So some element of weasel wording is necessary. Personally I would send anyone who was not 100% sure back to grammar school to review elementary math and science. 199.125.109.64 03:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NIN WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Nine Inch Nails WikiProject. There's alot of NIN-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and we hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Nine Inch Nails pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republican Party

May I ask why you support the Republican Party? They have been damaging to our country for years. You, an atheist should know first hand. MagicBullet5 (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)