Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:56, 20 November 2006

edits

I have been looking over the edits of some of the users, trying to figure out who is in the right here, it is rather troubling:

Daniel Pearl

User:Morton devonshire twice deletes referenced material on Daniel Pearl, reason: "revert nonsense". User:Morton devonshire had never edited Daniel Pearl until User:Seabhcan did. .

User:Seabhcan then starts to make fun of User:Morton devonshire name.

User:Tom harrison who also has never edited the article, then starts to edit the article too. User:Tom harrison is a frequent ally of User:Morton devonshire and shares his same POV. Too User:Tom harrison credit, he does not delete anything that User:Seabhcan created , since User:Morton devonshire had already deleted it. Tom also adds referenced material.

The argument then goes to User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Daniel_Pearl where User:Seabhcan makes fun of User:Seabhcan name. Travb (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Operation Gladio

User:Morton devonshire 04:52, 3 November 2006 edits the article, calling the section he removes complete bullocks

User:Seabhcan edits the article 03:36, 8 November 2006

User:Seabhcan 12:03, 10 November 2006 writes in edit: "rm Hoax banner. What idiot put that there? This is not a hoax"

User:Seabhcan 18:46, 10 November 2006 writes in edit: "Please learn something about European history before you edit."

User:Tbeatty 00:14, 11 November 2006 joins the editing, User:Tbeatty is a frequent ally of User:Morton devonshire and shares his same POV.

User:Seabhcan 00:26, 11 November 2006 protects the article

User:Derex 08:09, 11 November 2006 joins the editing User:Derex is is a frequent ally of User:Seabhcan and shares his same POV.

User:Intangible 14:02, 13 November 2006 writes in his edit: "this is bullocks". User:Seabhcan objects to 'bullocks' term with talk page message .

User:Morton_devonshire/Egadio page: "Complete Bullocks!"

User:Morton_devonshire/Egadio#Der_J.C3.BCden_Did_It attack section about User:Seabhcan, including a "Permalink to Lord Seabhcan's 3RR block can be found here".

Bullocks: A castrated bull; a steer. Basically this is "bull". Travb (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a fine line between incivility and humor

1. 13:15, 8 October 2006 edit summary "Saint Mongo of Factoid has pronounced upon this topic, but not yet blessed us with a holy citation, let us pray this will be improved in future.

I find this edit LOL funny. Travb (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Irony

I think some of the people participating here need to realize that RfC's are for resolving disputes, calling a group of people a cabal of vandals, accusing others of having sockpuppets etc are all things I have read in the outside views that will honestly prevent anyone from taking this RfC as an actual attempt to resolve disputes, I ask some of the people who have made such comments to revise their statements if they actually are here to resolve the dispute. Also I think its quite honest of some editors such as Travb to admit they are here to push a POV. --NuclearZer0 15:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear, I have consistently admitted that i am pushing my own POV, in fact, I admitted it again in the comments section on this page. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out how these various wikiusers are going to side with, including myself. I readily admit that my behavior has been bad at times, and I have apologized and changed my behavior, and I readily admit that Seab has violated WP:NPA. I am troubled by Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All's use of AfD as a weapon to push his own POV.

Edit wars is not the way to resolve the Ganser/Operation Gladio dispute. I doubt myself that the Operation Gladio issue is true also. Unfortunatly at this point, the only thing that will solve this dispute is a Arbcom ruling. Editors with like minded POV have used a reccuring tactic and pushed Sea into a corner. Someone who feels trapped and helpless is not willing to comprimise and debate rationally. Therefore third party neutrals, who have no POV to push, will have to resolve this issue. Aren't we all adults here? The immature and spiteful behavior of some editors consistently shocks me. Ocassionally I am ashamed of my own piety behavior too.

The sad thing is, that while the Operation Gladio debate will be resolved harshly, with harsh punishments to those who cannot edit like adults, editor abuse of AfDs and wikipolicy will continue. Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Politically motivated AfD's: the elephant in the room Travb (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring your attacks on me which are highly misplaced, I once again remind you and others here that an RfC is for resolving disputes, much like the FAAFA one did. If you feel I do not want to do that, whatever, I didnt start this RfC and your personal opinion is yours, however attacking me gets you nowhere, oddly enoguh when I was commending you of all times. In closing, I remind everyone here that attacking Seabhcan isnt the goal here, please take a RfC as it is, a means of resolving disputes, hopefully this talk page will be used for that and this RfC can have a successful outcome. Thanks. --NuclearZer0 16:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I have not comments or signed a statement because in all my butting heads with Seabhcan he has always came through with facts over accusations and diatribes, sourcing a whole article to prove he was right instead of just chest beating. Again Travb, please refrain from attacking me, its quite old now. --NuclearZer0 16:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Travb, thanks for the support, but I also think you are being hard on NuclearUmpf. He has certainly mended his ways since he operated under the name Zer0faults and is now a valuable and constructive editor. There are plenty of problem editors around and no need to unfairly lump Nuclear into their gang. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Zer0faults, I apologize if I missed where you commend me. I see some stark and promising changes in your behavior, which I warmly commend. You are more civil, I wish FAAFA was the same. I agree that Seabhcan behavior is out of place, especially for an admin. Reminicent of some of the old RfCs I have read about MONGO, someone just called for Seabhcan's adminship to be removed.

I have to ask, what is the best thing for wikipedia? If Seabhcan simply promises to curb his WP:NPA would this satisfy you? If attacking Seabhcan (who happens to have the opposite POV then you do) is not your goal, then accepting Seabhcan's apolgy would show your intent, and would indeed show that your behavior has changed.

A RfC is a disruptive form of reprimand when negotiations have failed. It "takes two to tango"--Seabhcan's unacceptable behavior did not happen in a vaccum. I also want to resolve this dispute, but my resolution is probably radically different from yours. As the old saying goes: "Every country wants peace, but they want peace on their terms."

I messaged User_talk:Thatcher131#Beating_Nuclear_to_the_punch about this conversation.

(edit conflict) It is nice to see that even User:Seabhcan agrees that you have changed. I am all for second chances, being one of the few editors here who has been indefinetly banned.Travb (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to satisfy me, I actually support Seabhcan, especially since how out of way he went to end a revert war that took place between us by rising above and sourcing the article. I think I understand now why you attacked me above, you felt I was against Seabhcan, however that is not the case. So hopefully others can read this and will answer the question of what will satisfy them. Again hopefully this talk page can turn into some good resolutions.

Also I never got an apology from Seabhcan, but never felt I deserved one either. In the conflicts on that article I believe he turned out to be the better person of the 3 of us. --NuclearZer0 16:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Travb, do you know that NuclearZero is not the one who started this RfC? It was Tom Harrison. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes sir, I am aware that Nuclear did not start this RfC. I was wrong to attack Nuclear here, when he has obviously changed, and I removed my comments about Nuclear. Again, I believe in second chances, having a rich boot history myself. It is so very pleasant that User:NuclearUmpf did something so completly out of character. I love when people surprise me.

I believe User:NuclearUmpf is refering to the revert war between himself and me on Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America began on 16:04, 23 October 2006 when NuclearUmpf removed three sections. Travb (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct, that is the revert war I was reffering to. I was going to add an addendum to the "outside view" to confirm, but this post should be adequate. Just to add I would say it started on 11:40, 13 October 2006, 10 days prior when I added the sources tags. --NuclearZer0 17:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This may not be particularly relevant to this RFC, but since my name was invoked, I want to drop in a quick comment. WP:NPOV does not require that topics be neutered of all point of view, rather that all significant points of view be represented so that an outside reader should not feel like the article is taking sides. That can be accomplished with a neutral editor but it can also be accomplished by two groups of editors with strong opposing points of view, as long as they work within the system and accord each other a minimum of mutual respect. I think Nuclear and Seabhan did rather well at the state terrorism article. There are some other post-arbitration situations I am monitoring that aren't turning out as well, unfortunately. Thatcher131 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out the fundamental difference between the POV of the editor and the various notable POVs on the topic. If I were editing an article on, religion, for example, I should try to balance the different notable POVs present in literature and in the media. My personal POV (I'm a devout atheist), as a wiki-editor, should be irrelevant. Misplaced Pages articles should reflect the state of the world, not just that subset of the world that edits wikipedia. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A reply of 'they do it too' is always unimpressive. Your misuse of your admin tools, if not repeated, can be dismissed as minor errors of judgement. If you do not accept that calling other users hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites, or fascists is wrong, I do not think there is anything more to be gained here. If you feel some need to present a defiant appearance, fine, but if you do not change your behavior things will continue just as they have, but eventually without your contributions. Tom Harrison 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I firmly agree that calling any editors "hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites, or fascists" is wrong, unless of course, the editors in question happen to be "hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites, or fascists". In this rare case, which is the case we have here, it is the obligation of every editor to speak the truth. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of NIST and Peer Review

"Another fine comment there from Professor Mongo. Keep up the fight against Junk Science Prof. Mongo!"10:14, 30 April 2006 - "Mongo's contribution to the world of science."

This after Mongo had told us his crazy personal definition of 'peer-reviewed'. A term he uses to remove things he doesn't like and promote things he does. Mongo thinks something is peer-reviewed if a lot of people wrote it. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is the "crazy personal definition of 'peer reviewed'" you are mentioning? "Mongo thinks something is peer reviewed if lots of people wrote it?. No, I think something is peer reviewed if it stands up to cross examination from outside parties, and no authoritative figures or entities have claimed that the findings of NIST have any flaws in their reports that are of any merit to speak of.--MONGO 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you still maintain that crazy definition. No. It isn't peer reviewed if lots of people have read it either. Peer review is a complex process involving anonymous reviewers and taking place before publication. The NIST report was not peer reviewed and its authors don't claim it was. To my knowledge, you, Mongo, are the only haggard soul to walk the earth with this delusion. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 12:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And what entity of any substance challeges the findings...that is the point...no one of any credibility has refuted the NIST findings...if someone does, then so be it. Sorry you think I am a haggard soul...let me know what I can do to make you think differently of me. I don't want to be thought of as a dumb American or a haggard soul.--MONGO 16:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue in that discussion. You were pushing the incorrect claim that NIST was peer-reviewed. As for the "credibility" of someone questioning NIST, there of course isn't anyone and never could be. This is because as soon as someone questions NIST, by your definition, they lose credibility, because they then become a 'conspiracy theorist'. This is circular logic at its finest. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well surely there must be some respected entity that would question the NIST findings...do you completely dismiss the findings of several thousand contributors to not be essentially comparable to a normal peer-review process? If the facts were off, don't you think that the potential for financial gain (or for the sake of "honesty") would be sufficient to ensure at least a small handful of these collaborative contibutors would come forward and provide proof that there was a government coverup of sorts? You do know that federal employees in the U.S. are rarely rich I imagine. Is there any reputable entity that has refuted the findings of NIST? Are you also saying that the numerous engineers who have agreed with the findings of the NIST reports have not by stating their agreement performed a peer review?--MONGO 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying that. They were deceived by BAD science made by NIST with much help of govermnent. You might want to read critiqe of NIST by Kevin Ryan and decide if it makes sense... you might want to check how many scientists are members of Scholar for 9/11 Truth.... but you probably won't. SalvNaut 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of separate issues here. First, true or not, the NIST document simply wasn't peer-reviewed. And no-one claims it was. I think it isn't even common for official government reports to be peer-reviewed. Certainly I can't think of any. That is just a fact, and is a separate issue from whether NIST was good science or not.

As for financial gain... I've never heard of a government wistleblower making any money from his efforts. You usually get fired and, having been labeled as a trouble maker, find it hard to find a new job. There was, infact, a NIST wistleblower who got fired. I know you think he was a 'conspiracy loon', but that is quite apart from the fact that he did exist, did complain, did go to the press and was fired. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So, like Steven E. Jones, he had a story to tell and he didn't deserve to be scrutinized? But surely, one or even a few folks could certainly capitalize, many have on numerous other things, and gotten quite rich doing so...you do understand that there were hundreds of private sector structural engineers and other entities that contributed to the NIST reports as consultants...why would virtually all of them be loyal to a fallacy?--MONGO 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Steven Jones's paper was peer-reviewed by 4 PhDs (two of them physicists). Peer review process, when made, states the fact that paper "makes sense", that there is "a case" with it. Anyway, Jones main point in it is a call for another investigation. SalvNaut 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of any government employee who has gone public to point out a government crime or fraud (any issue, any time) and has made money doing it? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mostly it's a private sector thing...but involves the feds...not sure they got rich, yet, but certainly blew the whistle..., , , , ...the point is, people talk, and in all of these examples, their whistleblowing proved to be based on facts that led to major upheavals...I'll be waiting patiently for a whistleblower to come forward about the NIST reports as being a fabrication.--MONGO 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Never said there weren't wistleblowers, the question was whether any made money off it, as you were suggesting. None of those you listed seem to have done well after. And of course we've had one wistleblower from NIST. But he is by definition not credible because he suggests there is a conspiracy. Circular logic. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

One would hope that profit wouldn't be the only reason to "come forward"...but seriously, you do realize that about 30% of the investigators that worked on the NIST report, those that contributed knowledge, were private consultants? And the NIST report has been completely open...anyone can read it...yet not one engineering agency of any reputation has refuted the findings...seems odd. Okay, I'm usually well read, so who is this whistleblower who used to work at NIST?--MONGO 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean Kevin Ryan?--MONGO 18:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think profit is never a reason, because they never make a profit. Where would they get it from? Kevin Ryan is the guy. As for other engineering agencies refuting the findings - they never do this for anything. Its not their job. They don't even read NIST reports unless it impacts on their businesses.

The NIST report is public and I've read it. I also heard the head of NIST interviewed on Irish radio a few weeks back. He claimed their study found that the building collapsed because of temperatures above 1000c. However, nowhere in the NIST report does it say this. So, if he is that 'mistaken' when talking to the media, should we trust his report? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean William Jeffrey? I'd like to see you source for that information.--MONGO 19:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Kevin Ryan...I think the article on him was deleted since he was deemed to be not notable? Now he's the main one that was a NIST employee wo claims the feds covered the events of 9/11 up?--MONGO 19:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So, these engineering firms simply choose to ignore NIST...why would they do that?--MONGO 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they ignore NIST generally, they simply read those reports that effect their businesses. How many would have taken the time to read this particular report in full? And why would they - it doesn't impact on their businesses. How many engineering firms have read it and officially and publicly agreed with it? I'd be interested if any have. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)