Revision as of 04:04, 1 September 2006 editAdraeus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,461 edits Pfft← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:59, 13 March 2023 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,528 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (14x)Tag: Fixed lint errors | ||
(980 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User page}} | |||
<p align="right"><strong><font color="#464646" size="+4" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">feloniousmonk</font></strong><font color="#464646"> | |||
</font></p> | |||
<p align="right">]<strong><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: xxx-large;">feloniousmonk</span></strong><span style="color: #464646;"></span></p> | |||
<p align="right"> </p> | <p align="right"> </p> | ||
<p>< |
<p><span style="color: #464646; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;">Archives</span></p> | ||
---- | ---- | ||
*] | *] | ||
Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
*] | *] | ||
*] | *] | ||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
---- | ---- | ||
<div><font color="#464646" size="2" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"> | |||
== ] Vandalism == | |||
{|border="0" cellspacing="5" style="border: 1px solid #666699;" | |||
|- | |||
Please be advised that has been , most recently . | |||
| | |||
] (]) 05:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)larvatus | |||
{|cellspacing="7" | |||
|- | |||
== Heads up == | |||
|] | |||
|- | |||
You'll want to keep an eye on NPOV/FAQ for pseudoscience issues, and oh, you might want to keep an eye on Mackan79: He's taken to deleting the . | |||
| align=center | ] | |||
|- | |||
You should probably have a look at the Marks article where a particular editor seems to have a COI issue and is edit warring. ] (]) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
|] | |||
|- | |||
== McCain: intelligent design advocate? == | |||
|} | |||
|| | |||
Hi--I see you added the ] tag to ]. I hadn't heard that he was an ID proponent. Can you point me to an article about his connection to the ID movement? I've started a section on the McCain talk page about this (]); if you could reply there, that would be fantastic. Thanks much! -- ] (]) 08:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
{|cellspacing="5" style="background: #F1F1DE; border: 2px solid #666699;" | |||
|<big>'''FeloniousMonk'''</big><br> | |||
==Mentioned your name in an RfC== | |||
<big>06:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)</big><br> | |||
I mentioned your name in this RfC: | |||
---- | |||
*] | |||
We award a ] and the ] to ] for his great work on ] related articles. We recognise his seemingly inexhaustive efforts<sup id="ref_PubMed" class="plainlinksneverexpand"></sup> in keeping the articles free from vandalism<sup id="ref_Vandal" class="plainlinksneverexpand"></sup><sup id="ref_Vandal2" class="plainlinksneverexpand"></sup> and overzealousness<sup id="ref_Augstinian" class="plainlinksneverexpand"></sup> and applaud his efforts to ].<sup id="ref_Refs" class="plainlinksneverexpand"></sup> As anything worth doing can be difficult, FeloniousMonk if you need further help you can count on us to assist you.<br> | |||
– ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
If I characterized your response incorrectly let me know and I will change them. Any background information or anything else you can give would be welcome. ] (]) 05:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
== ThomHImself == | |||
FM, it may have come time to do something about that editor. He is basically a reincarnation of Moulton, only with a different ID proponent. He has literally caused disruption on every single article he has edited with regards to Marks plus he has a serious COI that needs to be addressed. Should I take this to ] for a report? ] (]) 00:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
:I agree, he has become disruptive. Let's give him another day or two to settle down, and then if he hasn't, bring it to the community. ] (]) 01:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
==When you have a sec== | |||
Would you mind commenting . I think I've done a better job of framing my concerns. Thanks! ] (]) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Richard Sternberg controversy == | |||
I see you made changes to the ] page, removing the contributions shown here: . Can you please provide an explanation for removing this information from the paragraph? Especially on a subject so controversial, it's important to articulate information in as neutral a fashion as possible. The previous version only presented a single side of the controversy, biased against R. Sternberg in the initial paragraph. Presenting Sternberg's position on the issue (with references) is not only more informative for the reader but also maintains an accurate account of the controversy itself. | |||
== ] userfication == | |||
When you have a moment, could you userfy that article for me? I'd like to expand it and make it into an article that demonstrates his notability. (The closing admin seems to be AWOL) ] (]) 21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Expelled POV == | |||
I am trying to figure out why you removed the POV notification I added to the Expelled article yesterday. The article reads like an enormous, exquisitely detailed and interlinked refutation of the film. It doesn't present any material in the film except for the purpose of debunking it. | |||
Not having seen the movie, I wanted to know if it was worth watching, but the article postively exudes POV. I didn't find out most of what I wanted to know, even after reading a few thousand words. It's just too long and too negative. ] (]) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Replied == | |||
...at my talk page. Thanks for the note. ] (]) 03:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Skype invite == | |||
Hi, would you be free for a Skype chat? Please e-mail and I'll give you my ID. :) ]<sup>'']''</sup> 05:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Does one of youse own stock in Skype? ]<sup>]</sup> 02:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Re: Question == | |||
] was deleted under ] – it was an empty category that was left empty for several weeks. Feel free to re-create it, if appropriate. Cheers. --] (]) 02:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
'''References:''' | |||
<div style="font-size: 85%"> | |||
# {{note|PubMed}} | |||
# {{note|Vandal}} | |||
# {{note|Vandal2}} | |||
# {{note|Augstinian}} | |||
# {{note|Refs}} | |||
</div> | |||
<div style='color:#3300CC; background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 1px solid #999999; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;'>]</div> | |||
|} | |||
|} | |||
== Tag == | |||
Felonious, neither of the sources that are cited for the first half of the sentence provide any verification for the second half which states: '... the list is intended to lend support to other Discovery Institute campaigns, such as "Teach the Controversy", "Critical Analysis of Evolution", "Free Speech on Evolution", and "Stand Up For Science"'. Neither of those sources even mentions this list, so they certainly could not be used to source the claim that the list is "intended" for such and such purpose. Now, I fully believe this claim, but it still needs to be cited. I'm looking for an adequate citation, but without one the tag must remain.] (]) 03:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Point of order== | |||
:Pleanty of other sources do. Either you're promoting the Discovery Institute's obfucation line or you're clueless on the subject. Which is it? ] (]) 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
I'm puzzled by something you wrote in an edit summary: | |||
::Well its not the former since I believe the claim to be true ... that the DI is using the petition to further the promotion of ID. To your second point I suggest instead of calling other people clueless you help the project and just provide the sources. Clearly in my clueless naivete I cannot find a source to back the assertion that I believe is true, but you probably can, given how not clueless you are. So please do. Thanks.] (]) 04:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
::The source you have found does not substantiate either the disputed claim at the Picard page, that the petition promotes ID, or even the non-disputed claim that I have asked for sourcing for at the petition page, that the DI uses the petition in its campaigns. Would you care to explain what exactly you think this source tells us?] (]) 04:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::To anyone objective it does. But since you insist, I'll add another. I've literally a dozen more. You can reject them one by one and we'll see how this ends up. ] (]) 04:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:no, I didn't miss your point, I looked beyond it and saw how it accomodated your previous goal | |||
::::Thank you for providing a source that actually connects the petition to "other campaigns." Unfortunately this is of no help to us at the Picard page where we need a source that connects the use of the petition directly to the promotion of ID, something not mentioned in the second source at all. Providing such a source would be of great help. If you have one, or two, or ten please do post directly to the talk page there. As I said it would be a very big help. Thanks.] (]) 04:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::Two primary sources have been provided supporting the content and saying the same thing, you have simply just rejected them. I can keep adding sources and you can continue rejecting them. Fine by me. ] (]) 04:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Rather than guessing what you meant by this, I thought I'd ask you. Are you referring to my goal of describing a topic neutrally? | |||
::::::You are talking about the Picard page I assume. Neither of your sources say what you want them to. In fact, the one you just added states emphatically that "challenges to Darwinian evolution '''are not the same''' as proposed solutions, such as the scientific theory of intelligent design." Oddly you have just strengthened the opposition to the point you are trying to prove by showing that the DI itself does not conflate those who challenge Darwinian evolution (e.g. those who signed a petition to that effect) with those who support intelligent design.] (]) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::::So you say, the person who thinks partisan primary sources are to be taken at face value and ignores ]... ] (]) 05:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Re:Evidence of Meatpuppetry == | |||
Or do you mean some goal (which you impute to me) of taking an article which is already neutral and introducing bias into it, by such things as (1) cutting a section on a subtopic out of an article out and leaving behind a biased summary of it and (2) pasting the cut section into a new article and describing the sub-topic in a biased way? | |||
I admit, I edited for Moulton. However, 1)I did '''not''' make changes word-for-word, but close to it, 2)I support Moulton's unbanning and have edited Misplaced Pages under another account, 3)I support Moulton's rewording of the text, and 4)Meatpuppeteering is when an editor is recruited, not when a person says something should be done and an editor feels it's the right choice and does it. I don't see what's wrong with Moulton's proposal. Instead of attacking me for agreeing with his proposal, why don't you offer some constructive criticism on the proposal itself. --] (]) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
It would clear things up a lot if you would tell me what you think my 'goal' is. Thanks! --] 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Looks like this little meaty needs a block as well as the other account. Great job with being a front for a user who left the community only after exhausting every last shred of good faith possible. Awesome. ] (]) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Attacks in {{#if:User:Moulton|the article ]|Misplaced Pages articles}}== | |||
==Thanks== | |||
<small>Removed provocative and unjustified warning. Please don't template the regulars! — ] ] 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC) </small> | |||
:What is this nonsense? There are no personal attacks on that page, and its not an article either btw. This template is nonsensical, could you possibly be trying to open discussion?If so, please try again. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
::The puppy speaks wisely and kindly. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::Heck, I'm a newb, and even I know ] on that one. Of course, me ma always said I was a fast learner... :) --] (]) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
You fixed my sloppy edit . Thanks. | |||
::::That was a nice message on my talk page. I enjoyed it. I mean, you still suck, but yeah, I had fun. ] ] 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
== User:Moulton == | |||
I meant to put it on my essay. Cheers. --] 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
It would not be good for Misplaced Pages if you and your friends were out-witted by yourselves. You guys are a great help in keeping Misplaced Pages NPOV in evolution-related articles. But you are now involved in BLP articles. Ask for advise from friends. Please. ] (]) 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
Hi FM, I trust you saw my replies there. Look forward to your thoughts when you have some time. Thanks, ]<sup>(])</sup> 17:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:] may interest you. .. ], ] 11:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
== knee-jerk reverts == | |||
==Threat?== | |||
Would you please at what you're reverting before just hitting the submit button? ALL I did in my last edit was fix a typo, which you just reintroduced. Also, see the article talk page. -- '']']'' 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
''Keep it up and I'll take a personal interest in seeing that you are prevented from making one again.'' Please do not threaten other users because they attacked you first. ] does not allow you to do "eye for an eye" and make threats against other users. Be the better person here, like is expected from everyone in such situations. ] ] 22:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Stopping an incivil editor from being uncivil is one of the jobs of an admin. Saying that you will do so is never a threat. ] (]) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
::The manner in which you said it sounded like a threat to me, or else I wouldn't have brought it up with you. "Stop it or you will be blocked" is not a threat. "I'mma make sure you won't make another incivil comment again!" is a threat. See the difference? ] ] 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::I try to proportion my tone to the level of disruption I'm addressing usually. ] (]) 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::I guess the important thing to keep sight of is that you are talking to another person on the other end, not a dog or something you need to shame. People tend to like it when you treat them like people. :) ] ] 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::The road runs both ways, good acts beget good acts. That wasn't his first CIVIL warning, but I take your point. ] (]) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Moral support== | |||
== Bias against Ed Poor == | |||
This is a move in the right direction. Thanks for taking the time to assemble the evidence. Somebody with a strong constitution is needed to clear the stables. --] 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Stop. == | |||
I've reviewed Ed's history, and while he does have a history of POV pushing, he is not a bad faith editor, and in my opinion, you really shouldn't revert his changes without citing an actual problem in them. It's needlessly setting up tension. Please consider a less personal reason for reversions(which are fine in and of themselves) ] 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Stop trying to drag me into the dispute with the blocked user Moulton by labeling me a "meatpuppet" or "WR editor." It's completely false, a personal attack, and I had no interest in dragging this out further. ''']]''' 02:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:I'm sorry, but in my years of experience in dealing with him I've slowly and reluctantly come to a very different conclusion than yours. I wish you were right, but there are very good reasons he lost first his bureaucrat and then his admin status. BTW, chronic POV pushing is by definition editing in bad faith. ] 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
: If you don't want to be seen as acting on behalf of a banned editor you shouldn't be making the exact edits at the exact article that a banned editor is calling for. And don't say you weren't aware of Moulton's requests, I've diffs showing you were. You involved yourself the moment you started editing the Picard article with the very edits Moulton was calling for. ] (]) 04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Erroneous theology== | |||
::Someone mentioned the article in passing on IRC and I clicked on it - as a fellow woman in computing, her article piqued my interest - and I noticed it was a BLP mess and a ], so I made a couple tweaks to improve it. This is meatpuppetry? The "diffs" you claim to have are a canard. I was only tangentially aware that Moulton had his prints on the article on the past - I thought his ban was for creationist POV pushing in general. And as far as I can tell, Moulton when he was here was trying to rip out the whole section that I tweaked, not improve it. (And that random smartass quip on WR wasn't sanctioned or approved by me at all - "re-programmed?")<br>I'm kindly asking you to stop dragging me back into this. I was glad to see that woman's BLP improved in the end, through whatever roundabout means it ended up taking, and I don't want to squabble more. But it seems like you're just trying to continue this dispute and seek a pound of my flesh. Don't. ''']]''' 05:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
I don't know where the heck Joan Bokaer has done her research at but Paul Weyrich is no ]. What would Mr. Weyrich have to do with a group of people who he considers to be heretics? Real Dominionists are bigoted against Catholics, period. | |||
:::If that's the story you want to stick to, then please, by all means go ahead. It's laughably improbable given your edits exactly match Moulton's requested edits verbatim and their precise and limited nature, but if that's what you want us to believe, it's your call. ] (]) 05:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Felonius, I am convinced you are nothing but an ignorant bigot. | |||
I hear the Black helicopters coming Felonius. :) | |||
]--] 01:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:], Misplaced Pages has a policy against making ]. Please discuss the content not the editor. You will be blocked if you continue this type of negative behavior. --] ] 01:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
May I know why the heck are you adding evidence to ]? Please, if you have evidence that shows Moulton doing meatpuppetry, then use a proper forum, aka, one that is active and where sanctions can be taken. --] (]) 05:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Well, the evidence presented at Theology Watch is significant, hard to just dismiss. And it's no news that what people say and what people actually believe are often not one and the same, particularly when defending their ideologies. Our job here is to report what others say, in proportion to their significance on the topic, not determine if what they say is accurate. | |||
:I've included the recent evidence of Moulton engaging in meatpuppetry on the talk page of the RFC, not the RFC itself. Furthermore, doing so is established convention at Misplaced Pages, not without precedent, and well within Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 06:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
::But one of the reasons because ] was nominated for deletion was because it linked to evidence collected by one user, instead of just linking to "official" pages like RFCs, ANI threads and arb cases. What you are doing amounts to trying to run around the discussion at the MfD. You are adding your evidence right behind the "enough" section that User:Moulton links to, which has almost the same effect as linking directly to a page with evidence collected by you. Please remove that evidence and post it on a page on your userspace or post it at ANI. --] (]) 06:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::That's your impression of why it was nominated for deletion, there are others. You don't seem to have a firm grasp of how RFCs work or this situation; individuals compile all the evidence in an RFC, period. And editing RFCs is open to all, with the one caveat that you do not alter the comments of another. Since Moulton is already banned for disruptive editing, there's noting to bring up at AN/I. All there is for us to do now is compile any evidence of any further disruption he causes from offsite such as recruiting and directing meatpuppets, and keep it in a central location for any admin or editor seeking more detail can find it, and the right place for that is his RFC's talk page since some of the community is not comfortable with it on his talk page at the moment. I suggest you become better accquainted with the situation and the policies and conventions around dealing with banned editors and RFC before deleting the evidence presented there: That is the proper place for it as was suggested at the MFD. ] (]) 06:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::Notice that Random832 has blanked the page where the evidence was originally hosted as a courtesy, and note his comment on wheter the evidence should be posted anywhere . According to a comment by Krimpet, and older version of the page being discussed appears to have evidence against him. From context, it appears to be the same evidence that Krimpet is removing from the RfC. I'll just make a comment on the MfD for others with more knowledge of RfCs to review this matter. I think that adding the information there after removing it from the user page could not be totally correct, and I would like other people to take a look. --] (]) 06:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:If what Theology Watch says is just a conspiracy theory as Pravknight implies and Weyrich and David Horowitz say (a coincidence worth noting), then they shouldn't mind in the least something as harmless as a lefty-liberal conspiracy theory. ] 01:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::<s>Well, I won't do the comment at MfD after seeing Fill's comment. If he thinks that it's ok, then that's enough for me</s> Ah, I'm not sure, I'll sleep on it. I still think that you should ask an uninvolved admin to review this. --] (]) 06:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::At the end I decided to add myself to the list . Since the MfD is closed, I went to <s>bitch</s> complain to ANI . Notice that I later changed the section headings for technical reasons unrelated to the rest of the issue --] (]) 11:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
:The evidence posted on TheocracyWatch is innuendo. I can refute every bit of it. The way you have it written is biased, and violates the spirit of neutrality. Besides, its definition of Theocracy is debateable. I could just as easily concoct an article demonstrating that Joan Bokaer is part of a conspiracy to establish a Soviet-style atheist state. | |||
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Everything on that site is spurious, and the quotes are taken out of context. Bill Moyers,for example, is a Left-wing ideologue whose TomPaine.com website, which did a hitpiece on Mr. Weyrich, has ties to hard-left socialists. I did the Internet research myself using tax documents. | |||
:] has suggested ] that the parties might like to make a fresh statement now that the evidence has been thrown in, and the community is trying to decide what proposed remedies are appropriate. | |||
:Mr. Weyrich didn't write the following article. I did. | |||
:I have created a new area for this: ]. Please consider adding a statement there. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
One of the sites referenced has been taken down, well it's here. | |||
== AIDS denialism == | |||
:The quality of TheocracyWatch's research is substandard and filled with ] attacks bolstered by theological ignorance. It's extreme debateably atheist bias means they lack the theological insight or understanding of Christian language to understand what is being said. | |||
I call it Left-wing McCarthyism or Christian baiting. | |||
Would you mind commenting on the talk page what "undue weight issues" lead you to revert my change (which was also accompanied on the talk page by a thorough analysis of the section and its sources)? This section has been the subject of discussion and a turtle-paced edit war for well over a year, and undue weight has in fact been a point for keeping it out. ] (]) 01:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Calling Christian Conservatives Dominionists is nothing but Marxist semantics because the vast majority of us reject . I know many other religious Right figures personally too, and none of the ones I know subscribe to this Tomfoolery. | |||
=== More AIDS "denialism" === | |||
:I ask you to leave my edits untouched. In journalism, at least American journalism, it is a violation of journalistic ethics to attribute something to any group that is partisan or has an axe to grind. We always say so and so claims, not According to x, y believes X because y might not believe X. | |||
Excuse me. Could this edit by MastCell be regarded as ''"disruptive editing"'' per ] | |||
:What irritates me is the language you have chosen and because you treat what TheocracyWatch says as fact, not opinion. I ask you to at least work with me to develop mutually agreeable language. | |||
If your answer is negative, could you please explain me why it is not?. | |||
:Do you think it is unfair to say that Dr. Bokaer has ties with Marxist sympathizers when it is verifiable? Is it that only Left-wing viewpoints are permitted on Misplaced Pages? If so, I would say that hardly constitutes a neutral POV. | |||
There´s no consensus at the talk page (we are tied 3 to 3), I am providing reasons for that text being in the article and trying to rework the text to reach consensus and then MastCell appears like a ''Deus ex machina'' and with no comment at the talk page just deletes again a new re-worked (and ''very'' shortened) version of the stuff he deleted in 2007 . | |||
:I don't oppose including Left perspectives, just as long as it is written neutrally and provides point/counterpoint balance. My quotes from Mr. Weyrich constitute that balance. I ask you to leave them in place. | |||
]--] 02:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Maybe it is out of my naiveté, but I thought this kind of edits were frowned upon here. | |||
::Cberlet has already rewritten it into a form that passes policy muster, so the matter is settled there as far as I'm concerned. ] 02:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
And no, this is not an issue of "denialists" versus "mainstreamers". This user summarized very well why "denialist" views should be detailed and refuted | |||
==Thoughts to ponder== | |||
Thank you for your attention ] (]) 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth'''. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a ], because Misplaced Pages does not publish original thought or ]. --] 22:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:There's no voting for content. It either is acceptable or not. MastCell is one of the best editors of medical articles out there, so I doubt you'll get support here or anywhere else. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:FM, Ed's edit summary is funny...it deserves a reply. ] 01:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Um, no, it's not disruptive. Read ]: "''NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.''" ] (]) 05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Waste of time. Don't feed the trolls. ] 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
::THen, I do not understand why you restored that content | |||
==Blocked User:ExHomey== | |||
I blocked this account for imposter/username problems among other issues such as abusive socpuppets. See AN/I: | |||
ExHomey opened a RFAr then reverted it. Please comment on whether this account should stay blocked if it is determined to be the "real" Homey. --] ] 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The article compares no views. The article is about a minority view, that of the "denialists". Anyway, if you think that´s a good edit, that´s more feedback for me. Thank you. ] (]) 07:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:I see Fred Bauder unblocked then voted to accept and merge the RFAr. Seems a complete waste of time, since there's no new evidence that Homey, Ex or otherwise, can add. That is other than the evidence of more disruption and sockpuppetry his implicit in his recent actions with this account. I'll likely comment at RFAr page tomorrow. ] 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
==ArbCom case evidence request== | |||
== Question == | |||
Would you be able to number the bullets in your on the ]? I agree with some of your evidence and if numbered that would make it easier for me to outline a response in which I go line by line by number and either stipulate to what you've presented or disagree and explain why. Thank you. ] (]) 06:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
==JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case== | |||
I have an interesting question for you. I've seen you around on Misplaced Pages quite a bit, and respect your opinion. As such, I'd like to know what you think about the following diffs: , , and from the same FAC, and . I'm asking because you opposed ]'s RfA for issues that to me appear very similar to what I have been doing constantly to scores of FACs for over a year. Thus, my question is: if I were to stand for adminship today, after seeing this evidence and knowing that I fully stand behind these edits, would you support? I have no desire to continue as an admin if you or others who I respect feel that I should not hold the position. Thanks for your help. --]<sup>]</sup> <small><font color="brown">]</font></small> 07:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Per the ] the RFAR on ] is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Arbcom evidence page== | |||
Please do not ask other members to abide by rules that you do not abide by, namely the three reverts rule.]--] 00:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
re ] - Moulton has made 31 comments on Slashdot, not 44,252 - 44252 is his user ID number (). You may want to change that prior to submission. ] ] 14:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Hyles == | |||
== TfD nomination of ] == | |||
*{{user3|Vivaldi}} has returned and started making Hyles edits. User removed all notice of the ongoing ] | |||
] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> — ] (]) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Factual error in your submission to the RfC == | |||
==The tom tommorow cartoon== | |||
Sceptre is not,<s>and never has been an admin</s> (Ok, I was wrong, went all the way back to mid-06, shoulda gone a bit further, you see, when I'm wrong, I admit it.), just so you're aware and can correct your statement :) ] (]) 05:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Is tom tommorow gpl'd(this definetly does not qualify for fair use)? ] 15:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Quick heads up == | |||
Still trying to find a justification to remove it from the article? The FU licensing template for comics <nowiki>{{Comicpanel}}</nowiki>, says: | |||
Since I listed you by name, I figured I'd alert you of my impending doom/request for adminship: ]. I only thought it right to inform you. I know, I know... what in the world could I have possibly been thinking?!?! ;-) Mahalo, FeloniousMonk. --] 17:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
This image is a single panel from a comic strip or the interior of a single issue of a comic book and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the comic or the writer(s) and/or artist(s) which produced the comic in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of a single panel from a comic strip or an interior page of an individual comic book | |||
* to illustrate: | |||
**the scene or storyline depicted, or | |||
**the copyrighted character(s) or group(s) depicted on the excerpted panel in question; | |||
* where no free alternative exists or can be created, | |||
* on the English-language Misplaced Pages, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit | |||
Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law . Any other uses of this image, on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Misplaced Pages:Fair use for more information. | |||
== Jindal supports ID == | |||
It's use in the TTC article definitely illustrates the groups depicted on the excerpted panel, so it is fair use. ] 15:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:why does everyone keep assuming i'm some sort of creationist or something. The inclusion of an editorial cartoon did bother me, as it was ''an editorial cartoon''. The main reason for my revert earlier was the cutoff, though. And you're misunderstanding fair use. "To depict the copyrighted characters" is not what you're doing. The copyrighted characters are the actual people drawn by Mr. Tommorow. What you're trying to illustrate is the people he's parodying. That's not fair use at all. | |||
:You're assuming bad faith concern about my perspectives on "teach the contraversy". This is honest goodfaith concern regarding the copyright of a protected work(one of the few non-negotiable policies wikipedia has, the only other I can think of is NPOV). ] 16:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
::As far as I can remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, I've never speculated on your beliefs and motives. What I have noted is that your fair use objection is your second attempt at finding a reason to remove the image, that is all. The image is useful because it clearly illustrates how the method of using contrived controversy works without making a specific allegation against ID supporters, which is a good thing. Either way, I've asked for clarification on it's fair use status there from a knowledgeable source and have removed the image until then. ] 17:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::sorry for getting insulted over a comment that bore no insult. I wasn't searching for a justification, the removal was mostly laziness when fixing the cutoff but then the reason you gave for putting it back struck a chord in the copyright part of my head. sorry for the trouble, but at least it wasn't another edit war, eh? ] 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::No trouble at all. Hey, it's a testy topic for a lot people, regardless of which side they're on. ] 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
I have tried to add some information about Gov ]'s support of ID and the current legislation. However, one user has any and has even removed what ID .] (]) 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Pseudoscientists Category == | |||
:: So far the consensus on the discussion page is that my edit was proper. I, of course, welcome the opinion of a wikipedia administrator as well. ] (]) 17:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
::I'll look into it, but the main point is that his position on the topic is properly mentioned and remains, which it appears to. The fact that Time Magazine is the source is good. The context of ID is not the most important point in that article at this time, perhaps, but covering the fact that he supports it is. ] (]) 06:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Please respond to my reply on ] and clarify why you think a category is necessary, as opposed to a list. --] 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Article in need of NPOV seeing-to == | |||
== Patrick Henry College == | |||
I happened across the article on ] (whilst aimlessly following links from the William Demski page). Just one quick read-through of the contents revealed some alarming weasel words, and on giving it a more thorough looking-at, I thought I'd better add my concerns re its considerably NPOV stance onto the Talk Page - which I see has not been added to for over 2 years! I was only vaguely aware of the ID Wikiproject so followed the links, saw your name (which I recognized from just 'around') and hope you'll be able to help out. I'm probably not the best person to take this on but am prepared to do what I can. This article appears to have remained under radar for a very long time and I hope it can now be sorted. Thanks. ] (]) 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Sorry about that, the vandalism I was trying to revert was the re-naming of Lake Bob. I didn't mean to get rid of that section. | |||
'''Addenda''' - Just checked out the History. Most of the article's text was from a 1914 work (this is mentioned in a line at the end of the article), added to the orignal version of the article (just a basic biog framework re Princeton) by ] in Spring 2005. The Edit Summary noted it needed POV checking. This seems not to have been done. A short para (re slavery) was added shortly afterwards. Since then, the edits have been confined to several Category shuffles/additions and the like, some recent vandalism of the common-or-garden insertion of a line or two pertaining to the subjects sexual abilities - but no major revisions to the text else. ] (]) 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
==AfD on ]== | |||
However, I did revert your latest edit, because for some reason about half of the PHC article had disappeared.... | |||
I've replied to your comments about ] at ] - you might like to have a look. -- ] (]) 18:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:My apologies as well. Yes, that happens occasionally because there's a known bug with Firefox and Google toolbar users that sometimes causes that. Hopefully they'll fix it in the next release. ] 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Dragon695== | |||
==]== | |||
I have unblocked this user, per the emerging consensus at ]. Please do not reblock them under any circumstances. The block reason was not transparent, and there were concerns that you were too involved, as a party named in C68-FM-SV, to make this decision. If there are hidden reasons for the block, feel free to explain them to me and I will consider reblocking. In the alternative, you can go to an uninvolved administrator, such as ]. Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Um, when it comes Dragon695, you're hardly impartial. In fact, you're far more involved than you claim I am. FT2? After his bogus one-man RFAR, he's not uninvolved. ] (]) 14:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Hi FM. Just wanted to bring your attention to this passage regarding NPOV and categories: ]. Please note what the guideline page it links to says: | |||
:'''Not all categories are comprehensive:''' ''For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization.'' | |||
I can live with keeping cat:pseudosci if these cautions are kept in mind, and if we populate the cat cautiously and focus more on populating and annotating stuff like ], where arguments can be better described. I believe this actually does the scientific side a favor, because it won't appear that critics are oversimplfying and putting everything in one unqualified basket. That IMO strengthens arguments against stuff like ID, where I feel your barnstar was well-deserved. There is much we agree on and I'd prefer to leave any rancor behind. regards, ]<sup>(])</sup> 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not involved at all. You should have reported your concerns to the case clerks (Nishkid64 and myself) rather than blocking someone you're involved with vis a vis the arb case. In addition your reasoning was weak. I support the unblock.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Giovanni33 proposal == | |||
== ] == | |||
Hi, FM, Jayjg has '''confirmed''' that Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks are all sockpuppets of Giovanni33. Giovanni has now come as close as I think he ''can'' come (without losing face) to admitting sockpuppetry. He has agreed ] that it doesn't pay, and has asked to be unblocked on condition that all suspected socks can be assumed to be his, and that he will not revert or make supporting arguments where they are, and that if he votes, his votes can be struck through. I've made a proposal ]. If you really have nothing to do with your time, you can read Part One and Part two immediately above! Also, ] of Danny's talk page contains links to all or nearly all the places where this has been discussed. Don't feel you have to get involved, but if you have time, a comment at the noticeboard would be welcome. Cheers. ] ] 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. | |||
==Ex-Homey== | |||
The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above. | |||
I would request that you reconsider your block on "Ex-Homey", given that there is some doubt as to whether or not his "alternate accounts" were actually sockpuppets. (See also the comments in his "request for unblock"). ] 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
— ] <sup>]</sup> ''for the Arbitration Committee,'' 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:The reason for this block isn't about whether the sockpuppet accounts are his. Fred Bauder unblocked Ex-Homey so he could participate in arbitration ''only''. Reverting notices on his sockpuppets, harassing Jayjg on his talk page and editing the articles that his prior content diputes lead to the arbitration he was unblocked to participate in are not "''participating in arbitration''." Homey's has clearly violated the terms under which an arbcom member agreed to unblock him multiple times in the last 24 hours, and he has gone to disrupt the project once again. This block is justified and I do not intend to remove it. | |||
==New policy proposal and draft help== | |||
:BTW, admitted sockpuppet masters should not be editing userpages of their suspected sockpuppets, period. ] 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
Two responses: | |||
I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Misplaced Pages (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between ] and ] for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards. | |||
(i) I believe that your information is slightly out of date. Ex-Homey's "conditional" unblocking was removed earlier tonight, and he now has Bauder's sanction to participate freely on Misplaced Pages. (See my comments on the Admin noticeboard). | |||
Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by ] but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics. | |||
(ii) I don't believe that Ex-Homey ''is'' an admitted sockpuppet master: he's acknowledged using some of these accounts, but only on a temporary basis and only ''after'' discarding his prior account. At the very least, I think there's some doubt on this front. | |||
See also ] for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations. | |||
I would again request that you reconsider your block, if only on procedural grounds. ] 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, I was aware Fred Bauder said that he was lifting the terms of his unblocking, but he also said part of the reason he was willing to let him edit was that Homey said he intended to edit quietly with another account. Instead, Homey chose immediately to return to his old disruptive habits, reverting notices on his sockpuppets, harassing others, and editing the articles that led to his problem in the first place. I'm certain Fred Bauder did not have those activities in mind when he tentatively lifted the terms of Homey's unblocking. Homey has once again shown his contempt for the community and abused its trust. | |||
== Don't know if you're watching or around but... == | |||
:Sorry, but no. Take a look at his block log: He's a chronic trouble maker, and there's a limit to the amount of disruption the community should have to put up with. ] 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
just letting you know that ] at the RFAR. ] (]) 19:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Sneaky habits== | |||
Should I remind you of the three reverts rule. I saw you reintroduced your POV pushing into the Paul Weyrich article in what I perceive as your effort to paint him as an extremist by quoting him out of context. | |||
--] 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Desysopped == | ||
This is not one of arbcom's better moments. My disappointment cannot be expressed loudly enough, but for sake of not trying to resurrect the issues, I won't go further than to simply but publically post my disappointment about your desysopping here. Best wishes.--] 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:I believe this is a massive miscarriage of justice, but I will not comment further.--] (] | ]) 19:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
*Sometimes people have ] over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. | |||
== ] == | |||
--] 18:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ].] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 21:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:1) ] is an essay, not policy or guideline. 2) WP:EW was never intended to assist those who misuse dispute tags to push pov by providing something for them to invoke and hide behind. | |||
== nor == | |||
:You've a long record, some of which is detailed at your user conduct RFC that you're ignoring, of misusing tags to force pov or factually inaccurate content into articles. Today's incidents are no exception and only compound what is seen there. ] 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
I just made three proposals at ] - feel free to comment, ] | ] 01:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Your accusation of "pushing POV" is hypocritical and also unfounded. | |||
== Merry Christmas == | |||
::You've repeatedly charge me with violating NPOV policy by '''inserting POV''' and never, not once, explained how it would be a violation to "insert information that advances a point of view". | |||
] (]) 23:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)]] | |||
::I can only assume that (1) you don't understand NPOV or (2) you are deliberately ignoring it. Because the ArbCom have ruled that: | |||
::*It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. | |||
] Year! . ], ] 21:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (for story line see ])]] | |||
::If you think it's "wrong" to "force pov ... into an article" then you need to leave Misplaced Pages. I will start the process now, however only with great reluctance. --] 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Attack page== | |||
:::Gee, Ed, seems to me you've missed the key words here, "well-referenced information". I don't recall you having provided references for much of anything. Odd huh? But if you feel you must "proceed" with whatever action your not-so-veiled threat implies, make sure your hands are immaculate. Quod scripsisti, scripsisti; quod fecisti, fecisti, nonne? ] 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
I thought I'd mention that I've nominated what I see as an attack page on you as part of ]. ] (]) 18:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
== request for suggestions == | |||
== ] == | |||
when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks,] | ] 17:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
I welcome your comments per the Dobson remarks about Mel Gibson. ] 15:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Notability of ]== | |||
==Paul Weyrich== | |||
]<!-- use ] for YELLOW flag --> A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please ]. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the ]. | |||
I would note that Misplaced Pages's article on ] lists it as a synonym for Wicca. You are in violation of the very same 3RR rule you accused me of violating when I first joined. | |||
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to the top of the article ('''just below''' the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on ''']''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines. | |||
We can either agree on language here, or there are always other options I could exercise. | |||
--] 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria ], ], ], or ]. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.<!-- Template:Nn-warn --> <span style="font-family: Antiqua, serif;">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''</span> 13:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:The subject is Wiccans in the military. That Weyrich, for reasons tied to his ideological agenda, chooses to call Wicca "satanism and witchcraft" when discussing the subject does not mean we are obligated to as well; read ]. | |||
==Notability of ]== | |||
:Either do not understand ] or are unable to count. Please read the policy again. ] 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:{{{nom}}}|1|] (] '''·''' ]),}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read ], particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as ]. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.<br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at ]. Feel free to contact the ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click ''' ] (]) 09:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
== You may be interested == | |||
==Misreading of undue weight== | |||
Your name has been brought up here- ], accusing you of meatpupptery. I see you have not been notified by the editor making these accusations. ] (]) 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Proposed deletion of List of Discovery Institute registered websites== | |||
You wrote: | |||
] | |||
A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process{{#if: This article consists solely of ] and is also almost exclusively a list of external links. Nor is notability clearly established.|  because of the following concern:|.}} | |||
:<b>This article consists solely of ] and is also almost exclusively a list of external links. Nor is notability clearly established.</b> | |||
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. | |||
:Those members of the scientific community who believe in ID constitute a tiny minority and that's one reason the majority position get stated to the exclusion of the minority there. | |||
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] (]) 13:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
However, there is no policy at Misplaced Pages requiring the exclusion of minority positions. It means that they need not be given "equal time", not that for example a view held by 0.2% of those holding views on a topic MUST get less than 0.2% of an article. Jimbo has clarified this, and if you had any genuine interest in this project you'd want to know more about this so you could adhere to policy: instead of gaming the system, wikilawyering, and accusing me of groundlessly accusing me of ]. --] 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Proposed deletion of Wethersfield Institute== | |||
:Ed, whatever your beef with FM, it's clear that he acts in good faith. Calling him a liar is therefore unfair, and I hope you'll take it back. It seems self-evident that the percentage of scientists who believe in ID is small. Whether it is too tiny a minority to mention depends on the article and on what the sources say. A view held by 0.2 percent of those holding views on a given topic ''is'' a tiny-minority opinion and need not be mentioned, except in an article dedicated to those views. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process  because of the following concern: | |||
:<b>Apparently defunct publishing house that only garnered a few very brief and insubstantial mentions in sources even when it was in existence, and whose profile it appears was so low that nobody noticed its demise</b> | |||
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. | |||
::I took it back although his constant badgering, wikistalking and false accusations strain my attempts to regard him with the assumption of good faith. --] 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>''<sup>(''']''')</sup></span> 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I wish to support part of ed's views here, without wikilawyering too much, the undue weight clause is mostly about articles where the view in question would be considered tangential to the subject by authorities on the subject,(in this case, evolution would be a good example). Obviously there is an implication that nothing untrue should be said about the subject, but that is a policy that is adequately covered by most wikipolicy. (but don't call anyone a liar, ok?)] 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
==AfD nomination of Jerry Bergman== | |||
::::That's an oversimplification; you and Ed are leaving out some important points about both the topic and the policy, and in writing the article the whole policy is applied, not just one clause. The scientific community, in its wide acceptance of evolution, considers ID's claims tangential, not testable, and ID itself not science but pseudoscience. About pseudoscience NPOV policy says: "''How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention? If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.''" ] It goes on to say; "''I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil. Please be clear on one thing: the Misplaced Pages neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory...''" ] | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.<!-- Template:Adw --> ] (]) 06:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
==AfD of UC article== | |||
::::There's no shortage of evidence at the article that vast majority of the scientific community rejects ID, which means members of the scientific community who believe in ID constitute a small minority. A vague, unsupported statement in the article implying there ''may'' be a significant minority of scientists who embrace ID as asked for by {{user|ArrrghBob}} and defended by Ed here and at the article clearly has WP:NPOV and WP:V issues, not least of which remains undue weight. ] 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Since you have worked on Unification Church articles you might be interested in ]. ] (]) 15:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
::::The underlying issue here is the issue of whether a few dozen "dissenters from darwinism" are significant enough for mention in the statement that "almost all scientists dismiss ID". Adding that a trivial proportion of scientists disagree with this idea would either make for horrible writing (the sort of terribly nuanced and unreadable language you find in a journal article) or would be horribly unbalanced. So FM's comment about undue weight is accurate. ] 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hi there, as one of the main editors of the ID article, could you have a look at this discussion? All the best ] (]) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Urgent! == | |||
::::::Actually "Dissent from Darwinism" is around 610 signers now. It's gathered these signatures over the course of 3-4 years. Contrast that to "A Scientific Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach Intelligent Design As Science" that gathered 7733 signers in four days. The 610 or so signers of Dissent from Darwinism represent an insignificant minority compared to the 120,000 member AAAS and the 55,000 member National Science Teachers Association who have all rejected or condemned ID as valid science through policy statements and the more than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators signing the "Intelligent design is not science" statement. Also, in ] the judge considered evidence from both sides and stated that ID has been rejected by the majority science practicioners in his ruling that ID is not valid science. All of this highlights the issue of undue weight by implying that Dissent from Darwinism signers represent a significant minority as Ed and ArrrghBob insist. ] 19:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
I think there is a very dangerous section in the NPOV policy, which I deleted and discussed on the talk page . Now there is an RfC; please, I hope you will comment. ] | ] 06:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I don't recall asking for a statement that a '''significant minority''' of scientists who embrace ID. I'm aware that ID is a view held by only a few dozen (published) advocates, making ID supporters a tiny minority compared with biologists who support the Theory of Evolution (at least 10,000 at a guess). | |||
==Fair use rationale for File:Lauren05.jpg== | |||
:::::::Actually, what I was referring to was this: | |||
Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under ] but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. | |||
:::::::*views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views | |||
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> ] (]) 04:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I'm only saying that in the ID-related articles, the views of ID supporters should be given more space than they have been given; they certainly should not be excluded from articles which are devoted to ID, such as: | |||
==Proposed deletion of Metanexus Institute== | |||
:::::::*] | |||
] | |||
:::::::*] | |||
:::::::*] | |||
The article ] has been ]  because of the following concern: | |||
:::::::I've indented these remarks, because you missed the part about "I don't recall asking for a statement that a '''significant minority''' of scientists who embrace ID." --] 13:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:<b>Article lacks sufficient ] for ] of the ] notability criteria … nothing but ]s provided.</b> | |||
While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ]. | |||
:::Ed, remember to sign. What I suppose you're telling us then is that a person cannot get a good handle on what ID, the movement and the IDer are by reading those articles, yes? Well, I hate to break it to you, but I performed a little test and sent the ID article (sans comment) out to a few people. All of them understood the concept even though they'd never heard of it before. This would lead me to believe that the articles sufficiently cover what ID and the rest of it is. Thank you for your concern. ] 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
I didn't say the article should be deleted, rather that it should be expanded. There are several points about ID that its advocates make, which need to go into the article. Saying that '''you''' performed an informal (and private) survey is irrelevant. Articles can always be improved, that's why they're on a wiki. --] 13:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> will stop the ], but other ]es exist. The ] can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> — ] (]) 20:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:As you already know the way Misplaced Pages works for major changes at controversial topics is generally you make specific suggestions at an article's talk page along with a justification as to why it's important and relevant, it gets discussed, and, if there's consensus, it goes into the article. Suggestions are weighed on entire range of the subject; the point's status among proponents, its significance, and the response of the various relevant viewpoints to it. From my experience the regular contributors to intelligent design are very well read on the topic and the article already covers all the major points thoroughly, but if something was missed, it needs to be brought up. ] 15:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== ] nomination of ] == | |||
::Yes, but what's signifigant? In my mind, it's only explicitly '''Wrong''' when there's consensus against the particular change or if it signifigantly damages the content. In other cases it's mostly just inconsiderate. It's not a policy I know of that changes must be discussed beforehand, even on contraversial pages. I may be wrong, and I'd love to be proven wrong, but "change-first" is perfectly ok according to ]. ] 15:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>I have nominated ], an article that you created, for ]. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 05:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::You need to reread WP:BOLD. In the "…but don't be reckless!" section it says "If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references. Then, wait for responses for at least a day: people edit Misplaced Pages in their spare time and may not respond immediately. If no one objects, proceed..." Ed could obviously expected to see a disagreement with his version of the article, since he sought to change the very definition of the topic and other significant, controversial changes. Ed's predicament now and much of his difficulties elsewhere could have been avoided had he followed ] instead of just Be Bold. Your support of his methods, lack of knowledge of his past significant problems on the project and your incomplete understanding of policy and guideline have not really helped him or the community in my opinion. So it's not policy that changes be discussed beforehand at controversial topics, but it is part of a number of guidelines. It's also the convention here at Misplaced Pages. Editors believing they don't have to justify their controversial changes to controversial, heavily watched articles is a constant cause of disruption and are in for a tough time. Ed's been around long enough to know this. BTW, there's a lot of ways a suggested change can be wrong and rejected by fellow contributors... factually wrong, NPOV issues, fails to cite sources, sources fail to meet ], and so on. ] 15:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Unreferenced BLPs== | |||
:it's a gray area, and I do confess it lends itself to being sort of against ed. On the other hand, what's substantial seems to be determined unfairly here. Your complaint holds some merit, and it'd probably be wikilawyering to note any of the further objections I noted rereading because they were minor points. I'll try to summarize the spirit of my issue here: there are other ways to correct POV besides reverting, and unless the signal to noise ratio of the edits is really bad, they may be getting an unfair treatment. ] 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
] Hello FeloniousMonk! Thank you for your contributions. I am a ] alerting you that '''1''' of the articles that you created is tagged as an]. The ] policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure ], all biographies should be based on ]. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current '']'' article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{tl|unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article: | |||
# ] - <small>{{findsources|Frederick M. Franks, Jr.}}</small> | |||
::Well, he's being Bold again: His figleaf, a pretense at earnest discussion: ] 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Thanks!--] (]) 06:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::This is the usual type of thing I see. I see his point, but he overdoes it. A lot of that was contextually unhelpful, but removing the definition was a bit extreme, So what I see is overextremness, but not '''bad''' edits. ] 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Error in reference== | |||
==Erroneous revert at ]== | |||
The link for reference 178 is dead. Changing .com to .org will do the trick ] (]) 22:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
==CfD nomination of ]== | |||
you seem to explain your subsequent reversion of Sln3412 on the grounds that his edit advances a POV. As you know, this is an inappropriate reason: | |||
I have nominated {{lc|Dominionist organizations}} for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ]. Thank you. ] (]) 04:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
*It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. | |||
Please be more careful in the future. --] 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
: is a simple copyedit. Well, do you have any evidence that anyone other than global warming skeptics have challenged Oreskes' conclusions? Give it a rest with the bogus warnings Ed, that's two today already, both of which were DOA. ] 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
For a great many years there has been an almost-loophole at this policy "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves." I have always interpreted this to mean that a verifiable account of someone's view is encyclopedic. However, some people read this to mean that Misplaced Pages should emphasize facts, not opinions. And opinions = views. I think this line of thinking leads to a contradiction in the policy (that we must include all significant views from reliable sources) and undermines the dictum, "verifiability, not truth." | |||
::Sorry, you make so many reverts I assumed this was one. I guess I better slow down. --] 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
The problem is, there is a user, ] who states excplicitly on his user page that he is opposed to our NPOV policy and wishes to change it. And he has been trying to edit the "loophole" I mention above to mean that we should strive to present the truth. He has teamed up with ] who is claiming that there is another policy called "state facts accurately" which he believes means that certain claims do not have to be attributable to any source (since they are "facts" - i.e. a total subversion of "verifiability, not truth." | |||
==Formatting tip== | |||
Currently, the discussion is happening on the bottommost sections of the talk page (there was a convenience break). I think the discussion ''really'' could benefit from the input of experienced editors with real institutional memory and I am asking that you consider participating in this discussion until this issue at NPOV is satisfactorally resolved. Thanks, ] | ] 13:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for correcting the horizontal alignment of the {{tl|pov}} template. I should have done a preview first. You're the best! :-) --] 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Slrubenstein, please strike all your . ] (]) 16:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Authorized Revision of Dominionism Entry== | |||
FeloniousMonk, your recent edit accidently deleted this from ASF: "A ] can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An ] can be attributed to so-and-so said." ] (]) 03:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
You had written "rv unsupported pov to last version by JoshuaZ." I don't understand because if you go to ] you will see that the sentence I put in the Dominion entry is the one he suggested. I only added the word "however" so that the sentence would make sense within the context of the sentence before it. I've put the sentence back in because I feel I went through the proper procedure to add it in the first place. I've also added an entry to the discussion page for the Dominionism entry itself. Please see ] -- | |||
] 12:53, 18 August 2006. (UTC) | |||
I forgot to let you know I restored the text myself. ] (]) 01:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Constitution Party reversion - what's up with that? == | |||
==Sternberg peer review controversy== | |||
Felonious, I don't always agree with your views, but that's OK. But when you do a of a page for no seeming reason and without properly noting it ("fix link"?), I get a bit irritated. Please be a little more careful. —] 16:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hi. At ] ] we're discussing the removal of what seems to be ] ] from four years ago. I'm inviting your input. ] (]) 18:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Request for lifting of restriction== | |||
:My fault, I had two windows open for editing (C&Ping from one) and saved the wrong one. ] 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an involved party.] (]) 06:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
::OK, thanks for clarifying. I thought it seemed odd for you. —] 18:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Calling a truce== | |||
Felonious, let's call a truce here. I've been doing some thinking, and I can be a real hothead sometimes. So I will back down and let things cool down for awhile. | |||
I hope we can discuss things peacefully instead of having a standoff on issues we both have opposing personal interests in. | |||
<wiki>]--] 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)</nowiki> | |||
== ] nomination of ] == | |||
:], after a bit, please contact me on my user talk page with two specfic actionable content concerns. I'll go over the concern with you based on Misplaced Pages's policy and guidelines. Very helpful if you can provide ] ] to back up your content concerns. | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.<!-- Template:Adw --> ] (]) 12:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I have no desire to discuss the behavior of other editors. If you are ready to focus on content alone I will help. Talk to you later. ] ] 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Citation clean up at ] == | |||
== WT:NOR "archiving" == | |||
I'm trying to clean up some issues with ]. One of the issues relates to sources. I noticed some footnotes link to Misplaced Pages, which is not acceptable. Your included several sources, many of which look fine. I'm specifically referring to the source with the title "Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers". The url you added may have been fine at the time , but someone changed it later, possibly because it no longer worked. I checked, and it doesn't go to the article in question, nor have I been able to find the original article. | |||
I find your "archiving" of ] quite rude. Furthermore, you didn't do it properly. A simultaneous but unrelated discussion was taking place about the role of expert editors, which you also moved to ] even though it has nothing to do with that discussion. Please fix this, as I'm in no mood to clean up the mess you created. -- ] (]) 07:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
As you were the editor to add this, I assume you have special interest in keeping this link. I plan to post at ] about this and other issues, with the expectation that we need to find a good citation or remove the reference. I haven't yet posted at the Talk page, I'm giving you a heads up, in case you wanted to search for it yourself.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 15:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
:It's not archived; it's moved to a sub page where it can continue. Moving disruptive and fruitless discussions to sub pages to free up main talk pages is supported by guideline and convention. ] 07:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
==AfD of article you worked on== | |||
::Thanks for doing that, FM. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Please see: ].] (]) 10:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Using blogs as sources== | |||
I understand it's not archived, that's why I'm using quotes. I repeat "A simultaneous but unrelated discussion was taking place about the role of expert editors, which you also moved to ] even though it has nothing to do with that discussion." I was refering to this discussion: , , , , . The last edit is mine, so perhaps you understand why I'm a bit miffed that that discussion is unceremoniously dumped with the primary/secondary mess. As I said before, I'd appreciate it if you could move the parts of ] that have actually nothing to do with the primary vs secondary sources discussion back to the main page. -- ] (]) 07:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
I know it has been a few months, but I noticed in edit from August, you restored sources to an article which included a blog. Could you explain why, as an experienced editor, you would sign off on using a blog as source that doesn't meet WP's definition as reliable? ] (]) 11:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== creation–evolution controversy == | |||
:Feel free to move any genuinely unrelated discussion back to the main page, or I'll do it there in a bit. It's not a big deal to move it or continue discussion there either way. ] 07:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI --] (]) 07:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you. By the way, even though I still think that your moving the primary vs secondary discussion to the subpage was quite rude, I now think that it was a good idea. -- ] (]) 09:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
== Page moves == | |||
Hi,<br> | |||
'''Standards''' As you can see, there is already a standard for this - my moves are non-controversial, as they simply bring articles in line with the MOS and naming conventions. If you'd like more of my rationale, see the discussion between Duncan and myself on my talk page. Also, look at my recent contributions. -]·]·]·] 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=693174033 --> | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
Good Edits! Keep up the good work on NPOV with reason and science. | |||
<blockquote>No evidence of notability, per ].</blockquote> | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
==Parlor game== | |||
Hi FM, I'm going to tweak the wording of the ] article. Want to make it a parlor game, where you guess the changes I'm going to suggest? You should be able to say them if you give it some thought. ;-) | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
IMO, Theocracy Watch is a solid source for this article so no worries there. I'll put the changes on the talk page to discuss. Might not get to it tonight due to Wiki-weirdness that might becoming later tonight. Take care, ] 22:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 17:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
== reverts at Dembski == | |||
==Copyright problem: Discovery Institute== | |||
Thanks. What am I on, revert 2? | |||
Hello, and ]! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as ], but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=24bc7c9b16cac8a8&ex=1282276800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss (dated 25 August 2005), and therefore to constitute a ]. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our ]. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be ] from editing. | |||
If you believe that the article is ''not'' a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Misplaced Pages, then you should do one of the following: | |||
:Um, 4. ] 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Have the author release the text under the ] (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at ] and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, '''Discovery Institute''', in their email. '''See ] for instructions.''' | |||
::No way, I provided new material for the passage, which Jim and Duncharris have reverted without discussion. Quite blatantly in violation of the Code of Conduct.--] 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
*If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org ''or'' a postal message to the ] permitting re-use ''under the ] and ]'', and note that you have done so on ]. '''See ] for instructions.''' | |||
*If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "''under the ] (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0''", or that the work is ''released into the public domain'', or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at ] with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse. | |||
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow ]. For more information on Misplaced Pages's policies, see ]. | |||
See ] for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send. | |||
:::Hmmm, ] says "an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole ''or in part''" These four edits, , definitely show you restoring the same content in various forms four times in 24 hours. Anyways, you were just warned, so let's keep the reversions to a minimum. ] 21:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at . Leave a note at ] saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. | |||
::::I see you've continued reverting after the warning and the 4 examples given above, so sadly I've had to list this at ]. ] 21:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::That was my misinterpretation of the rules, sorry. I've been put right by a number of people. However, I would still point out that several reverts of my changes were clearly in violation of the Code of Conduct.--] 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Happy editing!<!-- Template:Nothanks-web --> ] (]) 17:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Pfft == | |||
== In regard of operation Bulmus 6 == | |||
Thanks for not helping... ] 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
I couldn't find any name of Egyptian commanders: | |||
* Major Saad Amin (Garrison commander) | |||
* Brigadier Butros Zaghloul (Brigade commander) | |||
* Captain Abbas Shehata (Signal Platoon Leader) | |||
represented in the article as commanders of the Green Island during the Israeli raid on the fortress in any Arabic, English or Hebrew accounts of the operation, so can you provide me with sources of these names, please? Thank you ] (]) 19:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 01:59, 13 March 2023
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FeloniousMonk. |
Archives
WebEx Vandalism
Please be advised that content agreed upon in ArbCom has been vandalized, most recently by a Misplaced Pages admin. cordially, - Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu - 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 - 323.363.1860 - http://larvatus.livejournal.com (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)larvatus
Heads up
You'll want to keep an eye on NPOV/FAQ for pseudoscience issues, and oh, you might want to keep an eye on Mackan79: He's taken to deleting the majority view from the Expelled article.
You should probably have a look at the Marks article where a particular editor seems to have a COI issue and is edit warring. Odd nature (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
McCain: intelligent design advocate?
Hi--I see you added the category:Intelligent design advocates tag to John McCain. I hadn't heard that he was an ID proponent. Can you point me to an article about his connection to the ID movement? I've started a section on the McCain talk page about this (Talk:John McCain#Category: intelligent design advocates?); if you could reply there, that would be fantastic. Thanks much! -- Narsil (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Mentioned your name in an RfC
I mentioned your name in this RfC:
If I characterized your response incorrectly let me know and I will change them. Any background information or anything else you can give would be welcome. Inclusionist (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
ThomHImself
FM, it may have come time to do something about that editor. He is basically a reincarnation of Moulton, only with a different ID proponent. He has literally caused disruption on every single article he has edited with regards to Marks plus he has a serious COI that needs to be addressed. Should I take this to ANI for a report? Baegis (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, he has become disruptive. Let's give him another day or two to settle down, and then if he hasn't, bring it to the community. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
When you have a sec
Would you mind commenting here. I think I've done a better job of framing my concerns. Thanks! Angry Christian (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Richard Sternberg controversy
I see you made changes to the Richard Sternberg page, removing the contributions shown here: . Can you please provide an explanation for removing this information from the paragraph? Especially on a subject so controversial, it's important to articulate information in as neutral a fashion as possible. The previous version only presented a single side of the controversy, biased against R. Sternberg in the initial paragraph. Presenting Sternberg's position on the issue (with references) is not only more informative for the reader but also maintains an accurate account of the controversy itself.
Tony Zirkle userfication
When you have a moment, could you userfy that article for me? I'd like to expand it and make it into an article that demonstrates his notability. (The closing admin seems to be AWOL) JoshuaZ (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Expelled POV
I am trying to figure out why you removed the POV notification I added to the Expelled article yesterday. The article reads like an enormous, exquisitely detailed and interlinked refutation of the film. It doesn't present any material in the film except for the purpose of debunking it.
Not having seen the movie, I wanted to know if it was worth watching, but the article postively exudes POV. I didn't find out most of what I wanted to know, even after reading a few thousand words. It's just too long and too negative. keno (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Replied
...at my talk page. Thanks for the note. Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Skype invite
Hi, would you be free for a Skype chat? Please e-mail and I'll give you my ID. :) Durova 05:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Does one of youse own stock in Skype? •Jim62sch• 02:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Question
Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jinxmchue was deleted under WP:CSD#C1 – it was an empty category that was left empty for several weeks. Feel free to re-create it, if appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Tag
Felonious, neither of the sources that are cited for the first half of the sentence provide any verification for the second half which states: '... the list is intended to lend support to other Discovery Institute campaigns, such as "Teach the Controversy", "Critical Analysis of Evolution", "Free Speech on Evolution", and "Stand Up For Science"'. Neither of those sources even mentions this list, so they certainly could not be used to source the claim that the list is "intended" for such and such purpose. Now, I fully believe this claim, but it still needs to be cited. I'm looking for an adequate citation, but without one the tag must remain.PelleSmith (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Pleanty of other sources do. Either you're promoting the Discovery Institute's obfucation line or you're clueless on the subject. Which is it? FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well its not the former since I believe the claim to be true ... that the DI is using the petition to further the promotion of ID. To your second point I suggest instead of calling other people clueless you help the project and just provide the sources. Clearly in my clueless naivete I cannot find a source to back the assertion that I believe is true, but you probably can, given how not clueless you are. So please do. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- The source you have found does not substantiate either the disputed claim at the Picard page, that the petition promotes ID, or even the non-disputed claim that I have asked for sourcing for at the petition page, that the DI uses the petition in its campaigns. Would you care to explain what exactly you think this source tells us?PelleSmith (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- To anyone objective it does. But since you insist, I'll add another. I've literally a dozen more. You can reject them one by one and we'll see how this ends up. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing a source that actually connects the petition to "other campaigns." Unfortunately this is of no help to us at the Picard page where we need a source that connects the use of the petition directly to the promotion of ID, something not mentioned in the second source at all. Providing such a source would be of great help. If you have one, or two, or ten please do post directly to the talk page there. As I said it would be a very big help. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- To anyone objective it does. But since you insist, I'll add another. I've literally a dozen more. You can reject them one by one and we'll see how this ends up. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Two primary sources have been provided supporting the content and saying the same thing, you have simply just rejected them. I can keep adding sources and you can continue rejecting them. Fine by me. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are talking about the Picard page I assume. Neither of your sources say what you want them to. In fact, the one you just added states emphatically that "challenges to Darwinian evolution are not the same as proposed solutions, such as the scientific theory of intelligent design." Oddly you have just strengthened the opposition to the point you are trying to prove by showing that the DI itself does not conflate those who challenge Darwinian evolution (e.g. those who signed a petition to that effect) with those who support intelligent design.PelleSmith (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- So you say, the person who thinks partisan primary sources are to be taken at face value and ignores Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Questionable_sources... FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are talking about the Picard page I assume. Neither of your sources say what you want them to. In fact, the one you just added states emphatically that "challenges to Darwinian evolution are not the same as proposed solutions, such as the scientific theory of intelligent design." Oddly you have just strengthened the opposition to the point you are trying to prove by showing that the DI itself does not conflate those who challenge Darwinian evolution (e.g. those who signed a petition to that effect) with those who support intelligent design.PelleSmith (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Two primary sources have been provided supporting the content and saying the same thing, you have simply just rejected them. I can keep adding sources and you can continue rejecting them. Fine by me. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:Evidence of Meatpuppetry
I admit, I edited for Moulton. However, 1)I did not make changes word-for-word, but close to it, 2)I support Moulton's unbanning and have edited Misplaced Pages under another account, 3)I support Moulton's rewording of the text, and 4)Meatpuppeteering is when an editor is recruited, not when a person says something should be done and an editor feels it's the right choice and does it. I don't see what's wrong with Moulton's proposal. Instead of attacking me for agreeing with his proposal, why don't you offer some constructive criticism on the proposal itself. --PlatanusOccidentalis (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like this little meaty needs a block as well as the other account. Great job with being a front for a user who left the community only after exhausting every last shred of good faith possible. Awesome. Baegis (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Attacks in the article User:Moulton
Removed provocative and unjustified warning. Please don't template the regulars! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- What is this nonsense? There are no personal attacks on that page, and its not an article either btw. This template is nonsensical, could you possibly be trying to open discussion?If so, please try again. KillerChihuahua 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The puppy speaks wisely and kindly. •Jim62sch• 17:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heck, I'm a newb, and even I know the rules on that one. Of course, me ma always said I was a fast learner... :) --Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- That was a nice message on my talk page. I enjoyed it. I mean, you still suck, but yeah, I had fun. the_undertow 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heck, I'm a newb, and even I know the rules on that one. Of course, me ma always said I was a fast learner... :) --Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Moulton
It would not be good for Misplaced Pages if you and your friends were out-witted by yourselves. You guys are a great help in keeping Misplaced Pages NPOV in evolution-related articles. But you are now involved in BLP articles. Ask for advise from friends. Please. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:AN#Moulton (un)ban may interest you. .. dave souza, talk 11:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Threat?
Keep it up and I'll take a personal interest in seeing that you are prevented from making one again. Please do not threaten other users because they attacked you first. WP:CIVIL does not allow you to do "eye for an eye" and make threats against other users. Be the better person here, like is expected from everyone in such situations. Mike H. Fierce! 22:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Stopping an incivil editor from being uncivil is one of the jobs of an admin. Saying that you will do so is never a threat. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The manner in which you said it sounded like a threat to me, or else I wouldn't have brought it up with you. "Stop it or you will be blocked" is not a threat. "I'mma make sure you won't make another incivil comment again!" is a threat. See the difference? Mike H. Fierce! 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I try to proportion my tone to the level of disruption I'm addressing usually. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guess the important thing to keep sight of is that you are talking to another person on the other end, not a dog or something you need to shame. People tend to like it when you treat them like people. :) Mike H. Fierce! 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The road runs both ways, good acts beget good acts. That wasn't his first CIVIL warning, but I take your point. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guess the important thing to keep sight of is that you are talking to another person on the other end, not a dog or something you need to shame. People tend to like it when you treat them like people. :) Mike H. Fierce! 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I try to proportion my tone to the level of disruption I'm addressing usually. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The manner in which you said it sounded like a threat to me, or else I wouldn't have brought it up with you. "Stop it or you will be blocked" is not a threat. "I'mma make sure you won't make another incivil comment again!" is a threat. See the difference? Mike H. Fierce! 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Moral support
This is a move in the right direction. Thanks for taking the time to assemble the evidence. Somebody with a strong constitution is needed to clear the stables. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop.
Stop trying to drag me into the dispute with the blocked user Moulton by labeling me a "meatpuppet" or "WR editor." It's completely false, a personal attack, and I had no interest in dragging this out further. krimpet✽ 02:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- "That's right folks, I forgot to mention we re-programmed Krimpet a week or so ago and we are finally putting her to use." If you don't want to be seen as acting on behalf of a banned editor you shouldn't be making the exact edits at the exact article that a banned editor is calling for. And don't say you weren't aware of Moulton's requests, I've diffs showing you were. You involved yourself the moment you started editing the Picard article with the very edits Moulton was calling for. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Someone mentioned the article in passing on IRC and I clicked on it - as a fellow woman in computing, her article piqued my interest - and I noticed it was a BLP mess and a COATRACK, so I made a couple tweaks to improve it. This is meatpuppetry? The "diffs" you claim to have are a canard. I was only tangentially aware that Moulton had his prints on the article on the past - I thought his ban was for creationist POV pushing in general. And as far as I can tell, Moulton when he was here was trying to rip out the whole section that I tweaked, not improve it. (And that random smartass quip on WR wasn't sanctioned or approved by me at all - "re-programmed?")
I'm kindly asking you to stop dragging me back into this. I was glad to see that woman's BLP improved in the end, through whatever roundabout means it ended up taking, and I don't want to squabble more. But it seems like you're just trying to continue this dispute and seek a pound of my flesh. Don't. krimpet✽ 05:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)- If that's the story you want to stick to, then please, by all means go ahead. It's laughably improbable given your edits exactly match Moulton's requested edits verbatim and their precise and limited nature, but if that's what you want us to believe, it's your call. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Someone mentioned the article in passing on IRC and I clicked on it - as a fellow woman in computing, her article piqued my interest - and I noticed it was a BLP mess and a COATRACK, so I made a couple tweaks to improve it. This is meatpuppetry? The "diffs" you claim to have are a canard. I was only tangentially aware that Moulton had his prints on the article on the past - I thought his ban was for creationist POV pushing in general. And as far as I can tell, Moulton when he was here was trying to rip out the whole section that I tweaked, not improve it. (And that random smartass quip on WR wasn't sanctioned or approved by me at all - "re-programmed?")
May I know why the heck are you adding evidence to a RfC that closed almost 9 months ago? Please, if you have evidence that shows Moulton doing meatpuppetry, then use a proper forum, aka, one that is active and where sanctions can be taken. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've included the recent evidence of Moulton engaging in meatpuppetry on the talk page of the RFC, not the RFC itself. Furthermore, doing so is established convention at Misplaced Pages, not without precedent, and well within Misplaced Pages policy. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- But one of the reasons because User:Moulton was nominated for deletion was because it linked to evidence collected by one user, instead of just linking to "official" pages like RFCs, ANI threads and arb cases. What you are doing amounts to trying to run around the discussion at the MfD. You are adding your evidence right behind the "enough" section that User:Moulton links to, which has almost the same effect as linking directly to a page with evidence collected by you. Please remove that evidence and post it on a page on your userspace or post it at ANI. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's your impression of why it was nominated for deletion, there are others. You don't seem to have a firm grasp of how RFCs work or this situation; individuals compile all the evidence in an RFC, period. And editing RFCs is open to all, with the one caveat that you do not alter the comments of another. Since Moulton is already banned for disruptive editing, there's noting to bring up at AN/I. All there is for us to do now is compile any evidence of any further disruption he causes from offsite such as recruiting and directing meatpuppets, and keep it in a central location for any admin or editor seeking more detail can find it, and the right place for that is his RFC's talk page since some of the community is not comfortable with it on his talk page at the moment. I suggest you become better accquainted with the situation and the policies and conventions around dealing with banned editors and RFC before deleting the evidence presented there: That is the proper place for it as was suggested at the MFD. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- But one of the reasons because User:Moulton was nominated for deletion was because it linked to evidence collected by one user, instead of just linking to "official" pages like RFCs, ANI threads and arb cases. What you are doing amounts to trying to run around the discussion at the MfD. You are adding your evidence right behind the "enough" section that User:Moulton links to, which has almost the same effect as linking directly to a page with evidence collected by you. Please remove that evidence and post it on a page on your userspace or post it at ANI. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Notice that Random832 has blanked the page where the evidence was originally hosted as a courtesy, and note his comment on wheter the evidence should be posted anywhere . According to a comment by Krimpet, and older version of the page being discussed appears to have evidence against him. From context, it appears to be the same evidence that Krimpet is removing from the RfC. I'll just make a comment on the MfD for others with more knowledge of RfCs to review this matter. I think that adding the information there after removing it from the user page could not be totally correct, and I would like other people to take a look. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I won't do the comment at MfD after seeing Fill's comment. If he thinks that it's ok, then that's enough for meAh, I'm not sure, I'll sleep on it. I still think that you should ask an uninvolved admin to review this. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)- At the end I decided to add myself to the list . Since the MfD is closed, I went to
bitchcomplain to ANI . Notice that I later changed the section headings for technical reasons unrelated to the rest of the issue --Enric Naval (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- At the end I decided to add myself to the list . Since the MfD is closed, I went to
- Notice that Random832 has blanked the page where the evidence was originally hosted as a courtesy, and note his comment on wheter the evidence should be posted anywhere . According to a comment by Krimpet, and older version of the page being discussed appears to have evidence against him. From context, it appears to be the same evidence that Krimpet is removing from the RfC. I'll just make a comment on the MfD for others with more knowledge of RfCs to review this matter. I think that adding the information there after removing it from the user page could not be totally correct, and I would like other people to take a look. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dorftrottel has suggested here that the parties might like to make a fresh statement now that the evidence has been thrown in, and the community is trying to decide what proposed remedies are appropriate.
- I have created a new area for this: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Reflection by the parties. Please consider adding a statement there. John Vandenberg 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
AIDS denialism
Would you mind commenting on the talk page what "undue weight issues" lead you to revert my change (which was also accompanied on the talk page by a thorough analysis of the section and its sources)? This section has been the subject of discussion and a turtle-paced edit war for well over a year, and undue weight has in fact been a point for keeping it out. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
More AIDS "denialism"
Excuse me. Could this edit by MastCell be regarded as "disruptive editing" per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive
If your answer is negative, could you please explain me why it is not?.
There´s no consensus at the talk page (we are tied 3 to 3), I am providing reasons for that text being in the article and trying to rework the text to reach consensus and then MastCell appears like a Deus ex machina and with no comment at the talk page just deletes again a new re-worked (and very shortened) version of the stuff he deleted in 2007 .
Maybe it is out of my naiveté, but I thought this kind of edits were frowned upon here.
And no, this is not an issue of "denialists" versus "mainstreamers". This user summarized very well why "denialist" views should be detailed and refuted
Thank you for your attention Randroide (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's no voting for content. It either is acceptable or not. MastCell is one of the best editors of medical articles out there, so I doubt you'll get support here or anywhere else. OrangeMarlin 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Um, no, it's not disruptive. Read WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article compares no views. The article is about a minority view, that of the "denialists". Anyway, if you think that´s a good edit, that´s more feedback for me. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom case evidence request
Would you be able to number the bullets in your evidence section on the evidence page? I agree with some of your evidence and if numbered that would make it easier for me to outline a response in which I go line by line by number and either stipulate to what you've presented or disagree and explain why. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom evidence page
re User talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom evidence - Moulton has made 31 comments on Slashdot, not 44,252 - 44252 is his user ID number (). You may want to change that prior to submission. Neıl 龱 14:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2
Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Factual error in your submission to the RfC
Sceptre is not,and never has been an admin (Ok, I was wrong, went all the way back to mid-06, shoulda gone a bit further, you see, when I'm wrong, I admit it.), just so you're aware and can correct your statement :) SirFozzie (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Quick heads up
Since I listed you by name, I figured I'd alert you of my impending doom/request for adminship: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ali'i. I only thought it right to inform you. I know, I know... what in the world could I have possibly been thinking?!?! ;-) Mahalo, FeloniousMonk. --Ali'i 17:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Jindal supports ID
I have tried to add some information about Gov Bobby Jindal's support of ID and the current legislation. However, one user has removed any mention of it and has even removed what ID is leaving no context.Paper45tee (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- So far the consensus on the discussion page is that my edit was proper. I, of course, welcome the opinion of a wikipedia administrator as well. DanielZimmerman (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll look into it, but the main point is that his position on the topic is properly mentioned and remains, which it appears to. The fact that Time Magazine is the source is good. The context of ID is not the most important point in that article at this time, perhaps, but covering the fact that he supports it is. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Article in need of NPOV seeing-to
I happened across the article on Charles Hodge (whilst aimlessly following links from the William Demski page). Just one quick read-through of the contents revealed some alarming weasel words, and on giving it a more thorough looking-at, I thought I'd better add my concerns re its considerably NPOV stance onto the Talk Page - which I see has not been added to for over 2 years! I was only vaguely aware of the ID Wikiproject so followed the links, saw your name (which I recognized from just 'around') and hope you'll be able to help out. I'm probably not the best person to take this on but am prepared to do what I can. This article appears to have remained under radar for a very long time and I hope it can now be sorted. Thanks. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Addenda - Just checked out the History. Most of the article's text was from a 1914 work (this is mentioned in a line at the end of the article), added to the orignal version of the article (just a basic biog framework re Princeton) by User:Flex in Spring 2005. The Edit Summary noted it needed POV checking. This seems not to have been done. A short para (re slavery) was added shortly afterwards. Since then, the edits have been confined to several Category shuffles/additions and the like, some recent vandalism of the common-or-garden insertion of a line or two pertaining to the subjects sexual abilities - but no major revisions to the text else. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
AfD on Allegations of apartheid
I've replied to your comments about WP:NOR at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) - you might like to have a look. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Dragon695
I have unblocked this user, per the emerging consensus at WP:ANI. Please do not reblock them under any circumstances. The block reason was not transparent, and there were concerns that you were too involved, as a party named in C68-FM-SV, to make this decision. If there are hidden reasons for the block, feel free to explain them to me and I will consider reblocking. In the alternative, you can go to an uninvolved administrator, such as User:FT2. Thanks. Jehochman 13:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Um, when it comes Dragon695, you're hardly impartial. In fact, you're far more involved than you claim I am. FT2? After his bogus one-man RFAR, he's not uninvolved. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not involved at all. You should have reported your concerns to the case clerks (Nishkid64 and myself) rather than blocking someone you're involved with vis a vis the arb case. In addition your reasoning was weak. I support the unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.
— Coren for the Arbitration Committee, 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
New policy proposal and draft help
Misplaced Pages:Scientific standards
I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Misplaced Pages (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.
Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.
See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.
ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if you're watching or around but...
just letting you know that your desysopping has been proposed at the RFAR. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Desysopped
This is not one of arbcom's better moments. My disappointment cannot be expressed loudly enough, but for sake of not trying to resurrect the issues, I won't go further than to simply but publically post my disappointment about your desysopping here. Best wishes.--MONGO 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I believe this is a massive miscarriage of justice, but I will not comment further.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent design
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin 21:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
nor
I just made three proposals at WP:NOR - feel free to comment, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Attack page
I thought I'd mention that I've nominated what I see as an attack page on you as part of Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Ed Poor subpages. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
request for suggestions
here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks,Slrubenstein | Talk 17:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Notability of Leadership University (web portal)
A tag has been placed on Leadership University (web portal) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. HrafnStalk 13:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Notability of List of Discovery Institute registered websites
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of Discovery Institute registered websites, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of Discovery Institute registered websites is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of Discovery Institute registered websites, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You may be interested
Your name has been brought up here- Talk:Israel_Shahak#The 'lengthy_passage' NoCal removed, accusing you of meatpupptery. I see you have not been notified by the editor making these accusations. NoCal100 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of List of Discovery Institute registered websites
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Discovery Institute registered websites, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- This article consists solely of original research and is also almost exclusively a list of external links. Nor is notability clearly established.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Huadpe (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Wethersfield Institute
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wethersfield Institute, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- Apparently defunct publishing house that only garnered a few very brief and insubstantial mentions in sources even when it was in existence, and whose profile it appears was so low that nobody noticed its demise
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. HrafnStalk 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Jerry Bergman
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jerry Bergman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jerry Bergman. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD of UC article
Since you have worked on Unification Church articles you might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Intelligent_design#New_image
Hi there, as one of the main editors of the ID article, could you have a look at this discussion? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Urgent!
I think there is a very dangerous section in the NPOV policy, which I deleted and discussed on the talk page here. Now there is an RfC; please, I hope you will comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Lauren05.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lauren05.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.68.185 (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Metanexus Institute
The article Metanexus Institute has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:CORP notability criteria … nothing but primary sources provided.
While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Denialism
I have nominated Denialism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello FeloniousMonk! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Frederick M. Franks, Jr. - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Error in reference
The link for reference 178 is dead. Changing .com to .org will do the trick 129.241.215.249 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Dominionist organizations
I have nominated Category:Dominionist organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Prezbo (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
wp:NPOV
For a great many years there has been an almost-loophole at this policy "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves." I have always interpreted this to mean that a verifiable account of someone's view is encyclopedic. However, some people read this to mean that Misplaced Pages should emphasize facts, not opinions. And opinions = views. I think this line of thinking leads to a contradiction in the policy (that we must include all significant views from reliable sources) and undermines the dictum, "verifiability, not truth."
The problem is, there is a user, user:Zaereth who states excplicitly on his user page that he is opposed to our NPOV policy and wishes to change it. And he has been trying to edit the "loophole" I mention above to mean that we should strive to present the truth. He has teamed up with user:QuackGuru who is claiming that there is another policy called "state facts accurately" which he believes means that certain claims do not have to be attributable to any source (since they are "facts" - i.e. a total subversion of "verifiability, not truth."
Currently, the discussion is happening on the bottommost sections of the talk page (there was a convenience break). I think the discussion really could benefit from the input of experienced editors with real institutional memory and I am asking that you consider participating in this discussion until this issue at NPOV is satisfactorally resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein, please strike all your false statements against me. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, your recent edit accidently deleted this from ASF: "A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An opinion can be attributed to so-and-so said." QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to let you know I restored the text myself. QuackGuru (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Sternberg peer review controversy
Hi. At Talk:Sternberg peer review controversy ] we're discussing the removal of what seems to be WP:OR WP:SYN from four years ago. I'm inviting your input. Yopienso (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Request for lifting of restriction
Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an involved party.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Citation clean up at Climate change denial
I'm trying to clean up some issues with Climate change denial. One of the issues relates to sources. I noticed some footnotes link to Misplaced Pages, which is not acceptable. Your editincluded several sources, many of which look fine. I'm specifically referring to the source with the title "Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers". The url you added may have been fine at the time , but someone changed it later, possibly because it no longer worked. I checked, and it doesn't go to the article in question, nor have I been able to find the original article.
As you were the editor to add this, I assume you have special interest in keeping this link. I plan to post at Talk:Climate change denial about this and other issues, with the expectation that we need to find a good citation or remove the reference. I haven't yet posted at the Talk page, I'm giving you a heads up, in case you wanted to search for it yourself.--SPhilbrickT 15:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
AfD of article you worked on
Please see: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Richard Sternberg.Wolfview (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Using blogs as sources
I know it has been a few months, but I noticed in this edit from August, you restored sources to an article which included a blog. Could you explain why, as an experienced editor, you would sign off on using a blog as source that doesn't meet WP's definition as reliable? Cla68 (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
creation–evolution controversy
An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI --Kaptinavenger (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of The Integration of Theory and Practice
The article The Integration of Theory and Practice has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability, per WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Copyright problem: Discovery Institute
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Discovery Institute, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=24bc7c9b16cac8a8&ex=1282276800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss (dated 25 August 2005), and therefore to constitute a violation of Misplaced Pages's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Misplaced Pages, then you should do one of the following:
- Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Discovery Institute and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Discovery Institute, in their email. See Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Discovery Institute. See Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Discovery Institute with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Misplaced Pages article layout. For more information on Misplaced Pages's policies, see Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.
See Misplaced Pages:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Discovery Institute saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
In regard of operation Bulmus 6
I couldn't find any name of Egyptian commanders:
- Major Saad Amin (Garrison commander)
- Brigadier Butros Zaghloul (Brigade commander)
- Captain Abbas Shehata (Signal Platoon Leader)
represented in the article as commanders of the Green Island during the Israeli raid on the fortress in any Arabic, English or Hebrew accounts of the operation, so can you provide me with sources of these names, please? Thank you Amr F.Nagy (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)