Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 25 September 2006

   Discussion Conventions

• Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
• Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
• Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Don't be a dick

• Caveat: Please keep in mind that I don't necessarily agree with the thoughts expressed by others on this page.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Image use

Hi I think your use of Image:CheHigh.jpg contravenes the terms of the image's licence and I am requesting that you remove it from your talk page. Thanks. --Guinnog 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The license reads as follows: "As a supporter of the ideals for which Che Guevara died, I am not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world, but I am categorically against the exploitation of Che's image for the promotion of products such as alcohol, or for any purpose that denigrates the reputation of Che."

I assure you that I am not using it to promote the sale of alcohol, and I am not using it for the purpose of denigrating the memory of Che Guevara, who's bravado, charm, charisma and sheer panache I greatly admire. Morton devonshire 00:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. It is far from obvious from your user page and user talk page that you support Guevara's Marxist ideals or his cause of social justice to which he devoted his "bravado, charm, charisma and sheer panache", and of course ultimately died for. What exactly is the Counter Propaganda unit and how does this relates specifically to Guevara's ideals?

It would be easier too if you did not use your user page and sub pages for the purpose of unencyclopedic polemic, especially propaganda against the 9/11 truth movement, particularly the images ridiculing the researchers. It is this juxtaposition that I find inappropriate. I really think you should take down one or the other, or preferably both. The 9/11 issues are delicate and I don't think, with respect, that the present content of your user pages is conducive to collegial work towards building an encyclopedia. I hope you will understand. Best wishes --Guinnog 01:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm here to fight against the use of Misplaced Pages as a propaganda tool, not to promote it. I think it's extraordinarily unfortunate that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have chosen to bring their campaign of "truth" advocacy to Misplaced Pages. My aim is to uphold the policies and rules of Misplaced Pages by ensuring that such advocacy, which generally violates WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:RS, and WP:NOT from entering the encyclopedia. If an article can calmly and objectively report on a conspiracy topic, relying upon secondary sources, preferably mainstream reliable sources like the New York Times, for example, then I'm fine with it -- we can and should report on topics of the day, including outrageous notions, so long as we can do so objectively. With respect to Che, Che was a revolutionary. I support those revolutionary principals, and greatly admire the man, and the iconic symbology he represents in our culture. He is a symbol for all revolutionaries and common people, of which I am one (a peasant, that is). Morton devonshire 01:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, I was hoping for a more serious answer to the points I made. If your aim is to do what you say in accordance with our rules, it really would help if you could take down the nonencyclopedic stuff you have on your user page. I also find your use of the copyrighted portrait of Che as, essentially, decoration, in breach of the spirit of both the image copyright statement and wikipedia's own rules about images. Please have a think about it; I can go into more detail on my thinking if that will help. --Guinnog 04:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the image down, Morton. --Guinnog 18:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD for: 911: In Plane Site

I am going to ask you to withdraw your AfD nomination on this article. I believe that you have clearly violated the requirements of WP:CCC in that you didn’t ask around at all before re-nominating the article, at least from what I can see. AfD is not the proper tactic to use to rid the encyclopedia of articles that you personally object to, irrespective of the reasons.

Your user page clearly indicates that you have a very specific, very defined agenda to further with regard to articles on the 9/11 topic. Everyone has the right to an opinion on the official story on 9/11, but this does not mean that all articles contrary to that opinion should be put up for deletion or should be removed. In fact, WP:DP provides that using the deletion process to excise information you object to is abuse of the process. Shortfuse 07:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Then all those others who also voted to delete the article are also guilty of violating WP:CCC? Indeed, consensus can change, hence the newer nomination for deletion.--MONGO 07:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The other people voting for delete are just hopping aboard the bandwagon that was provided to them. And WP:CCC talks about the nominator for AfD doing the asking before nominating, without a nomination there are no other people voting. Shortfuse 08:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, he just beat me too it.--MONGO 08:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I voted before it was nominated. By about a minute. It can't be gone quick enough.--Tbeatty 06:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning

This edit is completely unacceptable and is vandalism. You have inserted the same statement 7 times. You are, as you say, an experienced editor, so you should know better. You know the score. I agree that this needs to be stated about Jones in the article, but appropriately. It also needs to be referenced, so please find a suitable reference, and work in a collegiate manner with fellow editors. Tyrenius 00:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, and you know it -- Jones is cited as authority for the propositions, and the reader should know that his research has been called into question. If you have any doubt about the veracity of the statement, please take a look at Jones' article. Please do not allow your personal feelings to influence your work as an administrator. I think you have a grudge against me, and I ask that you not interact with me at all. Morton devonshire 03:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding the same identical line was not standard per Misplaced Pages editing standards, the same as the same word is not Wikified each time if it appears eight times in an article--only once. Why did you add it so many times, identically? · XP · 04:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I would go farther and say that anything that relies on Jones as a source should be deleted --Tbeatty 04:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That is POV and not the basis for editorial decisions. If secondary sources quote Jones, then we refer to them. Please do not make defamatory comments about people. Tyrenius 04:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal views do not justify vandalism. · XP · 04:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Is innapropriate without explanation. Please do not do this again. · XP · 00:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all clear why the information was deleted, so I'm sure other editors would appreciate at least an edit summary. Tyrenius 01:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not allow your personal feelings to influence your work as an administrator. I think you have a grudge against me, and I ask that you not interact with me at all. Morton devonshire 04:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

I saw mention of this here. Sandy 05:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. One point of theirs is valid -- the whole area could use neutral admins who aren't invested in the outcome. That line is getting blurrier each day. Peace. Morton devonshire 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

As you have accused me of acting improperly, I have brought the subject up on AN/I for wider review. Tyrenius 08:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious from your 7 World Trade Center edits that you believe that the U.S. government was responsible for 9/11 -- I don't know how you can be an objective Admin under those circumstances. I think it would be best if you and I just didn't communicate at all. I have disengaged from you in two articles, yet you pursue me on my talk page and in other articles. I renew my request again: please disengage from me. I don't wish to interact with you at all. Morton devonshire 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You should refrain from making such conclusions based on edits. In order to build a comprehensive and informative encyclopedia it is necessary to act from an objective viewpoint to represent the information and viewpoints that exist on issues, regardless of ones personal affiliations or lack thereof. Edits should not be interpreted as agreement or disagreement with the content of those edits. If you think that this is the basis of editing, and are yourself doing what you accuse me of — making edits based on what you personally believe — then you are not editing in the interests of wikipedia, but POV pushing.

I normally refrain from stating my own view on matters, as I don't think it has a place in wikipedia. However, in this instance I am prepared to categorically state that I do not "believe that the U.S. government was responsible for 9/11", and totally reject your consequent conclusion that I cannot be "an objective Admin". I would be grateful for your unqualified withdrawal of those remarks.

I am not "pursuing" you. We were already engaged in dialogue on your talk page. I think there are certain matters that need to be addressed, as initiated by Guinnog above, and MONGO below. Wiki is a place for interaction, and my actions towards you have been no different from those towards any other user where I consider something is amiss. When I accepted adminship it was to act for the best interests of wikipedia, and I intend to do that to the best of my ability.

Tyrenius 19:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your Demand for an Apology

Your demand for an apology (and related threats) at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Association_of_9/11_All_Sides_Editors has been received, considered and subsequently was denied. No apology will be forthcoming for the reasons stated at the AfD discussion. --Shortfuse 09:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that listing editors in one's userspace shouldn't be disallowed, it doesn't help to build a congenial atmosphere or make one look they are.--MONGO 18:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Userpage issues

I am posting this here to ensure you know to follow Misplaced Pages:User page, which for the most part I feel you do. It is important, I feel that the best way to operate on Misplaced Pages is to not list names of individual editors you may be in disagreement with. It is mandatory that all images be free use...so if any of the ones you have are not absolutely in the public domain, get rid of them. There is noting wrong with listing articles you're glad were deleted or ones you think should be deleted in your own userspace. Do a close examination of your userspace and remove anything that may be something that would directly point at any particular individual. We can always support evidence about Folks like Steven E Jones in article space...so no need to do so on your userpage. Thanks.--MONGO 18:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Will work on it later today. Morton devonshire 18:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)