Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:53, 21 September 2007

feloniousmonk

Archives

• /Archive_1
• /Archive_2
• /Archive_3
• /Archive_4
• /Archive_5
• /Archive_6
• /Archive_7

Userfied Trolling

Cheers, I was actually a little concerned I might have overstepped the mark, but he really is getting out of hand isn't he. ornis 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Milloy article

Hello. Given ongoing developments (or lack of development) at Talk:Steven Milloy, I'm strongly considering opening a request for comment on the conduct of User:NCdave. I find his approach, at this point, to be tendentious in the extreme, and I think that outside input might help move things beyond the impasse at which we seem to be stuck. As I realized when exploring this option, this would not be NCdave's first RfC; that would be found here, having to do with NCdave's tendentious editing on Terri Schiavo. In any case, I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject. MastCell 04:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nate1478

I'm curious who Nate1478 was harassing and where was his indef ban discussed. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 07:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Over the last 3 days I have indef blocked 3 or 4 impostors of User:Nate1481. I rolled back back around a dozen edits by today's sock because the edit summaries referred to reverting non-existant vandalism by User:Nate1481. I don't think the user has been banned but the template refers to blocking as well as banning. Certainly, I'm not prepared to unblock an impostor who is harrassing a good faith editor. Have I done something wrong? Spartaz 12:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: 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. --FOo 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review this CFD result

The result of Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_5#Category:Signatory_of_.22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism.22 was clearly not delete. The comments there are about evenly split so there's obviously no consensus. Yet User:Radiant! claimed the conclusion was for deletion, closed the CFD and deleted the category. I've asked Radiant! at his talk page to explain how he came to his conclusion and am asking you to please undo his unjustified deletion. Odd nature 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". You might want to participate in the deletion review. Hrafn42 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ

Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view#Writing in the FAQ proposes that this should no longer be policy. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ has already been hacked about and several section headings have been removed, with the result that half of the section links to it don't work any more: I've commented on the talk page. .. dave souza, talk 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your challenge

I thought that your "challenge" on the DRV was right on point. I must admit that Kbdank71's dogmatic comments on this review (and some earlier comments indicating a contempt for gaining a consensus) make me question his suitability to co-administrate the CFD process. Hrafn42 05:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a stroll through my talk page and its archives; you certainly aren't the first to disagree with me, nor will you be the last. For the record, I don't have contempt for consensus, but I will always temper that against what is best for the encyclopedia, based upon common sense. It's clear you will take policy above all else, even to the point of keeping an attack category if consensus says keep . --Kbdank71 14:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If "Category:Jimbo is a poo-head is up for deletion, and everyone on earth wants to keep" I would consider myself to have far greater worries than wikipedia, and would most probably be looking for a new planet, where the dominant species had a higher IQ than the plant life, to inhabit and leave you want to play Canute the Great commanding back the tide. Your argument is a very silly (as in Camelot in Monty Python and the Holy Grail silly) argument. The trouble with common sense is that it is all too frequently not in common supply, which leads many people to mistake their own prejudices (which are far more common) for it. :D Hrafn42 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice side-step. All of that doesn't change the fact that you are willing to keep an attack category because consensus says so. --Kbdank71 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm no, I never said that. You are quite simply putting words in my mouth. What I said was that if the entire world was against you, you should start your own wikipedia (rather than futilely attempting to shove a deletion down everybody else's throat -- i.e. I'd be "willing to keep an attack category" because I would know that I had no real choice in the matter). "God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference." If I was to take your favoured approach, I would quite simply have deleted the CFD and restored the category "for the good of wikipedia", and told you to take a long walk off a short plank. Satisfying in its intellectual purity perhaps, but strategically futile and likely to gain one a very bad reputation. Hrafn42 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but you implied it, and then you just stated it above. Just a hint, when trying to explain how you didn't say something, you might not want to go ahead and say it anyway. I'd be "willing to keep an attack category" because I would know that I had no real choice in the matter. No choice? WP:BLP. WP:BOLD. WP:IAR. Sure you do. Regardless, I won't bother FeloniousMonk any further. If you wish to continue this, you know where to find my talk page. --Kbdank71 17:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFD on DRV

Hi FM. Could you take a look at this comment on the DRV. I made a total of four notifications (to Radiant!, to Odd Nature, to yourself and to Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. How is that violation of WP:CANVASS? How is Radiant!'s wild accusation not in violation of WP:AGF, or behaviour unbecoming of an Admin in a formal review of one of their decisions. Is the CFD the Old West or something, complete with 'hanging judges' and lynchings? Hrafn42 11:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have requested an Arbitration review on your behaviour against me, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantresman (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't make the mistake of thinking that by trying to portray this as some sort of personal matter you can avoid being blocked and left free to violate your RFAR probation. With your shabby history it would be no trouble at all for the community to indef ban you if that's what people really wanted. But the fact is you've been opportunity after opportunity to straighten up and contribute positively, sadly you continue to squander them. There are better uses of the community's time than another Iantresman RFAR filing. What's this one, number three this year? You're wearing the community's patience thin, Ian, and I'm far from the only one who thinks this. FeloniousMonk 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If Ian is determined to score an own goal, I don't think we should stand in his way. Raymond Arritt 04:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A RFAR too far, it appears, Ian. FeloniousMonk 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That block

Well, see, the thing is, despite Hrafn's claims to the contrary we're not in fact involved in any kind of content dispute. Rather, in clearing xFD backlogs, I made a judgment call about the deletion of something I'm otherwise uninvolved in and don't have any particular strong opinions about, and he's been, for the lack of a better term, screaming bloody murder since then. Aside from that he made a series of nasty remarks against Kbdank, and other people disagreeing with him on this issue, and appears to have a history of doing so against other people. Note that an outside admin (Yamla) reviewed and endorsed the block. HTH, >Radiant< 08:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked LAEC

Informing you because not only were you already attempting to help this user understand what is and is not vandalism and how his approach was disruptive, he apparently has decided I'm your attack dog, or something. Full details on WP:ANI#Mentors wanted, where I have requested someone new (not open to accusations of lapdoggery) give it a try, as he shows no sign of comprehension that his behavior is at all a problem. While I appreciate your reticence to block and efforts to resolve this through dialogue, I believe his disruption has reached the point where unless and until he ceases, he is impeding progress beyond what is tolerable. KillerChihuahua 14:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Woof, woof! Offtopic apology for altering your talk page comment, but the link to wikisource needed fixing in that the hope that our fixated friend might actually read Kitzmiller rather than a notorious blog. .. dave souza, talk 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Please see my comments here Raul654 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've waited many days for your response; I need to archive my talk page. I believe the conversation now at Raul's talk page covers all the bases. I do hope you intend to make amends with at least Tim Vickers (even though he's not asking for it), and hopefully others as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have returned from a few days off Wiki, and am still awaiting your response to the charges you lodged on my talk page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, please quit trying to make trouble. You turned up at an FAR insulting the editors who had written it, calling it "embarrassing." Granted, there might have been writing in it that you personally did not like, and it's fair enough to point that out. It's wasn't fair enough to insult the people who'd put a lot of work into it. You then started insulting Raul, claiming he had a conflict of interest when he promoted it. But when someone calls you on this, and the fact that several editors don't submit FAs anymore because of you, you start demanding apologies. My suggestion is that you apologize first to FM and the other editors of that article, and that you start writing some FAs yourself instead of only reviewing other people's, because that would give you some much-needed insight into how much work is involved, and how dispiriting it is when that work is aggressively attacked. SlimVirgin 00:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul's entitled to his opinion about you Sandy, I simply don't share it nor does my opinion in any way hinge on his. So I'm not sure what you hope to gain here. And my opinion certainly hasn't improved in the meantime considering you've since unilaterally reopened the closed FAR that was the source of your disruption that prompted my response in the first place. FeloniousMonk 04:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul is satisfied and the source of the unfounded, unsubstantiated rumors is now clear. However, you rolled three other people into the charges aimed at me. I am waiting for clarification of the charges you made about Marskell, Tony and Tim. That's why I'm here. FARs which are mistakenly closed are routinely reopened, as only Raul, Marskell and Tony Joelr31 close them; ID is nothing special and it's happened before. Running the FAR as all others are run was supposed to be for the benefit of the article, so that a clear conclusion would be reached and the article wouldn't be back at FAR in a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Struck and corrected mistaken name above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You must stay away from the situation, Sandy, as your behavior there has been unnecessarily aggressive and personal. SlimVirgin 05:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AFA

Hi FM. I am discussing the pink swastika issue again in the AFA article talkpage. I welcome your input again if you have the time or inclination. Regards Hal Cross 05:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again FeloniousMonk. It seems the Pink Swastika issue is being dealt with presently. I do have another issue that I think you could help out with on the AFA article. I am presently paraphrasing the issues section using information taken from the AFA article on issues:

http://www.afa.net/issues/

e.g.

I realize my paraphrasing may have my own biases involved. I also realize its not an easy job, and welcome your input whether its editing or comments on my editing. I also realize I may have got off to a shaky start, but I would like to state that there is an effort to edit and conduct discussion responsibly on the article. I certainly would like the article to be as close to neutral as we can realistically get it and I see you obviously also have that in mind. Hal Cross 10:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

*Poke*

I haven't seen you editing much lately and I'm getting concerned. What's up? (You can respond to me privately by email if you want) Raul654 17:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Interrupting conversations

I have seen several cases, including one involving yourself, in which an admin used a very abrasive and harsh tone in reprimanding a relatively new contributor's disregard of an arguably minor Talk guideline, the reprimand itself resulting in an even more combative and hostile environment for all involved. In at least two cases, the new contributors left the project. In general, that does not help the project. --Otheus 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As for me, I do appreciate being reprimanded for my specific violations of WP's policy and guidelines. However, when the violation in question is concerning a gray-area or a very obscure guideline, I would appreciate it if you at least prefix your reprimand with "Please", especially since you and I have in the past (and apparently in the present) exchanged hostilities. It is also a good idea (for the benefit of your credibility) to refresh your memory of said policy/guideline before issuing such a reprimand. --Otheus 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the specific violation... In this edit summary you cite WP:Talk about not interrupting conversations: "don't interrupt short comments of others with your responses". Here is the guideline, where "common sense should apply", as stated under WP:Talk#Others.27_comments:

Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

• Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>". In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption.

I'm not sure if you see where I'm going with this, so I'll spell it out:

• The list of examples is not exhaustive. (Presumably common-sense is to apply.)
• The guideline says it's okay to interrupt a long contribution. It does NOT say it is NOT okay to interrupt a short one; nor does it say it is ill-advised to interrupt in other cases.
• The guideline leaves no guidance as to what might count as long or short.
• Your comment was not short: It contained two completely separate complaints.
• Had your comment's second complaint been the first one, I'm sure you would agree that my response to it would have indeed been a short interruption.
• Nothing in WP:Talk says its okay to move another's comment without permission, excluding exceptions, none of which address the situation in which you moved my comment.

Note on the last point, I don't mind that you moved it, under grounds of common-sense. But if you are going to stick me with the letter-of-the-law, which I don't mind you doing, please lead by example. --Otheus 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking your bait here. If you're so convinced that you're on solid ground spliting up the comments of others with your replies, then by all means, please carry on then as you have. FeloniousMonk 00:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bait?

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with it, as long as it's clear who's arguing with whom and when. What objection do you have? --Otheus 01:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Denial and Denialism

OKay, it's time you and I had a serious conversation about this, rather than reverting each other on tangential topics. You have my permission to move this conversation to a denialism talk page, or to a separate user-talk page.

Here's the first thing: You can't go around calling everyone who disagrees with you "crazy". And "denier" is just a euphemism for crazy -- it's referring to someone who is in denial, which is most often associated with psychiatric problems of depression, dissociative disorder, etc, -- because they disagree with what "everyone else" says. Now -- maybe (and often) it's true! But can't you see that it violates BLP? --Otheus 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the second thing: let's be consistent. Anyone who disagrees with the scientific consensus on anything should be labeled as "denier". You got a problem with that? Good. Let's make a list of articles of Living Persons who still believe:

• Sylvia Browne (guess that includes Larry King)
• John Edwards (I think that includes Oprah)
• Moon landing was a hoax (luckily, very few, I'm sure)
• Water dousing works (might get a few more here)
• Homeopathic treatment (ruffling some feathers now)
• Chiropractic treatment (crushing toes...)
• 9/11 conspiracies (like 80% of non-americans)
• OJ Simpson did not murder Nicole Brown
• The 2000 prez election was stolen
• pre-2002 Iraq had no ties to Al Queda
• Jesus was conceived by a virgin and later rose from the dead

Now, maybe you do intend to link all such articles to denialism. Why not, right? --Otheus 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the third thing: As WP is read by many many people, including kids wishing to become interested in science and other areas of research, what are they learning from reading that a dissenting scientist is in denial? I don't want my kids thinking that science is all about agreeing what all the other scientists think. --Otheus 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

PR on Community sanction noticeboard

considering this block log, you might be interested in making some statement on this community noticeboard. Jaakobou 01:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since PR's block log has come up again, is there any chance you could quickly discuss the severity of his first block? A month seems awfully extreme, and the block comment doesn't shed any light on the severity. Mark Chovain 05:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion please

Hello. As an admin previous involved in the Gastrich affair, I wonder if you would be so kind as to weigh in on the Kearny High School, San Diego , talk page and the inclusion of one of Mr Gastrich's privately-owned domain sites as a reference for the page. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 04:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

user:Filll

He says that jossi re-blocked him. Since the original block was so manifestly unjust, can you unblock him or is that inappropriate? ornis (t) 04:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not blocked. The block you mention is in neither Filll's nor Jossi's log. Filll must be mistaken. FeloniousMonk 04:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I told him... ornis (t) 04:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for undoing the vandalism to No free lunch in search and optimization. I wish it were possible to get email notification of changes to pages on the watchlist.

Tom, ThomHImself 10:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tags on Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg

Please do not remove the dispute tags before the issue has been resolved at fair use review. Also, under no circumstances should the {{non-free reduced}} tag be removed, as the old high-resolution revision(s) must be deleted no matter what the outcome of the fair use review is. --Pekaje 13:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1) The images were never actually listed, 2) one image tagged as high resolution has been reduced, the others were not high enough quality to count as high resolution. Get your fact straight. FeloniousMonk 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I do have my facts straight on the high-resolution part. You removed the {{non-free reduced}} template several times while the high-res version (and yes it really was unacceptably high) still existed in the history. I see you have now deleted that revision, which is all fine and good, but it is actually a bit out of process, as one generally waits 7 days for objections (as there might be a valid reason for a higher resolution, and the rescaling might have been improperly performed). As for the dispute tags, I would suggest you wait for some sort of consensus on fair use review, where the debate is still going on. --Pekaje 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How to use the main template

Hello, I'd just like to inform you that Template:Main is not placed at the top of articles. I've seen this occuring a bit lately and have removed it each time. I checked with the template guidelines just now and it indeed confirms this: "It should not be used at the top of an article to link to its parent topic. Such links should be a natural part of the article lead." Instead I recommend you add Template:Summary in to article talk pages. By the way, I've readded the globalize template as well, since the article has in no way dealt with the issues raised. This is hardly an issue limited to the US only, and we need to do much more research into it. Richard001 07:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Disco to Discovery

Somebody tries to mock the name. Please comment for speedy deletion. Thanks.--יודל 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Ombudsman

Would you be kind enough to nominate an ombudsman or mediator to resolve a perplexing conflict between myself and User:Hrafn42 regarding potential violations of the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause? I am concerned about the recurring publication of libelous and defamatory falsehoods causing serious harm to scientists and academics with whom I am affiliated. Please feel free to E-Mail me if you need further information. Many thanks.

Moulton 23:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Regnery Publishing

You need to read the sources. Both available sources state that the resignation took place on March 21, 2006. The plagiarism was not discovered until March 23. There is no way Mr. Domenech could have resigned from Regnery because of the plagiarism scandal. Neither source claims that the resignation was linked to his plagiarism; rather, Wonkette's source claims that Domenech's WaPo job gave Regnery an excuse to remove an underperforming employee. FCYTravis 05:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI

First the Discovery Institute, now Larry Fafarman: You know you've hit a nerve when the dedicated cranks single you out for honors. Thanks for nailing the sock puppeteer. Odd nature 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

DrL/FNMF

Back in March you blocked FNMF (talk · contribs) because, among other things, the user was exhibiting the same problematic behaviors as DrL (talk · contribs) and Asmodeus (talk · contribs). For a variety of reason, it appears to me that BCST2001 (talk · contribs) is the same as FNMF. I realize you're probably not eager to engage in old disputes, but it would help me if a user more familiar with the previous accounts could look this over. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, RFCU won't help since the other accounts haven't been used in a while. The most obvious signs are the involvement in similar articles and the strident tone. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ChristiaNet poll

FM, I've reverted your undo, because the fact is that ChristiaNet is the world's largest Christian portal with twelve million monthly page loads; there were 500 Christians surveyed; and its press release is posted on some of the most notable news sites there are, including Yahoo!News, LexisNexis, UPI, GoogleNews, MSNBC, and others. This is both notable and reliable. --profg 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of notability is amusing. That aside, demeaning an admin is not wise. But please, continue. I'll love to watch. OrangeMarlin 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Demeaning an admin is unwise"? First of all, I'm not "demeaning" you; second of all, being an admin is no excuse for lack of civility. Thank you. --profg 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Firstly, the poll has been soundly rejected after an exhaustive discussion on the article talk page, so I trust that's a moot point. Secondly, I fail to see where anyone has been uncivil to Profg, so his "lack of civility" comment is hard to fathom, but we can ignore that as well, since it seems to be a hobby of his lately to use "uncivil" as often as possible (I suggest you get another one, though). Thirdly, Profg, considering that you've been edit warring against consensus, ignoring talk page guidelines, and otherwise having difficulty learning how to behave on Misplaced Pages, I would think you would want to make as few enemies among admins as possible. There is considerable leeway about when we block, how long we block, etc. There is also considerable discretion about unblocking. If an administrator remembers you as a pushy, rude, CON-ignoring POV edit warrior who is uncivil and attacks and undermines others yet constantly complains about others' civility, it is possible that you will, should you in the future commit a blockable offense, be accorded less slack. AGF is not a suicide pact. If you're disruptive, you're not going to get much trust from the community. And thus far, you're being fairly disruptive. Please read the links people keep offering you, and attempt to be more civil and less disruptive yourself, and follow the WP:RULES. KillerChihuahua 17:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar'd!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Without a doubt the best username I've seen on WP. I lol'd out loud. faithless () 16:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

attack sites

Are you aware of and ?

At some point I hope you will comment there.Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:California Mille logo.gif

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:California Mille logo.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

See here please. --D_arkF_alls 09:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you get involved ...

...in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:No original research - where several editors are rewriting the policy (some in good faith). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your chiming in but I fear most people active on the page will just dismiss your comment. I don't know if you went through the whole talk page but I proposed a revision here that I thought would appease the critics without changing the fundamentals and it was mostly ignored .... I am feeling beleagured... Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a fucking terrible call

Banning Ferrylodge based on an "overwhelming consensus"??? No other steps in the dispute resolution process were even attempted. Plus, there were only a dozen editors commenting for the period of less than 24 hours. This was a fucking terrible call. Yes, if you were counting votes, the outcome would appear to be "Ban him"... but banning is supposed to be a last resort.

But anyway, the call was made. I dispute the decision. What is my next step? Feel free to answer here, I'll keep an eye out. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Section broke, so Felonius can see and answer my question. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Section break

IMHO and my POV is that Ferrylodge has a long history. The patience of the project was gone. OrangeMarlin 19:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Should an editor who is skillful at staying just below the threshold for administrative actions have 1 year of disruptive editing without sanctions? 2 years? 3 years? How many productive editors should be driven away to allow one POV warrior to take the field? This editor has a long long history of disruptive behavior (at least 9 or 10 months).

This action can be reversed. It is not irrevocable. However, this editor has shown a tendency in the past to attack other editors who even suggest he has done something inappropriate, and tie them up in horrible false charges and nonsense. He is a drain on the productivity of the project. He is a definite negative. Let's consider his record without his attacks and interference. If it is determined that he has been unfairly vilified, then of course let's welcome him back.--Filll 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay, drama! You're not exactly dispassionate in your support of Ferrylodge now, are you? What are we to make of that? You know what was a genuinely terrible call? Your comment here, specifically, your tone and choice of words. Oh, and your support of a chronically disruptive POV pusher and agitator, that was another bad call too. Sorry, that's two. Odd nature 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not intending to start any drama. I just think the call was a fucking terrible one. And I'm allowed to express my opinion. I don't even know Ferrylodge... I think I've run into him maybe once at Fred Thompson, but there were just so many things wrong with how that played out, that I am perturbed. "My tone and choice of words"??? I simply stated my opinion (that it was a fucking terrible call), and asked what to do next. I don't "support" Ferrylodge. I just think he got Quickpolled, and deserves better. Mahalo, come again. --Ali'i 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If it was bad, it will be reversed. In the meantime, editors discussing it will not be attacked and harassed by him.--Filll 20:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not when it's insulting and vulgar, you're not. Say hello to WP:CIVIL, since you two seem to not be acquainted. I'd seriously consider rewriting your comments here unless you want to be a topic of discussion rather than a participant in one. Your not helping yourself or your friend with your tone and language. Odd nature 20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the f-bomb. I don't even mind Ali'i's opinion on the matter. I don't think Ferrylodge deserves any further attention or wasted bandwidth. IMHO. OrangeMarlin 20:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Let's move on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)