Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robert McClenon (talk | contribs) at 21:21, 22 September 2005 (→24.147.97.230). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cleared 02:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC) -- check history for record.

MacDonald

It's not "NPOV" to call Kevin MacDonald an evolutionary psychologist. To do so takes the POV that his analysis has any basis in science, and it doesn't: it's pure Jew-bashing, and nothing mor

Placing users in danger

Josh, FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger SlimVirgin 02:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

ok

ok i see your point about the sewer story but the new news about the goal should be included this is the first time he has totally admitted it the previous line only said it might have been illigitmate but now he says it was definately so obrigadoWiki brah 04:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC) By the way "Calton" is stalking me and being rude and making sarcastic comments on my talk page i am autistic and this is not very nice.Wiki brah 04:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

thank you very much for your advice i changed that paragraphi somewhat and please take a look at it now if you want thank you.Wiki brah 05:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Malcolm X

No problem, I had noticed it changed a couple times back and forth while patrolling RC, so I figured the anon. user was indeeed in the wrong. I hope a short block calms the editor. Good luck (:  —siroχo 05:12, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Nice. A short block to try to shut people up when they are telling the absoulute truth. Just goes to show how much politically-correct censorship really goes on at Misplaced Pages.

I used have a college professor who knew Malcom X personally. What I can tell you that may suprise you:

1) Malcom X frequently spoke in racist hyperbole. Just because he is quoted as saying his teacher called him a nigger, does not mean that this can be taken literally. He was using the hyperbole to make a point. Did your favorite black teacher ever call you a honkey? I doubt it. No matter how many times his statement is quoted,doesn't make it TRUE. Did Malcom X's teacher try to discourage him from being a lawyer? Probably. I think his teacher was smart enough to know he wasn't exactly "college-bound". He did, in fact, not become a lawyer, but a criminal. Someone with NO respect for the law.

In any case, Misplaced Pages isn't doing anybody any favors by posting some quote by Malcom X which probably isn't true.

2) Malcom X was pathologically crazy. There is much evidence to support this. The FBI knew of his insanity, and wrote about it. Malcom X knew he was crazy, and sought psychological help. Most of this has been expurgated from historical texts.

3) Malcom X had white ancestors. Just take a close look at his features in any picture of him. His family is from the west indies, where race mixing was quite common. The FBI classified him as a Negro-mulatto. It is a historical fact.

While I largely agree with what you've been doing on the page, Jpgordon, I have to say I agree with the anon who reverted the following: "he also was found to be insane when he was examined for World War II draft" I've had a read through the entire FBI file linked at the bottom of the article, and it says more than once something along the lines of "subject was examined in 1943 and found to be psychopathic, a sexual pervert, and psychologically unfit for service". However, I also agree with your point that Malcolm himself seems to think he pulled one over on the government, because the correspondence quoted in the FBI file makes multiple references to Malcolm's claim that "if they thought I was crazy, it would be easy for me to convince them". I personally prefer the version that exists right now, but I would be quite amenable to some compromise between the two. It seems that both versions are at least partially true.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the compromise you worked out. Hopefully others will as well.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I DON'T like the compromise. I didn't think Misplaced Pages was supposed to be about politically correct compromise. If you can find a place where Malcom X specifically said he feigned insanity, it should be posted. I don't think you can, though.

The statement made in the letter specifically says everybody said he was crazy. Now isn't that evidence that he was in fact crazy?

If you read the FBI document a little more closely, they say early on that he was being treated for some unknown disorder. Later, they say things indicating he was seeing a psychiatrist.

Don't get me wrong -- I am in no way denying that Malcom X said MANY contradictory things. He would say really radical stuff on one day, simply to deny it the next. I have seen interviews with him on television where this was specifically discussed. The question of if this was simply media manipulation on his part, or evidence of his insanity, I don't honestly know. However, if you go by historical references, the evidence points to insanity.

Take a look at the wiki on insanity, and see if you don't agree. I see Malcom X as being insane in the same sense as Adolph Hitler being insane. Both were so completely obsessed with an abnormal ideology as to affect their behavior in a negative way. This is somewhat different than the way Jeffery Dahmer or Dennis Rader were insane. They were motivated by sexual impulse, which is something different. I do believe that medication would have helped Malcom X. Specifically, Prozac or Zoloft. Too bad those medications didn't exist then.

• He says he faked out the draft board in chapter 7 of his autobiography. That's sufficient, I'd think. As far as the rest, my opinion and your opinion of Malcolm's sanity, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Malcom X said 1955 would be the year of Armageddon - the year that the white man would be wiped off the face of the earth. Are we to believe this, too? That's a quote. Go back and read the FBI documents if you don't believe he said this.

You seem to believe that quoting a madman will somehow reveal the truth? I can imagine how quickly you would be reverting people if they started posting exact quotes from Matt Hale or Adolph Hitler on their wikis. Your double-standard on the truth is not at all befitting an administrator of this website.

And while we are talking about the value of direct quotes as being relevant to the truth, let's talk about one of our other favorite islamic radicals, Osama Bin Laden. In reference to the September 11 attacks, on September 16, he stated "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation," which was broadcast by Qatar's Al-Jazeera satellite channel. On September 28, He stated "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. "

OK, now what does this say about deeply religious islamics, and the ability to tell the truth?

• Look, the article says "he claimed to have feigned insanity". That is undeniably true; he made the claim. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Another thing that I would point out to you -- I have read this Alex Haley book twice over the years. I thought it was an interesting read, but it is NOT journalism. Alex Haley was not a reporter. He didn't verify his sources, he didn't check quotes, nothing. Alex Haley was a poor student who dropped out of school to enlist in the Coast Guard as a messboy. After 30 years of military service, he emerged from the military on a pension writing adventure stories. They didn't sell. Then he turned to writing semi-ficticious books, including "Autobiography of Malcom X", and "Roots".

I guess you have to consider the validity of your source. I don't think you have. And by the way, please take a look at the wiki on Alex Haley, who seems to be your source.

• Whatever. Take it to the talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

ADL

Haven't I done that? I've pointed out eight specific problems on the talk page. Mwalcoff 22:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching the vandalism on my user page...I fear I've made myself popular with the wrong set. Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the swift action on Jesus Fish on Cars in the U.S.A. Ironic, isn't it, that he didn't write about Brasil? klenk 04:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII

I started an RfC on Pope Pius XII. You are invited to comment. patsw 00:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The RfC/dispute on the introduction is not yet resolved, so my editing of the article is pending a resolution of that. patsw 04:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Cornwell in the Introduction of Pope Pius XII. Is it time for mediation? Please discuss on my talk page. patsw 14:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki brah: The final cut

Thanks with all my heart for the support. I truly didn't want to overstep my bounds but those totally bizarre comments on the RfC were just too much for me. I owe you one. Best, Lucky 6.9 03:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Me too, but I want to go on record as stating that I'll pull his plug if I think he's still yanking our chain. This is the second weirdest conflict I've ever had here on Misplaced Pages; the "B-Movie Bandit" still takes the taco. - Lucky 6.9 20:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism

BYT put my article on this informative book up for VfD, I'd be honored if you'd take a look at the article and its VfD and share your opinions. Thanks. User:Klonimus/AINB Klonimus 07:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing

Sir, Mind your own business. Do not threaten me. You are not a policeman, and you have no authority to patrol my editing when I have breached no policy. Furthermore, you are a hypocrite: the accounts Jpgordon and SlimVirgin (and no doubt more accounts still) are shadowy sockpuppets for a single real-life person. You have yourself (yourselves?) therefore already infringed the 3R rule. 60.240.142.101

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark

I have filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark. Please contribute to it. – Smyth\ 18:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"Judah Benjamin? Did KKK members respect him? Cites, please"

"Judah Benjamin? Did KKK members respect him? Cites, please"

Can you imagine a Confederate veteran not having at least a small amount of respect for a member of Jefferson Davis's Cabinent?

Assuming that they were honor bound to respect such a person since the original KKK was composed primaraly of Confederate veterans we can conclude that those who knew of Judah Benjamin's religion must have shown some (however little) restraint when it came to Jews.

Is there evidence which contradicts this?

BTW why did you get rid of what I wrote about Booth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"I think it's entirely likely that they had respect for Benjamin, but it's also possible that they resented his bugging out to England. I've never seen any mention one way or another regarding KKK attitudes toward Judah Benjamin, though -- that's why I asked for cites. (Without them, it's original research. The rest of that section didn't work with only the example of Booth. Besides, wouldn't Booth (and perhaps Benjamin) be a special case, anyway? Seems to me it wouldn't be hard at all to be strongly anti-Catholic but even more strongly pro-Lincoln's-assassin."

I've looked in the index of a book I have on the Klan and it seems the anti-semetic(sp) stuff didn't really start till the second Klan.

As for Booth....you may be right.

Priory of Sion

I see - I should check with User Page before making any corrections to Loremaster's mistakes. Yet others can make corrections immediately by clicking onto "edit this page". Strikes me as a bit of prejudice at work here. Well, you say you don't believe me yet you put a link to my website. AND a great deal of the existing material on the Priory of Sion article was contributed by me - that was "believable". My website will have to contain an article about Misplaced Pages practices relating to Priory of Sion and to the behaviour of Loremaster. Will the link to my website continue to exist thereafter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfgh447 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages (not user talk pages, article talk pages, such as Talk:Priory of Sion, are where one discusses changes to articles. It's good to be bold and go right ahead and make changes in the article; if nobody objects, you're doing fine. But making substantive change in articles is fraught with peril for any editor, especially any new editor; and if other editors do object to your changes, they will discuss the changes themselves on the article talk page; putting personal comments on the article page itself (or on user pages) is frowned on (which is what got other editors coming to this page and complaining). Don't take any of this personally; Misplaced Pages can be pretty complicated technically and is also a large, complex social system -- and Misplaced Pages also gets disrupted a lot by vandals, which is why some editors have short fuses. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. And only wish these were the circumstances that I find myself in. But the difference between myself and Loremaster has spanned quite a while - Loremaster demands a definition of the Priory of Sion that is biased towards the content found in the book "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" whilst I would like to present an account of the Priory of Sion as based upon the activities and objectives of its founder, Pierre Plantard - and the Priory of Sion of Pierre Plantard is somewhat different to the account of the Priory of Sion as found in the pages of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". The difference between myself and Loremaster can never be resolved. Nothing can alter Loremaster's addiction to "Holy Blood"; and nothing can alter my desire to present the definition of the Priory of Sion as created by its founder, Pierre Plantard.

Loremaster's account of the Priory of Sion is not "objective" because there are instances in his article where he has merged Plantard with Baigent, Lincoln, and Leigh. Another point concerning Loremaster: he has not read or accessed any of the Priory Documents, he has not read any of the French books, he has not acquainted himself with the history of the subject matter in France - all that he knows is restricted to what is contained within the pages of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" and "The Messianic Legacy".

And now it looks like there is a concerted effort to delete my corrections to his article at the very moment that they appear.

Paul Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfgh447 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Extrusion Copyvio

When you see large blocks of copied text, like on Extrusion, you can just delete them... no need to post on the talk page unless someone argues.  :) Bushytails 04:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Nitpicking :)

Hey, If the page wasn't protected I would've noted it! :) :). --Sebastian Kessel 01:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Pubic hair (image status clarification requested)

Was it suggested that preceding art image was a copy violation, or was the B&W image a copy violation (it is ambiguous in your edit note). I had just finished a nice edit of the B&W image title concerning other hair when I hit an edit conflict with your substitution - specifically:

Natural Female Body Hair is present in the pubic area, the armpits, the extremities of the arms and legs, and often a few coarse hairs around the margins of the areolas

This is not appropriate to the image you replaced. Please comment here, I will observe. If the B&W is not a copyright violation I think that it is a much more appropriate illustration. Best wishes, Leonard G. 01:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I obviously disagree about the relative appropriateness of the images; a world-class piece of art vs. an unattributed picture that at least one editor believes is a shot of Madonna from a Penthouse spread; a picture focusing on the pubic area vs. a full body nude, and so on. The article isn't about "natural female body hair"; it's about pubic hair -- personally, I think maybe there should be a good shot of a naked male pube there too, but one picture is really enough to get the point across. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that one image is enough, but the color art image does show quite a bit more than pubic hair, is also charged with much more sexual suggestiveness (via multiple characteristics) than is appropriate to this article, and does not offer the opportunity that the B&W does of related hair (hair of similar secondary nature). While a close shot would be appropriate it would not offer that opportunity. What would you consider the ideal image for this article? I am somewhat opposed to taking a full nude image and via image processing to dissect it into various component parts, except as the whole is also shown to give context to the detail. It should not be too difficult to obtain an appropriate and PD or cc-sa image for this and other similar articles. - Leonard G. 01:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that it's an intensely sexual image. I wouldn't even call it "suggestive". When the drawing was first inserted, I did note that it had not been discussed; no discussion ensued. I didn't object because I'm so fond of the painting - I mean, yeah, it's porn, but it's totally classic porn. Maybe a line drawing would be better -- or something completely clinical. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It could be too clinical - I am considering putting together a free licensed image suite that would be suitable for both external anatomy and anatomy for artists (the later perhaps appropriate for a wikibook). I think that images (and articles) should be both informative and beautiful and both can (and should, where appropriate) reveal more than the immediate subject at hand. Bye for now, I will cogitate upon the issue. - Leonard G. 02:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Santorum

The subject of insults was thoroughly discussed on the Misplaced Pages:Village Pump the consensus there applied to all current political and cultural figures was (1) third party insults of the subject are not encylcopedic, not factual, and inherently POV and (2) no policy is needed now to enforce that judgment. In the discussion many figures on the left and right were cited, the most frequent subject at that time subject to an edit war was Teddy Kennedy. It is unlikely this consensus is going to change so while most Wikipedians, I suspect, would endorse any and all insults to Santorum, applying the Kennedy or Clinton article editing consenus on insults to the Santorum article leaves us standing on principle. patsw 23:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If the editors on Teddy Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton have a consensus to delete third party insults immediately, who are we to do otherwise in the Rick Santorum article? patsw 02:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Stalin

Sorry, I don't understand your question. Jayjg 16:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was funny, but I didn't read it carefully enough the first time. I didn't get enough sleep last night, maybe that's the problem. Jayjg 16:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very kindly for your support of my nomination; it means all the more because I respect your contributions. I promise your trust hasn't been misplaced; I will only be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0 21:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Malcolm X continues

Hello jpgordon. You have deleted my changes to the Malcom X wiki yet again. The changes I have made were backed up by references from other wikis. I am going to restore my changes. If you remove them again, I am going to file a complaint with wikipedia for your removal as adminstrator.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.104.48 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Take it to the talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support of my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Best wishes, Leonard G. 03:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Rhodus

Glad to help. Since ArbCom is overloaded already, what can be done with someone like this? Septentrionalis 05:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I would keep a little list of his greater annoyances, with diffs, and enter it every so often on the RfC; report the worst, like vandalizing the AfD, to WP:ANI. (I am not offering to do this, sorry; I have a True Believer of my very own to keep track of, and I want to avoid swamps like Terrorism anyway.) Septentrionalis 05:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

24.147.97.230

I think that whether he is the only editor who has that view depends on how one counts sockpuppets. Robert McClenon 20:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I had overlooked User:TDC. He is not a sock-puppet, but another conservative who likes to present opposing politicians in a bad light.

There were two named users who were in the revert war on Ted Kennedy who had invented themselves only to sign the RfC, and who then did not edit at all until it was time to game the system of 3RR. I have no reason to think that they are meatpuppets. If they had really become Wiki users, they would have at least one edit in the intervening month. They are sockpuppets, and I think that all of the new users who signed the RfC are just sockpuppets.

{User:Agiantman]] has not posted recently. Robert McClenon 21:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)