User talk:FeloniousMonk - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Adraeus (talk | contribs) at 04:04, 1 September 2006 (Pfft). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:04, 1 September 2006 by Adraeus (talk | contribs) (Pfft)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

feloniousmonk

Point of order

I'm puzzled by something you wrote in an edit summary:

no, I didn't miss your point, I looked beyond it and saw how it accomodated your previous goal

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?

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?

It would clear things up a lot if you would tell me what you think my 'goal' is. Thanks! --Uncle Ed 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

You fixed my sloppy edit here. Thanks.

I meant to put it on my essay. Cheers. --Uncle Ed 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Category_talk:Pseudoscience

Hi FM, I trust you saw my replies there. Look forward to your thoughts when you have some time. Thanks, Jim Butler 17:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

knee-jerk reverts

Would you please look 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. -- nae'blis 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias against Ed Poor

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) i kan reed 16:38, 3 August 2006 (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. FeloniousMonk 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous theology

I don't know where the heck Joan Bokaer has done her research at but Paul Weyrich is no Christian Reconstructionist. 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. Felonius, I am convinced you are nothing but an ignorant bigot. I hear the Black helicopters coming Felonius. :) Pravknight--Pravknight 01:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Pravknight, Misplaced Pages has a policy against making personal attacks. Please discuss the content not the editor. You will be blocked if you continue this type of negative behavior. --FloNight 01:40, 4 August 2006 (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.

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. FeloniousMonk 01:47, 4 August 2006 (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.

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.

Mr. Weyrich didn't write the following article. I did.

One of the sites referenced has been taken down, well it's here.

The quality of TheocracyWatch's research is substandard and filled with ad hominem 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

User:Pravknight--Pravknight 02:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet has already rewritten it into a form that passes policy muster, so the matter is settled there as far as I'm concerned. FeloniousMonk 02:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts to ponder

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 reliable source, because Misplaced Pages does not publish original thought or original research. --Uncle Ed 22:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FM, Ed's edit summary is funny...it deserves a reply. Jim62sch 01:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Waste of time. Don't feed the trolls. FeloniousMonk 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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. --FloNight 02:48, 5 August 2006 (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. FeloniousMonk 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

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 User:Ambuj.Saxena'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. --Spangineer (háblame) 07:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not ask other members to abide by rules that you do not abide by, namely the three reverts rule.User:Pravknight--Pravknight 00:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hyles

Vivaldi (talk · contribs · logs) has returned and started making Hyles edits. User removed all notice of the ongoing Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Vivaldi

The tom tommorow cartoon

Is tom tommorow gpl'd(this definetly does not qualify for fair use)? i kan reed 15:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Still trying to find a justification to remove it from the article? The FU licensing template for comics {{Comicpanel}}, says:

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.

It's use in the TTC article definitely illustrates the groups depicted on the excerpted panel, so it is fair use. FeloniousMonk 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). i kan reed 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. FeloniousMonk 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? i kan reed 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. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscientists Category

Please respond to my reply on Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_7 and clarify why you think a category is necessary, as opposed to a list. --Wclark 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Henry College

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.

However, I did revert your latest edit, because for some reason about half of the PHC article had disappeared....

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. FeloniousMonk 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation

Hi FM. Just wanted to bring your attention to this passage regarding NPOV and categories: Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation. 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 List of pseudoscientific theories, 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, Jim Butler 21:16, 9 August 2006 (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 here 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 here. If you really have nothing to do with your time, you can read Part One and Part two immediately above! Also, this section 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. AnnH ♫ 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ex-Homey

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"). CJCurrie 04:15, 14 August 2006 (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.

BTW, admitted sockpuppet masters should not be editing userpages of their suspected sockpuppets, period. FeloniousMonk 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Two responses:

(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).

(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.

I would again request that you reconsider your block, if only on procedural grounds. CJCurrie 04:40, 14 August 2006 (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.

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. FeloniousMonk 04:53, 14 August 2006 (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. --68.45.161.241 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag wars

Sometimes people have edit wars 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.

--Uncle Ed 18:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1) WP:EW 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.

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. FeloniousMonk 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation of "pushing POV" is hypocritical and also unfounded.

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".

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.

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. --Uncle Ed 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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? Jim62sch 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Focus on the Family

I welcome your comments per the Dobson remarks about Mel Gibson. Rkevins82 15:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Weyrich

I would note that Misplaced Pages's article on withcraft 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.

We can either agree on language here, or there are always other options I could exercise. --Pravknight 23:04, 15 August 2006 (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 WP:NPOV.

Either do not understand WP:3RR or are unable to count. Please read the policy again. FeloniousMonk 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Misreading of undue weight

You wrote:

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.

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 POV pushing. --Uncle Ed 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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. SlimVirgin 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I took it back although his constant badgering, wikistalking and false accusations strain my attempts to regard him with the assumption of good faith. --Uncle Ed 18:09, 16 August 2006 (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?)i kan reed 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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." WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience 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..." WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving "equal validity"

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 ArrrghBob (talk · contribs) and defended by Ed here and at the article clearly has WP:NPOV and WP:V issues, not least of which remains undue weight. FeloniousMonk 18:46, 16 August 2006 (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. Guettarda 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 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. FeloniousMonk 19:36, 16 August 2006 (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).

Actually, what I was referring to was this:

views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views

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:

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." --Uncle Ed 13:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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. Jim62sch 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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. --Uncle Ed 13:50, 17 August 2006 (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. FeloniousMonk 15:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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 WP:BOLD. i kan reed 15:16, 17 August 2006 (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 WP:BOLD#…but don't be reckless! 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 WP:RS, and so on. FeloniousMonk 15:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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. i kan reed 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's being Bold again: His figleaf, a pretense at earnest discussion: FeloniousMonk 16:07, 17 August 2006 (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. i kan reed 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous revert at Naomi Oreskes

Here 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:

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. --Uncle Ed 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. FeloniousMonk 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you make so many reverts I assumed this was one. I guess I better slow down. --Uncle Ed 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting tip

Thanks for correcting the horizontal alignment of the {{pov}} template. I should have done a preview first. You're the best! :-) --Uncle Ed 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Authorized Revision of Dominionism Entry

You had written "rv unsupported pov to last version by JoshuaZ." I don't understand because if you go to User_talk:JoshuaZ#Schaeffer_and_Dominionism 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 Talk:Dominionism#Roots_and_Branches -- Awinger48 12:53, 18 August 2006. (UTC)

Constitution Party reversion - what's up with that?

Felonious, I don't always agree with your views, but that's OK. But when you do a wholescale revert 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. —ChristTrekker 16:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My fault, I had two windows open for editing (C&Ping from one) and saved the wrong one. FeloniousMonk 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. I thought it seemed odd for you. —ChristTrekker 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>Pravknightt--146.145.70.200 17:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>

Pravknightt, 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 verifiable reliable sources to back up your content concerns.

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. FloNight 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WT:NOR "archiving"

I find your "archiving" of Misplaced Pages talk:No original research 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 Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion 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. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2006 (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. FeloniousMonk 07:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, FM. SlimVirgin 07:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion 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 Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion that have actually nothing to do with the primary vs secondary sources discussion back to the main page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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. FeloniousMonk 07:45, 26 August 2006 (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. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

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. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Edits! Keep up the good work on NPOV with reason and science.

Parlor game

Hi FM, I'm going to tweak the wording of the Paul Weyrich 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. ;-)

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, FloNight 22:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

reverts at Dembski

Thanks. What am I on, revert 2?

Um, 4. FeloniousMonk 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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.--CJGB (Chris) 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, WP:3RR 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. FeloniousMonk 21:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you've continued reverting after the warning and the 4 examples given above, so sadly I've had to list this at WP:AN/3RR. FeloniousMonk 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.--CJGB (Chris) 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pfft

Thanks for not helping... Adraeus 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)