This is an archive of past discussions with User:Morton devonshire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
New 9/11 Conspriacy theory
Can you work this in? Claims Bill Clinton organized the WTC bombings to justify the war in Iraq. This is major tin-foil hat stuff. But not any worse than the stuff in the other conspiracy nut articles you've been battling. Lot's of stuff in there. --Tbeatty05:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Much as I agree in principle with you, you won't win this one. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and going after the other forks like Prisonplanet.com. CRGreathouse (talk | contribs) 03:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You may be right, but I'll let this one ride for awhile. Prisonplanet.com at least is an on-going production. I just don't think Alex Jones is notable enough to have an article written about every book or event he holds. Just awhile back I attended a week-long industry gathering where the attendance was more than 50,000, and it was a huge media event where many significant product announcements were made, yet it does not have its own article on Wikipedia, nor should it, as the event is over. There will be another next year, which is more than one could say about the 9/11 Symposium. Woodstock, yes. Democratic Convention of 1968, yes. MLK's March on Washington, yes. Battle in Seattle (WTO '99), yes. DailyKOS convention of 2006, 9/11 Truth Movers Convention 2006, no. Just not significant enough. Morton devonshire05:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree with you that he doesn't merit all these articles (although one or two would be fine); I'm just getting into strategy here. Of course, this AfD might happen—when I posted there wasn't yet a single "delete" vote, and now there are some. Still, it seems more likely that this will result in a "no consensus" keep which gives your critics fuel (as in 'he just nominates all articles he dislikes'). I wish you luck with this crowd: I seldom poke my head into 'controversial' areas like this just because I don't like the conflict. I'm glad someone sticks around to fight the good fight. CRGreathouse (talk | contribs) 05:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think the percentage will be pretty high. In hindsight it's easy to see which ones stay and which go, but before they are nominated, they all just look like cruft. If MD "Mad Dog" get's 90% of the crap removed, I say go for it. There is another article that is running 90% delete that isn't really much different than this. Never would have known that without the AfD. I do agree that a Keep makes it harder the next time but a No Consensus won't hurt and 6 months from now, it will be less notable. --Tbeatty06:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem might not be so much that the amount of information in those 12 articles is not commensurate with Jones' contribution to the sum of human knowledge, but the difficulty laymen face in navigating through them and visualising the relationships among them. I've put together an innovative information display and retrieval system that should help the reader in serach of illumination. Feel free to add links I may have overlooked. If an article gets deleted, just pull it. Tom HarrisonTalk19:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that the North Korea Times may not be a reliable source. I think I agree with you after all. However, next time please either discuss before removing, or at least leave a more helpful and maybe less scornful comment than "as if". Thanks. By the way, I have reviewed the section, I would be interested to hear your impartial comments. PizzaMargherita07:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea where I called you that, to prompt your message. If you're referring to the ArbCom evidence for the 9//11 stuff, I just laid out exactly how I found that stuff initially, via your own lists of articles. I really disagree with a lot of what appear on the surface to be your political and some ideological views, but I respect your skills, Mr. Holmes (or is it Moriarty? I guess it depends on who is on which side). If you're referring to the Jones template mess today, that just wasn't cool. Encyclopedia main space content just doesn't get messed with, even in good spirits/humor. If you're not talking about either of them I'm 100% lost. rootology (T) 08:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Like I said before, this is not a Wikipedia thing. It's you at ED. I'm not expecting you to cop to it, I'm just asking you not to do it. Wikipedia is not the real world, and I don't care about what you say about me here, but off-Wiki is another issue. This is not me using Wikipedia to leverage you with some lame accusation thing. This is just me asking you not to do it. Wikipedia is just not that important. I'm sure in the real world you're an okay guy. Peace. Morton devonshire08:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Liar, liar, pants on fire. See [2]. Bye Fuckface/Rootology/PrivateEditor and any other sockpuppets you've used. Go have fun with all of your anti-Semitic idiocy over at that site that I won't mention by name. Morton devonshire16:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Wayne would never go away, even if nominated. The "researchers" have too big of a following. But it would be fun to try. Stay in touch, and let me know if you ever need any help on anything. Cheers. Morton devonshire05:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the Alexa stats should be replaced with just a link to the site. No data provided because it is impossible to avoid OR problems with selecting what data to provide. Also, the data is constantly changing. No reputable source has interpreted any meaning to the data so it is not admissable. But I am okay with linking to the site. --Tbeatty01:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
yoyoyo!
Saw your name a couple of places, and dropped by to check you out. It seems we should be natural allies. Keep up the good work, yo. Crockspot18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought Gama was stalking me too, but I really believe that he just has all the most moonbatty articles on his watchlist. I admit that I am pretty partisan, but I hope I never get to be as myopic as him. Crockspot20:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.
Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.
Regarding question: Much too new for userboxs, tags, categories, templates: Groundfloor. I suggest watching/reading WP:LPU and it's talk page for the moment. Electrawn18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Reflections
Yes Morton it is all rather amusing;). Admit it was a goody, right? Right there from the start… and people will read it… it was fun, honestly. Hope we'll continue after weekend, have good one… - Lovelight
Many people look for the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" source, and I just left breadcrumbs to get there. That's all I intended. Nothing nefarious. I don't really understand, but since it seems to be important to you, I'll leave it alone. Peace. Morton devonshire02:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason is that there's a huge difference between the freely redistributable encyclopedic content (what we're writing) and the process of writing it (Wikipedia). The two necessarily need to be kept totally separate. That's what the namespaces are for. Everything in the main article namespace is an encyclopedic article, and then there's a lot more leeway on stuff outside of it. --Cyde Weys03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a cross-wiki thing and there is either a guideline or policy on it. It's not just you as I've seen it a lot of times. Cyde probably should have explained it more rather than jsut "Don't do it again." However, it is generally okay to put disambiguation on namespace articles. For example, soapbox is a namespace article that has a redirect for Wikipedia meanings. I believe that the cross-namespace stuff is pervasive and there is an active effort to remove it. --Tbeatty07:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been frustrated by this policy countless times. So many times I want to search for a policy and can't find it because all that comes up is a deleted page which has been removed by an admin. But I have really no voice in the manner and it is pointless to "fight city hall" (ie wikipedian veterans who made wikipolicy). sigh. [[User:####|####]] ([[User talk:####|talk]]) 07:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation
Dear Morton devonshire/Archive03: Hello, my name is Wikizach; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, WikieZach| talk16:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
SJ Page Protection
Hi Morton. I can't access the link for that Ross interview. Did Jones say that he was looking up stuff on the computer and doing back-of-the-envelope figuring? What I'm wondering is if there is any editorializing in that passage. I'm reluctant to change anything in the paragraph to appease Bov because I think the attempt to move it into the criticism section was just a back-door way into forcing it to be edited. I don't find that sporting. I do, however, want to make sure that the passage is accurately reflecting the source. So, whats up? Cheers, Levi P.23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
What Jones said was that he was "looking it up on the internet" -- the it he was referring to was the number of charges used to bring the Kingdome down, and where those charges were placed. He then said on-air that he was using that data to extrapolate the number and placement of charges that must have been used to bring down the Towers. "Back of the Napkin" is my parapharasing of what he said, but even he said that he was extrapolating while he was on the air to make the calculation -- it was clear that he had never performed the calculation prior to the interview. In the middle of that extrapolation exercise, Ross became uneasy and went to commercial break. When the break was over, Jones had finished his extrapolation, and then gave his estimate of the number and placement of what he thought was used to bring down the Towers. I've listened to Ross for years, and it was clear that Ross was embarassed for the guy. For a scientist who is supposedly an expert in this controlled demolition stuff, it was apparent that he didn't even have a basic grasp of explosives and demolition, and was making it up during the KIRO interview. Ross is a highly respected radio journalist in Seattle, and it was obvious that he felt uncomfortable with the interviewee's grasp of his subject matter. Call it 1-minute-commercial-break-while-on-the-air pull-it-out-of-my-ass, but don't dare refer to that process as scientific. Scientist my ass. It's a wonder this guy has a job. Morton devonshire23:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Well, that being the case, I think the interview is definitely notable as it adds pertinent info to his so-called "hypothesis". Perhaps we could modify the "back of the envelope" stuff to a phrase that retains the idea that he was unprepared but is not as likely to be objected to by other editors. Frankly, this whole move-it-into-criticism-thing has pissed me off as it seems utterly disingenuous and stupid. You have any suggestions? Levi P.00:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me tell you something that helped me here: a realization that Wikipedia is hopelessly unreliable, and will never be reliable as a source so long as there's no editorial control over content. It's a great idea to have the millions of us add our colective knowledge and expertise in writing an encyclopedia, but a really bad idea to let us decide what does and doesn't go in -- Wikipedia really needs a professional editorial staff to do that. The only thing that makes Wikipedia important is the odd Google calculation process that places it at the top of Google searches -- if it weren't for that, Wikipedia would be just one more usenet message board. So in the mean time, the best we can do is fight back the propagandists. In the end, for me, Wikipedia is nothing more than entertainment and an interesting sandbox for honing my social-engineering skills. Bottom line: don't let it piss you off. It's just not very important. Morton devonshire00:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Look, he's done it again. Why bother nominating an article for deletion (and losing) when you youcanblankit?
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.
la la la la la la la la, I can't hear you, la la la la la la
Why bother fixing reliability problems, when you can just accuse me of blanking vandalism, which you know I have not done. Blanking means deleting the page entirely, not editing out some sections. How dare you accuse me of vandalism. Morton devonshire22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Content disputes are not vandalism. He did not blank the entire page but edited out crap. Something that is sorely missing in these specious articles. But accusing an editor of vandalism for a content dispute IS a personal attack. --Tbeatty06:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Blanking entire sections or reverting without discussing first (let alone without edit comments) is not the way things work around here. Morton has been guilty of vandalism more than once, and this pattern of unhelpful reverts and blankings is not very civil, either. PizzaMargherita07:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is more of a battleground these days, than an encyclopedia...what with all the POV pushing that is going on. Your comments always make me smile....thanks.--MONGO21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You may want to watch John Kerry for a while. Gamaliel has alerted "the crew" about some edits he doesn't like. I suspect the current version will come under attack momentarily. I didn't write it but I did source some claims that Gamaliel removed. --Tbeatty01:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Plame
This needs to get out more. Edit section to get wiki version. I only know of Valerie Plame biography and Aluminum Tubes. It doesn't belong in the "Plame Affair" article since it's not related to uranium. I am not sure of any other articles.
David Corn of The Nation revealed that Plame worked for the CIA on determining the use of Aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq.[1]. All CIA analysts prior to the Iraq invasion believed that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge for nuclear enrichment. [2][3]
So you're disrupting Wikipedia in order to seek revenge for another user? Bizarre. By the way, your friend is a known sockpuppet, and my "sparring" with him/her was not my doing at all -- s/he started attacking me out of the blue; as far as I could tell, s/he came to a page where I had a dispute with other users (including TDC as I recall) and jumped down my throat very aggressively. Just to keep the record clear. If you consider it your job to continue fights started by known sockpuppets, I guess there's nothing I can do about it. Have a nice day.--csloat19:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, so you make your edits on wikipedia to get revenge on people you think are sockpuppets who have had disputes with other sockpuppets who are your friends? Wow, you are one complex dude. Try something new for a change, you might find it easier -- just make edits to wikipedia that actually improve articles.--csloat20:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL, sure, what do you got? Get some perspective, kid; I'm not even close to pissed off. Nice talking to you. Have an excellent afternoon.--csloat22:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. I might be more worried if I was an american academic or if I was in a different field of research but I highly doubt that it's worth any nutjob's time to come after me. If they do, well in the immortal words of W. "bring it on!". Pascal.Tesson15:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Morton devonshire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
