User talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive 4

Enforced silence

This is the second time you have been involved in enforcing silence in an effort to keep the Undue weight section vague. Just to prove you are out-of-line I am willing to let the matter rest until yet another user requests the section be clarified. Bensaccount 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Which I'm sure is being arranged as we speak... FeloniousMonk 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Less than 2 weeks has passed and there is another question -- Does this make you wonder if maybe you can't enforce silence on this issue after all? Bensaccount 23:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. I've let temptation to continue a pointless argument get the best of me more than I like lately. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Dembski

felonious, you continue to intimidate, insult or ignore those who do not agree with you and don't follow your agenda in the pages you watch. I will not step back from my complaints about this article. The article is extremely POV, and the "response" section is filled with selected quotes and blatant generalizations. I will take this all the way to arbitration, if necessary, and I suggest you compromise. Trilemma 15:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO, threatening people is far more likely to be interpreted as "intimidation" than is and edit summary which says "occasionally aggressive is not a reasonable subsitute for being polemical" (with regards to an attempt to subsitute the word "polemic" with "has on occasion been aggressive". Or, in other words: pot, to kettle "black". Guettarda 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

With your POV campaigning backed with threats like this spammed across numerous user talk pages, you're likely to end up in arbitration sooner than you expect. FeloniousMonk 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It also doesn't speak well of your willingness to discuss and/or compromise if as soon as there is an edit dispute you start saying that you are willing to take the matter to arbitration and therefore we should compromise with you. That amounts to saying something like "You should know that I'm really stubborn. You might as well give in now and save yourselves the trouble." This is not a productive attitude. JoshuaZ 17:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested that I would subvert the normal editing process; I only meant to elucidate my conviction of the extreme NPOV violations of the article and that I will follow through with every option, in the proper order, to rectify the situation. Any other interpretation of my statements is a misunderstanding. Trilemma 00:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Howard Kaloogian

Hi there. You protected this about 10 days ago. Since WP:SEMI is for dealing with serious, current vandals, I figure it's been more than long enough to unprotect it now. Can I ask you to check your other recent protections and lift them as necessary, also to remember protections in general? CAT:SEMI is nearly 100 items, most of them seem to have been forgotten by the protecting admin. Thanks. -Splash^talk 21:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your wrong assertions that defy consensus

You need to stop reverting this entry [1]. We have been discussing this issue on the talk page and your viewpoint is false and does not have the consensus. In fact, your viewpoint has been blown out of the water because you haven't been able to prove that OCCM has ever claimed to be an accreditor. So, stop posting your opinions, start heeding to the facts, and submit to the consensus or else you're going to look more and more like a vandal. --JohnDoe5 22:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Referring to ND test

Actually, I believe the truly "fair" name by the way you're using the term would be the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health test". In any case, the section referring to the test is titled "Discovery Channel Appearance". In the interest of making the reference accessible to the mediators, and in the interest of brevity, I chose "Discovery Channel-aired test". - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 00:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you've taken it upon yourself to contribute to the RFM, I'm presuming you want to be involved as a party as well? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominionist political parties

Felonious, I think on reflection that there is a fundamental problem with that article, which Rob and JJay have identified. Whether or not the term is valid, or validly applied to these particular parties, I think on balance the best solution is to go with the category, not the list; editors on the individual articles can debate the category on an individual basis. If there are no reputable sources ascribing the label to individual parties, then we should not either. If there are, the category can be included in the articles. The template is fine by me. Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I disgree. See my recent comment on the AFD page. Also, there's no shortage of credible sources per WP:V that are available as supporting cites that connect Dominionism to various political parties and movements, starting with National Review, Harpers, PBS: [2] [3] [4] [5]. That some are more interested in deleting the article for personal reasons than in fixing it is no reason to delete it. FeloniousMonk 21:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks.

You cast aspersions on my motives in your edit summaries. You should assume good faith instead of engaging in personal attacks. BTW, you appear to be engaging in original research, by extending dominionism to any Christain religious organization that takes a position on social issues. If you aren't careful, dominionism will just end up as name calling and become as watered down and meaningless as fascism.--Silverback 06:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what personal attacks you're yammering about. The fact is that all of the following groups are all identified as connected to the dominionism movement by both Soldiers of Christ II published May 2005 in Harpers By Chris Hedges and The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party at TheocracyWatch.org, as well as other sources: Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Free Congress Foundation, National Religious Broadcasters, Southern Baptist Convention. Noting what significant and credible observers of the intersecting of politics and religion say about these groups is hardly "meaningless" or "fascism" and necessary for a complete article that covers all notable viewpoints on its topic. FeloniousMonk 15:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to these two personal attacks here in your edit summaries:

10:56, April 15, 2006 (hist) (diff) Political Research Associates (m intentionally misplaced dominionism cat. see: WP:POINT Silverback)

10:55, April 15, 2006 (hist) (diff) Political Research Associates (rm intentionally misplaced dominionism template. see: WP:POINT Silverback)

You are attacking me instead of assuming good faith.--Silverback 05:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dominionism movement

Hello FM : ) Maybe these organizations belong in this category. Maybe not. Is Chris Hedges regarded as an unbiased author? I think the Harpers article is a pretty weak source for this type of categorization. Is there something more academic? Doing this type of categorization contemporary to the situation is problematic. To overcome this, the views from all sides of the political spectrum need to be considered. Who else has written on this topic? Is this categorization supported by moderate conservative-leaning thinkers? What has George Will written? Do the groups themselves classify this way? Pat Buchanan is open and honest about these issues. What does he say? You may be correct. Could you point me to better sources to back it up. FloNight ^talk 16:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Harper's Magazine is a moderate, widely respected, responsible and critical publication.

Cornell University's Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy is an unimpeachable academic source, and they say the same thing as Hedges did in Harper's and then some: [6], [7]. You may want to also read Frederick Carlson's "Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy."

Additionally, these issues are even being addressed in the mainstream conservative press due to the rift between moderate conservatives and dominionists: The Washington Times Left aims to smite 'theocracy' movement Christian Science Monitor For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America'

Other fair articles on the topic include: WSWS: New York Times columnist David Brooks proposes the 'good crusade', Liberty magazine, and give a listen to Recent NPR coverage of Christian Dominionism FeloniousMonk 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see religioustolerance.org's coverage of the topic. FeloniousMonk 18:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the above sources are good with the slightly exception of the last one. Religioustolerance.org has a strong leftwards slant and seems to do little fact-checking. JoshuaZ 18:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, you keep posting a link to a theocracywatch site to support some text about cornell university. I can see anything about cornell university on that page. You also use it to support the claim that certain organizations are "dominionist", but the text on that page doesn't support that either? If just references scorecards by certain organizations. Perhaps those who track domininism find these scorecards serve their purpose in tracking dominionism, but nothing indicates that these organizations are themselves dominionist. Am I missing something on this page? Can you point me to the specifics on the page that support the specifics in your proposed text?--Silverback 05:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Silverback, I was unconvinced by the Harpers article and asked FM for more sources. FM has provided a variety of reliable sources. I listen to the PBS interview and have skimmed most of the sources. As editors, we are responsible for developing an article that presents all valid pov. I still have a few questions but all in all this seems vaild to me. The category reflects the content of the articles and is reasonable. FloNight ^talk 05:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying seems very non-specific. Who exactly were the sources and what exactly did they say? The sources I saw did not say that these various organizations were dominionist organizations, rather they seemed to be citing the congressional scorecards that these organizations kept, presumably considering them good sources. If there were other sources that you deemed authoritative, then they should be making signed statements with footnotes and references and not just appearing for interviews. Even then, the sources should be more than just opinion pieces. After all, the work of MacDonald published in the Occidental Quarterly, a journal of opinion, is well written and well referenced, but we should still be able to reject it for the selective analysis of facts that it is. I argue against it here[8]. So far these soruces appear even less authoritative than this jewish conspiracy theory stuff.--Silverback 20:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Silverback, the proper place to put the specifics is in the related articles, right. : ) I noted verifiable reliable sources for indiviuals, religous groups, media organizations, not-for profits, think tanks, and lobbying groups. FM gave us "master" sources that had many more pages of sources. We need to go through them and find the best examples for each article. Each article needs to have obvious relevant content related to dominionism from reliable sources before the dominionism category is added. FloNight ^talk 21:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think FeloniusMonk needs to go through them and to get specific. The best way to get non-academic work to be encyclopedic, is the both cite and quote the source, preferably a person by name, unless it is clear that a document represents the official policy of an organization.--Silverback 21:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Silverback, we have a situation where established Wikipedia editors are editing articles about well known people and organizations using reliable sources. I don't think we need to do anything different from normal. FloNight ^talk 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I agree, but citing anonymous sources looks like original research. Cite the source and quote the source, and if that source is a secondary source, prefer the primary source, unless the person who is being quoted is notable.--Silverback 22:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, did it ever occur to you to look beyond the page, like clicking the "About us" link? [9] FeloniousMonk 16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I did "home" and "contact us" and neither mentioned Cornel, and the pages were not signed with authors taking responsibility for their content, so it did not look like something an academic institution would do. I guess not all academic work is created equal.--Silverback 19:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki

As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. PrometheusX303 20:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich

• Head_Like_A_Hole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted the sock tag after you told him not to. Arbusto 09:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Arbustoo deleting comments from talk page

Arbustoo is deleting comments and questions from his talk page without replying. Please say something to him about this. It isn't very nice. --Head Like A Hole 09:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Root of all Evil?

Just thought you'd be amused by the quote about how science explains the complexity of life, but "The design hypothesis couldn't even begin to do that, because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves, who made the designer?" from Dawkins in The Root of All Evil?#The God Delusion. ...dave souza, talk 10:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Evolution article revert

Hi, probably just a misunderstanding, but please don't just revert all my hard copyediting work. If you'd like to re-add the school para below, go ahead:

"Among the scientific community, there is no true debate over the existence of evolution. It is only among the public and among politicians is there a debate over what should be taught. This is generally considered to be a result of poor scientific education."

Note, though, that this was added just a couple of hours ago by an anon user -- it's not article "canon". Also, the first paragraph or two in the controversies section state in no uncertain terms that there is no scientific debate about evolution -- I really don't think there's a need to restate it there.

About the "This is generally considered to be a result of poor scientific education" bit: generally considered by whom? One could equally well argue that it's the result of many Americans being more "religiously fervent" than, say, their more secular European counterparts -- and thus that they have a harder time reconciling evolution with their religious beliefs than other well-educated people (despite similar quality of science instruction).

For the record, I am a biologist, and am not trying to insinuate creationist POV into the article or anything like that. Killdevil 18:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel closed

This arbitration case has closed. Agapetos angel et al. are banned from editing Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. The opposing editors (Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk) are warned concerning NPOV and edit warring. Any user banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. For further information, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

RFAr Sam Spade

Hiya, FM. I don't know if you've seen the RFAr on Sam Spade. Fred Bauder has rejected it for lacking a "referral from the Mediation Committee". (He's rejecting other requests for the same reason, too; it seems to be a principle of his, perhaps a new one.) The case is looking pretty likely to get accepted anyway, but if you should feel like putting in a statement outlining the community's long history of trying to reason with SS, it could only help. I gathered from your input at the RfC that you were excruciatingly familiar with it. Best, Bishonen | talk 07:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

What was that?

Hi mate, what was that? [10] Have you read the talk page at all? [11] Dr Zak 16:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

JJay's concerns for copyrights at Preying from the Pulpit

JJay seems to have a new concern over copyright violations at Preying from the Pulpit. These concerns have led to removing clips of a news program. Despite him being informed that these are merely partial audio clips of a television news program he has continued to revert the links without comment on the talk. Arbusto 23:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly

There is no source that confirms it but O'Reilly has repeadtly claimed that he misjudged Letterman and has developed a more negative view of him politically then he had before. The reason I put it there is to clarify for the readers that O'Reilly is not a hypocrite on this issue beacause the passage below shows O'Reilly prasing Letterman years earlier which was when he had a different view. I assume if you have seen the Letterman interview, you would change your mind too if someone invited you on their show and then tried to embarass you by attacking your character.But I guess you will insist on removing it if I reverted it back. --Bairdso66 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but everything after "There is no source that confirms it" is useless. If there is no source, it is OR, rumor, hearsay, call it what you will - it is useless to the process of editing an encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess you don't want to address your reasons for reverting the O'Reilly passage--Bairdso66 21:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking I already did. Perhaps FM considered the matter already addressed, or perhaps he is doing other things. Guessing, with less than 24 hours since your post, is hardly a useful approach. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Category on userpage

Thanks for the disabling the category on my user sub-page. Kind regards, David Bergan 02:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

"...not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." How does this hurt? My goodness it's mind-numbing. Marskell 16:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have brought a request for arbitration naming you as an interested party. [12] — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 04:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm neither an interested party nor am I central to your problem. I decline to participate. FeloniousMonk 04:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't get a choice whether to participate in an Arbitration; that decision is up to the Arbitration Committee. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it would be you there to try to remind me. Very kindly of you, thank you.

But I do have a choice as to whether I contribute to the RFAr or not. Since WCityMike is either confused over policy or has a personal axe to grind against SlimVirgin, and considering his irrational behavior it's becoming more apparent that it's likely the latter, I choose to not assist WCityMike with his baseless disruption of the project. He's caused enough problems and it's looking more and more like the nogoodniks at Wikipedia Review are behind this: [13] Pick your sides... FeloniousMonk 05:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the substance of the claims he makes, just noting that you were involved in a (rather stupid) edit war on the requests for Arbitration page. You should be better than that. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but I prefer those of those who haven't had an ax to grind with me in the past. FeloniousMonk 05:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm. Keeping grudges isn't very becoming, either. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just making sure everyone puts their cards on the table, that's all. FeloniousMonk 06:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology & Withdrawal

My apology and withdrawal: [14]. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 22:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about Zeleny/Min Zhu controversy

Hi, I am a student doing research about the Zeleny/Min Zhu controversy, and I found in some of your postings that you mentioned specific documents that could substantiate the allegations (court docs, etc...). I was wondering if you knew where I could find such documents as they would aid immensely in my research. Thank you! (and let me know if you have any questions/want details about my research- mariejomr@gmail.com) - Marie-Jo

Explain your charges of vandalism

Rather than just throwing accusations about. 71.199.196.105 06:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting. 71.199.196.105 04:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

new phrase

Your comments on AN/I just gave me my new catchphrase: "WP:AGF is not a suicide pact". I love it, thanks! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR and Neil Lennon

I know and admit that I have reverted the article more than 3 times. However I believe that there is a bit of sockpuppetry involved here that is trying to get me into trouble.

Editors to the page apart from me are:

all I believe are the same person.

• TheMadTim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AggieTheTeaLady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 공수 아이는 수음자 이다 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• VeryJollyGood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hahahahahahahaha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StanTheMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.4.230.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• DoctorHooDoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ﺾﺸﻏﻞﻤﻌﻏ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user who reported the 3RR violation has one edit to his name?

• LloydEstralondo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user who reported me still has not made any further edits, strange?

Another new user BiII the Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notice the strange characters in his username. Last night made the same changes to the article, then opened a RFC on me after I reverted him.

Christianism

Would you mind checking out the discussion at Talk:Dominionism#Christianism and weighing in with your opinion. Cberlet seems to have larger issues with the Dominionism article and has changed (twice) and deleted (once) the section I added on Christianism. I have proposed some new language which I think will solve the concerns you had and, I hope, Cberlet's concerns, but since he/she is raising other issues with the article I'd love to wrap this up before the discussion goes off on another tangent. Thanks,--Alabamaboy 00:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience v. WP:NPOV

Thanks for adding the voice of reason. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 00:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

AFD nomination: Philip Sandifer

Since you have decided to undelete and list for AFD, would you mind closing the DRV entry accordingly? It will be confusing debating whether the article should be undeleted or not if it already is. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 18:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Henry College

Many thanks for your work on Patrick Henry College. It is much improved. Aplomado ^talk 06:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for adminship

I wanted to alert you to an adminship application I've filed. Given our disagreement that night, I figured it would be fair to alert you to give you an opportunity to vote on this, even if indeed your vote is an oppose. Thanks. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing content from Patrick Henry College

Re: Your edits to Patrick Henry College. I'm going to warn you for vandalism if you delete the information again without having a good reason. Aplomado ^talk 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

FM, thank you for your supportive comment. It helped me feel much better about the atmosphere at Wikipedia. We need to find a solution to the harassment coming from Wikipedia Review. I don’t intend to let them win. You must understand that it gets almost unbearable at times. I don't see how SV has lived with it as long as she has. Hopefully after a rest she will be back. Take care, thank you FloNight ^talk 02:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry, I stepped on you at talk:Intelligent design where you tried to write this:

No, please read the archives on this issue. We discussed this at great length and settled on concept as a compromise. FeloniousMonk 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying RTFM isn't always the best way to respond to a newbie. --Uncle Ed 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)

Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Aquirata

You may recall this user clogging the NPOV talk about a week ago. I am considering starting an RfC and wondered if people would comment. I realize you probably haven't dealt with him at length on Mainspace pages (he only sticks to about three of them) but I thought you might agree that his behaviour has been troublesome. Marskell 18:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, then: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aquirata. One of the first posts under "Tried to resolve" is from you, so you may certify. Thanks a bunch, Marskell 08:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how much this is accomplishing. I wondered if you had noticed this Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aquirata#Outside_view_by_Andrew_Homer. It's been endorsed as an "outside view" when it's actually a silly attack. I would like to remove it from the main RfC page but Aquirata insists on keeping it. Marskell 08:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

One further development: I have nommed the article that got Aquirata kicking for deletion here (I think you made a comment on the talk page at one point). The page is a f**king embarrassment. Marskell 17:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverts to four days ago

You might want to think about discussing reverting to a version four days old before you do it. Plus, you might want to read the neutral point of view policy. It applies, even if you have strong feelings on a topic. Thanks, For great justice. 05:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My Thanks

I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup

I nomimated that attack page for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Goethean/Examples...the fact that you didn't vote on it is proof I don't spam others for support votes. You're probably right.--MONGO 19:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Proposed" template in user space

Ooops... I thought I'd stripped that out. The problem is that I was trying to view how the final page would look with the "proposed" tag on. Inappropriate things showing up in user space annoy me too! I guess we could do with a {{Dummy proposed}} template, for a "dummy proposed policy, guideline or process" for such purposes. Or even a {{First draft proposed}} for "this is a first draft for what may later be proposed as a..." TheGrappler 08:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing out mine as well --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Nordundsud

Nordundsud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks to me to be Gastroturfing. I've issued a warning. Just zis Guy you know? 15:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr Felonious

Please review my talk page LoveMonkey and also the talk page on Plotinus. Goethan is engaging in a campaign to have me banned by admin slimvirgin. Because I stopped him and his buddies from posting original research on Plotinus and his attack on the gnostics. I created the article Neoplatonism and Gnosticism to address the "theory" they proposed and Goethan put the article up for deletion. Disruptive. LoveMonkey 16:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please put your comments on my RfC in the proper place

FeloniousMonk-- You are certainly free to state your dispute with me, but you need to follow the rules that are put in place for an RfC. It says quite clearly that "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse." If you are going to contribute to the article you need to do so in the section that is meant for people that are involved in the dispute, since you have now certified that you have tried and failed to resolve the dispute. You cannot add a new section under Outside Views and add your comments there. You are a participant in the dispute and you have your own section. Vivaldi (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're confused about the instructions given on RFC pages; I have only edited one view and endorsed several, so I'm free to add a view to the RFC. Removing legitimate views from an RFC is disruptive and will only compound your problems outlined there. You also would benefit from earnestly considering the comments of Hipocrite regarding your wikilaywering which seems to extend now to your interpretation of RFC page guidelines. FeloniousMonk 19:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You have now certified that you are a participant in the dispute. You have completely made up a new section and placed it under the "Outside Views" section when the rules for RfCs clearly state that this area is meant for people that are not participants. Why are you immune from following the guidelines and rules that are set up? I would appreciate it if you would not move this discussion to my talk page. This is a warning. Vivaldi (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Either you're splitting hairs and wikilawyering or you're clueless; either way your disruptive actions make it a distinction without a difference.

Certifying a dispute is the same as endorsing a view, not the same as editing the Statement of the dispute or Response sections. Again, read the instructions. I'm well within guideline and convention to add my viewpoint, unless you want to call certifying the dispute editing, which seems like more wikilawyering to me. My view is labeled just that a "view" not an outside view, all of which is supported by convention and policy. You're becoming disruptive, and I think the last place you'd want to do that is at your own user conduct RFC. FeloniousMonk 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:HOTR

Hello,

I believe the 3RR block may have been improperly applied in this instance.

The "violation" involved the restoration of an "OR" tag, with no other changes to the text. I'm not certain this constitutes a 3RR violation; if it was, I suspect it was entirely accidental. CJCurrie 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't unblock "my friend" -- another admin unblocked him, and my only involvement was to undo a glitch in the system. CJCurrie 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The only exemptions from 3RR violations are for vandalism, potentially libellous material, and user pages. HOTR's edit warring over the tag fits none of the above; it's clearly a 3RR vio. [15] shows that you solicited his unblocking from Bearcat, then you did it yourself when Bearcat was unable to do it: [16] Also, HOTR block log shows he has been a chronic 3RR offender, [17], so claiming it was a accident isn't going to wash. FeloniousMonk 02:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Assume good faith. I refrained from unblocking the user because I was an active participant in the parent discussion; my only action afterwards was to undo a glitch in the system.

The 3RR page seems to have undergone some significant modifications in recent months, and it's hardly a surprise that not everyone would be aware of (or accept) the current version. I suspect that some of the "3RR offenses" in question would not have been interpreted as such even a few months ago. CJCurrie 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies are not a buffet where one gets to choose what fits the occasion and leave the rest. Those who ignore them do so at their risk with incidents like this as a result. FeloniousMonk 03:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll note that AGF is also official policy. In any event, 3RR does not mandate that editors must be blocked for making more than three reverts -- it simply grants admins the authority to do so. There's nothing to prevent alternate resolutions from being tried in ambiguous situations like this. CJCurrie 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and chronic offenders tend to get blocked.

Ambiguous? What part of "There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." at Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule is unclear to you? FeloniousMonk 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

To your first point: I think some of those situations may have been "ambiguous" as well. In any case, I have absolutely no doubt that HotR did not consciously violate 3RR in this instance. CJCurrie 03:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

To your second point: See Bearcat's comments below. I'm certain there are other admins who would be surprised by the current status of the 3RR policy. CJCurrie 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If they're that poorly versed on current policy they have no business being admins, I'd say. As for HOTR, the fact that one of his first edits upon being unblocked was to attack the person filing the complaint and to misrepresent the situation [18] doesn't speak highly of him. I'd have a bit more sympathy for his plight here were he not his own worst enemy. FeloniousMonk 03:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know exactly what you think the required time frame should be in which an administrator has a specific responsibility to review every Wikipedia policy for changes: every day? every week? every three weeks? every six weeks? every three months? What's the right balance between staying current on policy changes while not simultaneously spending so much time scanning for policy changes that you never have any time left to actually be an administrator? I frankly couldn't give a flying fig what you think of any individual Wikipedia editor as a person, but against my better judgement I am kind of curious what you figure to be the quantifiable benchmarks that an administrator has to pass. Bearcat 09:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In cases where your action may be controversial reviewing the policy before taking action is always prudent. FeloniousMonk 14:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"any reverts count"

Per the page history on the 3RR policy page, that criterion was added on April 18, 2006 by William M. Connolley. I can find no evidence that he ever sought or established any consensus to add this new clause to the policy; it did not exist on April 17, and I absolutely do not accept that being unaware of an unannounced and non-consensual rule change that's a grand total of six weeks old constitutes any sort of failing on my part.

I've been a Wikipedia administrator for well over a year, and acted exactly in accordance with the rules as they've stood as long as I've been an administrator — and I absolutely reject any notion that I had any responsibility to act otherwise.

And furthermore, until I see some indication that there was a consensus to add this to the policy, I am not obliged to accept it as binding.

I will not discuss this any further. Bearcat 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if you choose to ignore that part of the policy, or all of it. FeloniousMonk 03:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not into ignoring policy. I'm into ensuring that policy as written is actually based on legitimate consensus rather than one person's individual agenda. If you don't understand the difference, that's really not my problem at all. Bearcat 09:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering how many have that policy on their watchlists, the fact that the policy stood unchallenged for months shows that there is consensus. FeloniousMonk 14:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Question on sourcing

I noticed your most recent edit to Intelligent Design as citing references from wikisource. I'm unfamiliar with wikisource; I assume it's a wikimedia foundation website? Is it considered acceptable to use wikisource as a source in a wikipedia article, i.e. is it considered reliable? On the one hand, I think: why have a site called "wikisource" except to provide known reliable sourcing for wikipedia? On the other, I think: wikisource allows anyone to edit; doesn't that mean it can't be considered a RS, for the same reason that another wikipedia article is not considered a RS?

Please don't see this as opposition. I'm not an ID supporter nor do I have a problem with your edit. I'm just curious about wikisource. Kasreyn 05:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers my question. :) Kasreyn 05:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A funny one

Hi FM, I see you did a partial reversion of my self-revert, in effect re-instating and somewhat sanctioning language I endorse and Francis opposes as not having reached consensus. Someone else then ran with the ball and made this edit. Although I much appreciate your support of the sentence ("Returning a critical sentence to the new language") you may want to revert back to my last version, which seems to be the current consensus version at WP:NPOV. FWIW, I have a proposal pending here which you may want to endorse, improve, or shoot down in flames. :-O AvB ÷ talk 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The War on Science

Talk:Evolution#Add a "google video" link of evolution science provides a handy link to BBC Horizon's The War on Science which provides a nice documentary and lots of quotes on ID up to the Kitzmiller verdict. ..dave souza, talk 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

arbcomm

wats an arbcomm?--The Nation 05:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

arbitration commitee??--The Nation 16:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

your removal of the unbalanced template at human

Please revert your unilateral removal of the unbalanced template from the Human article. I strongly object to the unbalanced intro to the article. Specifically, the lack of any perspective other than that of the natural sciences in the first paragraph. — goethean ॐ 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kent Hovind article

You reverted some of my changes to the Kent Hovind article as a "whitewash." I'm confused by this. Please discuss your changes on the talkpage. Thanks. --JChap 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments on template discussion

Hi FM -- I really like and appreciate your work on ID-related articles. In the recent discussion on deletion of a template that I placed on category:Pseudoscience, you wrote: "Also, templates created to further a particular POV is a misuse of templates." My comments from that page: Since I created it, I can tell you that this template was not created to further a particular POV. It was created to help readers be aware of disputes, as I said above, and it parallels an already existing template that hasn't been deleted. Other editors have argued that category:Pseudoscience is inherently a POV category. WP:CF says "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category", but in practice this is sometimes ignored. I'm fine with the argument that there are better ways to alert readers and editors to disputes. I'm not fine with having my motivations gratuitously questioned. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Zer0faults and Nomen Nescio

I too have been involved greatly in the discussion that they have, and I disagree that Zer0 is harassing Nomen Nescio. Nomen has had poor tactics in getting accrossed points, and while he is looking to help, he often has not because of this. When I made Wikipedia:WOT, he edited it several times to misrepresent the issue it was discussing. I, and Zer0 as well, reverted his edits there. Nomen and Zer0 both broke the 3RR rule, and both were blocxked for 6 hours. This incident was 2 days ago (I think) and was noted by you, as an example of harassment. Yesterday Nescio didnt come on, however we reached a consensus, with the help of GTBracchus, on the issue of including the Iraq War in the War on Terrorism (no small task). As stated, he didnt come on yesterday, but today he did, and began to revert all of the edits to the articles related to the consensus. GTBracchus, and zer0 both told him to discuss the issue on a talk page, and I also asked Nomen to do this as well, rather than restart a revert war. He did not do this, though he did eventually stop reverting (he didnt exceed 3RR here). He then went back into the talk page, and brought back an old RFC that had previously been archived. Zer0faults edited the descriptions in this that were misleading of the issue, including a misrepresentations of the polls. Here, I beleive that Nomen exceed 3 reverts, reaching 4. I reverted once, because I too disagreed with his misrepresentations of the polls. I would not call this incident harassment, because we all have been working in similar areas. I think a more effective way of handling this may be to talk to Nomen, and again, try and get him back to the discussion table. If he just reverts stuff and gets into edit wars, or a war of words (calling zer0 and I zealots) it will not help anything as likely it would result in blocking. Rangeley 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out but this seriously misrepresents the facts. First no consensus was reached,[19] second archiving an ongoing RFC is rather poor taste. Since the debate is ongoing I fail to see why comments in that debate should be deleted. Last, I only corrected you false statements regarding any previous discussion and I pointed out where people could find that discussion. All that was deleted since apparently the previous debates were off-limits.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Noone has ever asked you not to point to the polls. I have asked you to stop interpreting them and to let them speak for themselves. However you decided that a poll that had to do with adding WOT to the infobox instead meant all those people felt the WOT was not part of Iraq, when that is not what all the votes said. Some said since its controversial it should stay out. Hence you were misrepresenting peoples views. I put it back with the votes and the questions that was asked and you reverted that, instead once again attempting to speak for the 10+ people who's votes you were calling. But you cannto speak for them and should not be summarizing 10 votes, some with a paragraph explanation into one single sentence. Its wrong.

Grudge against Nomen? because a user posts NPA and Vandal tags on my user page does not signify a grudge, I would love it if this user would participate in the current discussion, however he has already stated his position is unmoving because of his political views that Bush was wrong, not because factually he US did goto war as part of the War on Terror. I have asked him numerous times what would it take to convince him, or what would he accept as a middleground and my questiosn go ignored, or when the facts are presented and i ask if that convinced him or if he needs more info, that goes ignored. Perhaps you should look at his AN/A AN/I and 3 posts to admin user pages in the last day before you judge who has a grudge with someone. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, the fact someone reverted does not mean there is no consensus. Neither he, nor you has stated any objection to the consensus [20], despite being invited frequently to. Please discuss with us if you have objections. Rangeley 17:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please stop using this editors page. The discussion should remain on the article's page. Thank you for4 cooperating.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Actually, I'd already done a CheckUser, because the sockpuppetry and editing pattern was so obvious. Unsurprisingly, the CheckUser evidence was consistent and strongly suggestive (though not 100% conclusive) with them being sockpuppets of HOTR. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not acceptable since Jayjg is in a conflict of interest. He doesn't even give you the 'evidence' but that's enough for you to act. Forget it, there's no reason for me to register. Maybe next time you won't block someone without 100% certainty, especially if its on the word of someone with a bias. Or maybe youll just block the millions of people who live here and end up blocking a few hundred wikipedia editors in the process.

a few thousand people use the internet cafe I'm in every week. Many of them israeli and arab students. Block all of us why don't you?

these articles mentioned on arab and left wing jewish student email list here. Maybe i should just tell them that all toronto university students not allowed on wikipedia because of you and Jayjg who can't tell difference between 5 million people in this city or thousands of students who use this web cafe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.5.184 (talk • contribs)

FYI

This 3 RR report has not been addressed yet. Tnx. [21] Zeq 15:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And given your questionable behaviour above you would be in a conflict of interest if you acted in response to Zeq's lobbying you, Felonious. Incidentally, the sockpuppet accusation you made above is wrong (Zeq just brought this to my attention)- I would like to see the IP addresses involved. I can assure you that I had no sockpuppet and I would be very surprised if the user you blocked used my IP. My ISP is the largest in Canada so it's possible we have a shared ISP but Jay doesn't even allege that. The likelihood is that the possibility Jay mentions is based on our being in the same country or same city but as there are numerous Wikipedia editors editing Arab and Israeli related articles from Toronto that is hardly a credible reason for a block.

In future you should make Checkuser requests on the Checkuser page rather than ask your friend for a favour, particularly if that friend is involved in a content dispute with the people you are requesting Checkuser for.

I suggest you lift the block on the user in question. Homey 16:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I've just noted the IP address above, 216.249.5.184 - that is not even my ISP - not even close. There is no basis for a block. Homey 16:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Intersting that an "innocent" man goes to such length to proove. The fact that it is a different ISP means nothing. anyone can get access to a different computer or even get more than one ISP. (it is a matter of having diffrent dialers diffrent accounts) the issue to consider is:

1. Is it from the same geographical Area ?
2. Is on on the same subject matter ?

If the answer for #1 is true (which means we have opportunity) and #2 (possibility) we should further at:

1. Is it the same POV ?
2. Is there previous knowledge of wikipedia ?
3. was there a motive for the sockppupet ?

Given all that I would say it is Homey. can be 100% sure No. can be 99% yes. A garmatical analsis should shed more light. Zeq 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

intersting. check this diff [22] and then take a look at each editor that previously edited this article. Click on the user name. Zeq 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Cleancat on Category:Pseudoscience

Hi FM. I saw that you removed the template from this page. I and other editors had raised NPOV concerns about the reflected in WP:CG, especially these. That's why it seemed to me that Template:Cleancat applied; I thought such templates were intended to attract discussion. Can you explain where I was mistaken? cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your "NPOV concerns" are caused by you and Hgilbert either not understanding or ignoring what WP:NPOV says about pseudoscience. In the former case the template is misapplied, in the latter it is cynically misapplied. In either case it is being misused. As a pseudoscience proponent your constant angling to disallow certain articles from being included in the category leads me to suspect it's the latter. Either way, you need to acknowledge that WP:NPOV provides for topics to be categorized as pseudoscience as long as a significant portion of the scientific community considers it such. Your constant flogging of this dead horse is becoming disruptive and now that you are aware of the existing policy, you need to move on and find another way to positively contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 18:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

FM, I see you removed my reply, but it wasn't entirely a cross-post. The nonduplicated part said: I've expressed similar NPOV concerns about loose, fuzzy categories on Category talk:Cults, and my history on WP shows I'm anything BUT a cult apologist. I think there are some NPOV problems endemic to categories that are somewhat loose and "fuzzy" (see fuzzy logic). Not meaning to be a pain about it.

OK, I'll reply at Category talk:Pseudoscience regarding WP:CG. Kindly address the content and not the contributor. Your calling me a "pseudoscience proponent" is not helpful, fair or accurate. If a friend of mine were to say he saw some fascistic tendencies in George Bush but didn't think Bush should be categorized as a fascist, I wouldn't go calling him a fascism proponent unless I were sure he was all thumbs-up on Mussolini et. al. Please extend the same courtesy. Cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Double standard

You are clearly displaying a double standard. Zeq can harass me and make dubious complaints in order to persue a vendetta and you indulge him. I post a 3RR complaint hours after a warning posted on SV's page is ignored and then withdraw my complaint after I see there's been a technical glitch and you accuse me of bad faith. Homey 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Homey, you reported me for 3RR after it was obvious there had been an edit conflict/glitch, and even when three editors explained it to you, you continued to press for a block on the grounds that admins should know better than to have accidents; and at one point you appeared to threaten to block me yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Slim you said it must have been an accident. I was dubious of that given "edit conflict" warnings that I expected would have occured and that most people give the accident excuse- it was only after I saw that your interlocuter said he was having the same problems and when he said that he had recieved no edit conflict warnings that I agreed this was a valid excuse. In any case, you ignored my earlier warnings - did not respond or acknowledge them. Homey 18:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"and at one point you appeared to threaten to block me yourself."

In the unlikely even that you said "Yes, you're right, go ahead and block me" I would have. As you neither said that nor accepted my offer of voluntary recusal I left it for other admins to act on the report until I saw ElC's comment that there had been no edit conflict warnings, at which point I decided to withdraw the complaint. Prior to that I believed you had just ignored edit conflict warnings in the same manner that you ignored the warning I left you earlier.Homey 18:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You've been told more than once that I didn't get any edit conflicts. If I had, I would have known someone else was editing at the same time. It was only after someone else said it that you believed it? Valid "excuse"? You're coming across as malicious, vindictive, and small-minded. I will not respond to any "warnings" from you, so you can save yourself the trouble of posting them. Now stop talking to me and stop talking about me, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

HOTR lacks the standing, both moral and administrative, to be issuing any warnings to you on this matter. I encourage you to ignore him and not respond to his threats. FeloniousMonk 18:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR warnings should not be ignored FM and no one is above them, not you and not SV and you were wrong to respond to a 3RR warning with abuse just as SV was wrong to ignore a 3RR warning. Wikipedia is not a place for private factions that apply the rules when it suits them, ignores them when it doesn't, and whose principal rule is to defend other members of the faction. Homey 18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying 3RR warnings should be ignored. I'm saying saying your 3RR warnings should be ignored. You lack the moral and administrative standing to be issuing them to SV. The former because you're a chronic violator of 3RR having been blocked 5 times recently for it (2 of them by me), the latter because you've been involved in a personal conflict with SV and thus are unable to carry out your threat. Now drop this and move along; SV has told you to stop following her around and badgering her, and I'm not going to be further drawn in to your inability to play nicely with others. FeloniousMonk 19:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this topic heading is one I opened, SV came to it latterly so if anyone is "following anyone around" it's her following me. Secondly, if someone violates 3RR, was warned, and continues to block it doesn't matter who warned them they are still in violation and still blockable. Third, your block, as I recall, was overturned but you ignored the objections of other admins and reapplied it so you are following your own agenda. The same was going to happen to your second block but I asked people to leave it alone since it wasn't worth getting into a fight over. Again, please stop acting as if you are a member of a faction where loyalty to faction members trumps the rules. Homey 19:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice spin! FeloniousMonk 19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Spin was you claiming I followed SV here when I posted first and she posted in reply to me.Homey 19:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, you have not replied to the query at the top of this topic section - why do you accuse me of bad faith when I acted after a warning and withdrew after it became clear there were no "edit conflict" messages yet you do not accuse Zeq of the same when he posted three sequential edits as three reverts and did so *after* it was pointed out to him that his 3RR was invalid because the 4 alleged reverts did not occur in a 24 hour period? Is it because Zeq is a friend of your friends and deserves special consideration? If so, stop acting as if you are in a faction. Homey 19:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear you have to have the last word. FeloniousMonk 19:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, understand that with every sniping, bickering comment you post, you undermine yourself, not the person you're attacking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

SV, I want to make it clear that FM has no authority to respond to future complaints by Zeq since he is in a conflict of interest and since Zeq has shown a pattern of making specious complaints. FM's factional loyalites to Zeq and to you do not override this. I am in a conflict of interest in regards to FM so I have not blocked him for his 3RR violation but the same applies to FM so if Zeq makes any more complaints FM should leave it to other admins to respond to them. He does not have the moral authority to act as Zeq's hitman (or yours). Homey 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've no relationship with Zeq, and only a professional one (she was the nominator in my RFA) with SV. Outside of this conversation on this page today, I've no interaction with you other than to block you, which I will not hesitate to do again should you continue to violate the project's policies. Coming to my talk page and disrupting it with a debate with SV, which I asked you to stop, then citing that disruption as evidence that I have a conflict of interest that precludes me taking action when you transgress isn't going to wash. I've asked you once to move on - any further comments from you will be deleted. FeloniousMonk 21:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey!?!

I've only just realised (from your comment on 3RR) that HotR is an admin. Weird or what. In fact I was rather doubtful that he was... till I see he has just deleted his own page. Mind you I still can't find Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HOTR William M. Connolley 22:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Because he used to be AndyL? can;t find that either... William M. Connolley 22:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

His original Request for adminship can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AndyL.09 his second one can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=4211483&oldid=4211273 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins&oldid=5081379#User:AndyL --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR Violation

Your most recent revet on the Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias is your 4th in 24 hours. Please self-revert it, or you will be reported for violating 3rr. Isarig 03:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I only count 3; reverting simple vandalism [23] never counts as a revert toward 3RR vios. FeloniousMonk 03:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, FM is right - I only see 3 reverts that count towards the 3rr. Guettarda 04:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My deletions

MusicalLinguist and PinchasC, thank you for restoring the posts I inadvertently deleted. I'm having problems at the moment with an out-of-control mouse. It keeps highlighting text either in front of or after where I set my cursor, then when I start to type, it deletes everything that's highlighted, and sometimes I don't notice. I'll try to find a way to get it fixed. It's something in my preferences probably but I can't figure it out. Sorry for vandalizing your talk page, FM. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design copyedit

I apologize for the length of this comment. Since our recent exchanges have been rather terse, I felt a need to explain in detail why your recent repeated reverts at intelligent design have been unreasonable.

You have reverted a number of my recent changes with the edit summary "rv all recent edits by Silence. There was only mild consensus for one single change, lack of response to proposed changes is not consent". The problem here is that by this logic, 99% of all edits on Wikipedia would need to be reverted, because even "mild consensus" is a rare thing for editors to take time to build up, especially for minor stylistic and grammatical edits like the ones I have been making.

You see, the fact that there is a lack of an elaborate consensus-determining straw poll, or something of the sort, approving my copyedits is insufficient, on its own, to justify repeatedly reverting edits which several users have endorsed and supported, and which a grand total of 0 users have thus far objected to any aspect of. In fact, even you have yet to cite a single specific problem anywhere in my recent edits to the page, and I strongly suspect, based on your correspondence thus far, that you have not taken the time to actually read most (if any) of what I actually changed to the page.

For continually reverting a large number of edits (almost to the point of edit warring at this point) to be justified, you need more justification than simply "lack of response to proposed changes is not consent"—by that logic, almost all edits that have ever been made to Wikipedia ought to be reverted, since most edits have never been explicitly responded to. The key distinction is that there needs to be some sort of problem, some flaw or error or fault, in the actual edits, or at least the assertion that there is a specific problem. Thus far, there is none whatsoever. Your reverts are based on your own silence, and your silence is based on your reverts. I have requested on numerous occasions to simply discuss the matter in a civil and productive way with you, wherever you prefer, and you have ignored or evaded all of my attempts to open up a dialogue over the copyedits I've been making (or trying to make!). I find this counterproductive. If you have an issue with the edits, then simply say why and we can talk it over. Refusing to communicate except through your repeated reverts' edit summaries is not helpful.

Incidentally, your claim that I am basing my edits on nothing but "lack of response to proposed changes" is patently false. Certainly I have gotten no objections to anything specific about my copyedits in the last 48 hours since you first reverted my edit. But I have gotten several endorsements: User:Jim62sch, despite our recent arguments, was kind enough to say on my Talk page that "Some of today's edits look pretty good. Others I need to think about." User:Kenosis has also been understanding and supportive, after we worked out the misunderstanding which led to the reverts of my copyedits earlier. User:Kasreyn specifically said "For what it's worth, I looked over your copyedits and found nothing objectionable." So I've gotten a number of neutral and positive responses, and 0 specific complaints or criticisms regarding any aspect of the recent copyedits to the text of intelligent design. You have no leg to stand upon in claiming that I have received no positive responses, I'm afraid.

If you want to discuss my changes, I recommend that you actually take the time to look at them and specifically criticize various aspects of them which you object to, rather than continuing to blindly revert them on the mistaken assumption that anything new must necessarily be worse than what's already in place. I'm fully willing to compromise on and discuss any aspect of them which you find objectionable, but I'm not going to jump through hoops for weeks to get uncontroversial, simple, everyday copyedits that noone has objected to individually approved, one comma splice and broken wikilink at a time.

WP:OWN ("You agreed to allow others to modify your work here. So let them.") is official Wikipedia policy, and I would expect as experienced, dedicated, and talented an editor as you to be more familiar with it than you've recently demonstrated. :/ -Silence 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Obliquely accusing me of article ownership is a facile way to discredit me, but last I checked you've been reverted a number of times by a number of different editors there in your various attempts to force your mass rewrite of the article without consensus or discussion.

It's your method that's the problem there, Silence. I actually agree with many of your points. You shouldn't assume that no one responding to all your proposals after 36-48 hours indicates consent. There has been ongoing discussion there of the first of your proposed changes, with the result being there was only mild consensus for a possible edit of that first point. It was still being discussed when you decided to rewrite almost the entire article. Taking that to mean that you can yet again force in a massive rewrite of many points and it should not be reverted is what's causing your problems there, not me or Jim, or Kenosis, or Kaseryn or anyone else.

Dumping a laundry list 7 or 8 paragraphs long on us of what you think needs to be changed and expecting us here to sort through it in a day or two is ridiculous. One-point-at-a-time is the way it is properly done. The absence of response to all proposed changes is not consent. And it's not surprising considering your method of huge proposals. I'll be happy to continue considering and discussing each of your points as I have, but your going to have to abide by consensus and work with the present long term editors there since none of your proposed changes addresses glaring factual errors, rather matters of nuance and style. FeloniousMonk 15:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark

This case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:1938 Horch 853A.PNG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1938 Horch 853A.PNG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. 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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, well thanks for clearifying the source thing, however. That leaves us with a license problem. If that Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance tag you added is acurate (is that a template by the way? I could not find it anywhere) it describes a unfree non-commercial only type license, licenses that are restricted to {{noncommercial}} use only may not be used on Wikipedia[24] except maybe as fair use. They conflict with the GFDL license that state that our content may be used for commercial purposes, the educational use restriction is also not compatable with the GFDL since it limits who can use the image. The current {{No rights reserved}} tag is clearly not right, so please sort out this and any other images from this source or with simmilar restrictions you may have uploaded ASAP. They may qualify as fair use if used in the proper context, but we can not leave them tagged as "free use for any purpose" if they are in fact restricted to non-commercial educational use only. --Sherool (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'll sort through it and get it fixed. It's not a template, just code, but I followed the {{TIME}} template as an example. FeloniousMonk 01:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Email

Hello : - ) Look for an email from me. FloNight ^talk 17:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Godless

I would appreciate it if you didn't say that Coulter insists that intelligent design is a science, in a discussion of a chapter where she specifically doesn't do that, and where that fact is pointed out in the article.

You changed the plain meaning of a sentence that, IMHO, provides useful elaboration of the fact that, in this chapter at least, Coulter argues that evolution has aspects of a religion, without claiming that intelligent design is a science. When I wrote that sentence, I was hoping that no judgment or POV would be conveyed about either. That's why the quotes around the two words. The sentence formerly read:

Though the chapter is about evolution theory as a "religion," not about intelligent design as a "science," it ends by comparing the two:

It now reads:

While portraying evolution theory as a "religion," Coulter insists intelligent design is legitimate science:

This is a different meaning than what I intended, and it puts words in Coulter's mouth.

Unlike Coulter, I am agnostic as to evolution vs. intelligent design. I know POV when I see it, and I work hard to keep my edits POV-free. If you think that there is a POV in the sentence as originally written, I would very much like to hear why, so I can avoid such things in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lou Sander (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry I didn't sign my comment. I returned because I noticed something more... I inserted [sic] into her quoted words because 1) it kind of disputes these guys as "scientists," and 2) though she is not claiming they are scientists in this chapter, she did use the word in this sentence. I'm pretty sure that she uses the term "creation scientists" as a generic name for these dudes, as do many other people, even those who disagree with them.

I also noticed that you've deleted the word "evolutionist" from the description of the arguments. While I can appreciate your opinion that it is a POV word, it DOES link to an article on evolution which defines the word in a NPOV way. There are disagreements between creationists and the other side about the matters enumerated in the quotation. IMHO, it's POV only to refer to them as creationist arguments. All of the enumerated matters were advanced by evolution scientists (or whatever is an acceptable word for them) long before the c.s. guys were even born. Could you accept evolutionist (with the link) as a term for those to whom Coulter was referring? Lou Sander 18:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Email

Made changes. [25] Look for email for more discussion. FloNight ^talk 01:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Resent email. Looking for response. : - ) FloNight ^talk 06:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias

Hey Felonious - it looks like something ugly happened with your last edit to Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias. The last part of the article was truncated. Given the heated debate I was worried it might be misinterpreted. Ucanlookitup 02:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

looks like Korny O'Near took care of it Ucanlookitup 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Time wounds all heels

I hadn't heard this before - I'm still laughing.[26] Banno 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33

Look, I realise that a lot of his behaviour in the past has been unacceptable, and I agree that he deserved the initial block he got. There was nothing that another week block was going to achieve, however, apart from removing any chance he might turn out to be a good editor given time. I thus told him to cool it, and gave him a chance to correct his behaviour. I really do see no benefit in continuing this current block, so I'm going to unblock once again, but I promise you that if he continues his past conduct, I will not object to a reblock. Rebecca 23:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I said I'd have no objection reblocking if he continued the same behaviour. In the last 24 hours, he hasn't made a single useful edit to article space, keeps trying to deny the sockpuppets he's been caught red-handed using, and has spent the whole time trying to continue harassing various users he's clashed with. In general, I think it can be helpful with some people to give them the opportunity to cool down and save face, and I can't see that any harm has been done by giving Giovanni33 that opportunity. However, he has patently blown that opportunity, and in my opinion, he's asking for a prompt community ban if he keeps this up. That said, I wonder if it might be an idea to back off dealing with this guy personally, as you're obviously fairly emotionally involved. Rebecca 14:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest. Rebecca 15:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Without a usercheck (showing the same area, not the same IP), I wouldn't jump toe the conclusion that he's Deuteronomy2000. (Though I've no hesitation in saying that Deuteronomy is a sockpuppet who could be licitly blocked, having created the account specially for the purpose of making a bogus report.) I wondered was Deuteronomy a sockpuppet of Isarig, but with absolutely no knowledge of the background, I wouldn't want to smudge Isarig's good name. Giovanni has a history of sockpuppetry, as we all know. A single 3RR report, which follows certain wording conventions, is not a good test case for identifying puppets without IP evidence. However, I would say the the revert of my removal of the invalid report from a sockpuppet was disruptive, and was motivated either by the fact that the report was about someone who had blocked him or that it was removed by someone who had originally discovered his sockpuppetry. I note that Giovanni, since returning, has claimed here and here that the IP edits only happen when he gets "unintentionally" logged off. I don't think this, made while his user name was blocked, was due to an unintentional logging off. Indeed, it's obvious from this that he intended to log off. Anyway, in my view, there are so many obvious puppets, that we don't need to accuse him of doubtful ones. AnnH ♫ 15:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Hey Felonious. Do you have any comment on why you think the newer version is a disimprovement? I'm actually quite surprised "we can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea" is being defended by people given how it contradicts neutrality. I was actually anticipating an initial revert but was hoping people would offer a comment at the same time. Cheers, Marskell 15:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33

I've pulled your block of Giovanni33 agreed to stay away from chrisitiaity articles which appear to be the cause of the problem.Geni 15:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

he has said that he is going to stop the behaviour you are complaining about as well. If not I'll just block him again.Geni 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Reblocked for 1 week. Not sure what to do next.Geni 15:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the only solution here is going to be WP:RFArb  :( Wikibofh_(talk) 16:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that with an RfArb, evidence can be given by private e-mail, can't it? There's so much evidence of puppetry that it would take weeks to comb through all of it, but obviously, once he knows what the evidence is, he'll just know what to avoid next time. So posting evidence with diffs on an RfC seems a very bad idea, and filing an RfC without diffs is also a bad idea, although there's lots of publicly-available evidence of his disruption, editwarring, tendency to say things that are untrue, and proven WP:SOCK violations; it's just the more recent puppetry cases that don't have publicly-available evidence. He didn't know about userchecks, so he got caught. But now, he knows not to post from the same IP with two different accounts. He has this habit of saying (lower case) "hehe" at the end of a sentence (after the full stop). See this edit, where he's pretending not to know BelindaGong (later acknowledged to be his wife), or this one, from his IP, where he says that "there is no basis to supress this section other than the fact the Christians don't like to talk about their origins. hehe", or this one, when edit warring with Timothy on my talk page. Then see this one from MikaM. After I was stupid enough to draw attention to it, no puppet ever said "hehe" again, though he still does.

We used to comment on the fact that his suspected puppets all had redlinked names, and then the more recent ones began to make an edit to user page (first edit), to user talk page (second edit) and then sail straight into the editwarring. Most genuine new users don't even know they have a user page. And they don't know how to revert either. Then, I pointed out that Kecik had 27 reverts to Gio out of 29 article edits, and he made three small edits to articles that Gio wasn't editing at (after nearly four months of doing NOTHING but support and revert to Gio). Professor33 also made a very small number of edits to articles that Gio wasn't editing, while making his puppetry obvious by showing up at Str1977's talk page to join in a dispute and tell Str why Gio was right and he was wrong. And Mika, last night, made two edits to articles with no connection to Gio. So anything that he learns about how to become better at puppetry will be eagerly seized upon and put into practice. In my view, this is something the ArbCom needs to deal with.

By the way, I'm not convinced that Deuteronomy2000 is Giovanni. I don't think either of them has any justification for being indignant, though, because Deuteronomy is obviously a puppet of somebody, and Giovanni has shown that he is not above using puppets. AnnH ♫ 16:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both your analysis and reasoning - and yes, Arbcom has been known to take evidence via email. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not about to get too involved, except to object to this "secret evidence" business. I understand your reasoning, but I think G33 has a right to question or refute the accusations being made against him, especially if this goes to arbcom. ^^James^^ 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by email to the arbcom is also shared with the other party to allow them to defend themselves. FeloniousMonk 17:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, but then there's no need for it to be secret. ^^James^^ 17:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed. You are assuming that any information made public at large cannot harm the community or any of the parties involved. There are a number of reasons why it might be better kept confidential. In addition to WP:BEANS, there are a number of other situations where it would be detrimental to make evidence public. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to this particular case. Ann wants to keep the evidence secret from Giovanni33. I should add that Giovanni was blocked before on the basis of this "secret evidence", and I don't agree with that either. If you are going to use evidence as the basis for a block, the accused should be allowed to examine that evidence. ^^James^^ 00:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

He was never blocked based on secret evidence. I've seen the evidence (after my first block) and it's nothing earth shattering, but ML's rationale is perfectly reasonable. This isn't a criminal court, we get to use common sense. My second block was simply a WP:3RR block and didn't require anything else, and that was its only basis. Wikibofh_(talk) 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I think "secret evidence" sets a dangerous precedent, and is contrary to wikipedias spirit of openness, trumping ML's rationale imho. But this is a tangent, so I'll drop the issue, as my original concern has been addressed. ^^James^^ 02:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jones

I would like to try unblocking Jerry Jones. I have been in email correspondence with him and think he might work out. Mostly we just discussed the edit warring over political labels. He maintains this edit [27] was just a error and did not intend to remove it permanently. Fred Bauder 13:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

hello

Your name came up in conversation with another admin. I like to cite sources and research articles for accuracy. I'd like your opinion, please, on the article Dissident Voice , if you have the time. Thanks. Oh by the way, please respond here. Ste4k 14:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

reply

Hi FeloniousMonk. I replied to your statement with another question here. Hope you don't mind replying. Thanks! Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 16:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the attack?

"Marskell's point is the same point raised time and again by pseudoscience proponents here and at the relevant articles...is exactly what we've seen in all of the proposals from that faction so far"? [28] I didn't know I was a member of a faction and if I am it's certainly has nothing to do with pseudoscience. If you recall the one time I dealt with you (an RfC) it was in an attempt to defend the place against such nonsense. You should avoid off-hand accusations. Marskell 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 recommendation

I've made a recommendation regarding User:Giovanni33; I'd appreciate it if you would comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Giovanni33 again. Regards, Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jones

I am unblocking Jerry Jones so he can participate in the dialog at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jerry_Jones_and_CongressRecords. Please join this conversation. Fred Bauder 11:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Sonofzion

I have lifted the block on User:Sonofzion as the allegation of sockpuppetry against him/her is false. If you were alleging that s/he was my sockpuppet you should have contacted me (indeed, that you accused the alleged sockpuppet but not the alleged sockpuppeteer is unusual). You also should have used the checkuser request page rather than ask Jayjg who is in a conflict of interest. As it happens, the user's ip address of User:216.249.5.164 which I assume is supposed to be Sonofzion as you also blocked that user with the same accusation, is not my IP address. If you wish to reimpose the block I will not get into a wheel war over it but I advise you to follow proper procedure in the future. Homey 15:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated the block. I found the evidence User:Sonofzion is compelling, and none of it had anything to do with Jayjg. What evidence do you have that establishes that Sonofzion wasn't you? I'd like to see it. The only conflict of interest here is you unblocking your own alleged sockpuppet. Letting accused sockpuppeteers decide on whether to unblock their sockpuppets is a clear conflict of interest. Your participating in the ongoing discussion at User talk:Sonofzion belies your claims here.

Proper procedure was followed. With your extensive history of being blocked for violating policy, you'd be the last admin to be lecturing anyone on what constitutes proper procedure, but thanks anyway.FeloniousMonk 16:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You did not use the user check page. Nor did you inform me that you were accusing me of sockpuppetry or were blocking an alleged sockpuppet of mine. As for my "paticipation" at User talk:Sonofzion that is several weeks after the fact and only after it was drawn to my attention by User:Zeq. Homey 16:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop wasting your time and mine. FeloniousMonk 16:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"What evidence do you have that establishes that Sonofzion wasn't you? I'd like to see it"

The fact that I have never used that IP or anything close to it. The only thing you found "compelling" was Jayjg's say so so it's not legitimate to say your block had nothing to do with him, particularly since you only implemented it after he made his claim to you.Homey 16:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's my IP address. 72.60.226.29 16:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Homey 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Positive identification through IP address is easily skirted. I didn't need to use checkuser; viewing the edit history of the Sonofzion (talk · contribs) account it's clear a sockpuppet account. Comparing it to your account for the same time period, 22-23 June, and it's clear whose sockpuppet account it is. I never discussed the Sonofzion account with Jayjg, so you're more than a little bit off base here. FeloniousMonk 16:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how Jayjg wasn't in a conflict of interest by "interpreting" data for you on a user who had opened an RFC against him and another user he was in a content dispute with? I'm just curious what definition of conflict of interest you could possibly be using?Homey 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Felonious, suspicion is not fact, particularly when we're dealing with a highly contentious article drawing in lots of editors. If you were dealing with an article only a handful of people were editing that would be one thing but not with this article. Anyway, the point is probably moot since odds are the user you banned is either editing anonymously, has opened a new account or has left the project. Homey 16:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

" I never discussed the Sonofzion account with Jayjg, so you're more than a little bit off base here."

Sonofzion claimed on his/her talk page that you were acting on Jayjg's claims.Homey 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I just find it bizarre that if you were so sure you would ban a sockpuppet without telling the person you alleged was the sockpuppeteer.Homey 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I never discussed my blocking of the Sonofzion account with Jayjg; I came to my conclusion independently. Jayjg's comment here to me was made after I'd looked over the account and made up my mind, so I have no opinion or insight about Jayjg's participation other than to say that if he considers you a disruptive contributor he can't be too wrong based on my experience. So please find a more productive way to contribute to the project and stop the time-wasting disruption. FeloniousMonk 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's rather dangerous for you (or rather for Wikipedia) that you confuse having your actions questioned with "disruption". Homey 16:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: your recent diligent work

FM, I appreciate your recent work in further cleaning up the article on Intelligent design movement. ... Kenosis 05:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments

Copied from Arb case workshop:

I appreciate and agree with your reason for proposing this remedy. It should have been worded "Certain administrators" rather than "All involved administrators" I think. Evidence is already on the evidence page makes it clear that neither SlimVirgin or Jayjg used their admin tools in this conflict. If the logs presented by KimVanDerLinde and Zeq are to be believed, then applying this remedy to all involved administrators would be neither accurate nor appropriate is my only point. FeloniousMonk 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you're point is not about me being insane? ; - ) Or what I write is insane, or whatever.

FYI, I did not respond to the completely over the top remedies because they were too ridiculous to address. Removing Jayjg from Arb comm? Too nuts to justify a reply. My purpose was educating some of the outside commenters that were saying the admins must have harsh sanctions. Based on the recent Blu Aar case I knew that was wrong.

The only legitimate concern about my remedy is the credibility it might give to sanctioning Jayjg and SV. I don't think that is a valid concern but see why you might think it is.

After I changed my remedy to include Kim van der Linde, she filed an injunction to limit remedies in the case and then went on a wikibreak. Seems nobody likes my mild little remedy! --FloNight ^talk 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to report that you are indeed sane. Please report immediately to Wikipedia Ward B for reprogramming.

If no one seems to like what you're doing, you're probably doing something right. FeloniousMonk 03:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Shh! Caught being sane and right likely to jeopardizes my membership in the rouge administrator cabal. I'll be more careful in the future. FloNight ^talk 12:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Piping to the mainstream

Thanks for piping to Scientific consensus, which is what mainstream scientific views are. [29] I should have looked a little harder to find that myself. I've learned about the diff tool, but searching is still hard. :-) --Wing Nut 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Use Google site search, much better than the Wikipedia search. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I still banned?

--Sonofzion

Feeding and biting

I agree with this: Trolls are not the same Wikipedians who give us food for thought [30]

I see with thanks that the Category:Wikipedians who give us food for thought has been speedily deleted. :-)--Uncle Ed 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)