User talk:The Devil's Advocate/Archive 3

< Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  ... (up to 100)

See here for related revision history

AE comments talknic

Thx for your support.

However, being banned from WP isn't life threatening... LOL. It's obviously a priority for NMMNG though

Judging by the way the Administrators responded before I had an opportunity to make a statement, their minds were already made up.

Collusion? Maybe [1] NMMNG "to put this in terms you will more easily relate to, the people scrutinizing my actions will be my fellow flat worlders."

Merry Xmas ... talknic (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the support. I'm outta here permanently. It's been an interesting exercise. The system reeks of collusion as I suspected from the start and from NMMNG's comment. Write up on the adventure soon at http://talknic.wordpress.com/ ... Good luck with your efforts.

Have a happy New Year

... talknic (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I advise you against taking such an approach. While you are right now not interested in editing further you may change your mind at a later date and any off-wiki activity now could lead to action that would prevent you from returning. Perhaps you should take this time to better acquaint yourself with policy and re-evaluate what about your actions may not have been helpful towards reaching a more satisfactory consensus on the content.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation

Thank you for the integrity you showed in our discussion and also for the efforts to make peace. removing the misleading box on your inappropriate warning. MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I apparently misjudged that action as deserving a barnstar. You continue imposing a false air of authority on other editors. Not a good way for collaborating respectfully and in good faith. May it be a happy and fulfilling New Year. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not remove the template on your talk page because it was inappropriate, but because you asked. Should Jordgette ask that the notification be removed I would have no issue with doing so or Jordgette can remove it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't have put it there in the first place. It's like slapping someone in the face and then saying they could ask you to apologize. It's disrespectful and you are not an uninvolved admin, who should give such an impression of a warning. You're a party to the dispute and you're abusing WP policies as if you have some authority that you don't have. You should remove it yourself and she shouldn't have to ask. A little more respect and courtesy, please. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the nature of your comments here, but all the same if it upsets you that much I will change it. My use of the template was simply to insure that Jordgette is properly reminded of the situation and that there is no question of whether Jordgette was duly warned. Just so you know, I do not really care about barnstars so you can keep it if you like.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

We spent 2 months hammering out the exact wording of this section to reach consensus. Please do not casually disregard what so many editors worked so hard to acheive with your own preferred version of this section. Respect the opinions of others. Nobody agreed with your changes before your ban and I don't think anyone agrees with them now. If you want to make changes, please suggest them on the talk page and get concensus first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You may feel this is an overreaction to your making minor edits to the less contentious part of the new section, and I sympathise with that. I also agree that some copyedits might improve the text. However, the details of the text, and its placement in the article, have been extensively discussed on the talk page, and it is important to contribute with awareness and understanding of that discussion. I suggest making improvements slowly, and incrementally, keeping other editors on board all the way. Geometry guy 21:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no real question of feeling. It is an overreaction. Some of the changes AQFK reverted were changes he explicitly endorsed and others were so minor that any notion that they needed to be discussed is strict to the point of rendering all editing of the article moot. None of the other changes that I made today were ever discussed on the article talk page, with people focusing on the conspiracy sentence and even there part of my proposal did get some support.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A/E thingy

Thank you for your post on my home page. I accept I threw my teddy out of the pram. I do apologise but everytime that guy's name comes up he makes the same accusation and every time I make an edit on a Northern Irelaand related page there appears a "guard" to revert what I've done and I can't edit without either starting an inquisition or being the subject of one (as now). I've only edited two articles which are related to Northern Ireland and I had to stay away from them for ages because of what happened the first time round where my inexperience was used against me. At any rate; thank you for your intervention and kind words. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't be offended, but looking over some of the behavioral evidence in the old SPI it does seem like you either are Thunderer or connected with him in some way. I understand that sometimes people, for whatever reason, start a new account but are unwilling to admit it for fear of what might be done if they did. However, if you are Thunderer it would be better to come forward as such and express a desire to edit according to policy rather than attempting to conceal this as it only makes you look worse. Accept the added scrutiny that often comes with such information and do your best to prove you have earned the privilege to continue contributing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying but there's no point in me pretending to be someone I'm not just to satisfy whatever it is these people want from me. I am not the Thunderer nor do I know him/her. Any resemblance between me and anyone else, alive or dead, is purely coincidental (as they say in the films). Something else I don't do btw is to go through people's contributions to see who it is they resemble. I'm not on here very often and when I do come on all I want to do is pass the time by contributing where I can. Is that so hard for others to understand? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

ACBS "promotion"

I'm trying to see what looks like inappropriate promotion. Just can't see it ... it just seems factual. I guessed it was mentioning the dues (so I removed that). If it still looks off, guidance is needed. Thanks. Steven C. Hayes (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know

Just so you know, I'm implementing a self-imposed interaction ban between you and me. I'm not wasting any more time trying to explain how our policies work to you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Do as you please, but I don't think there is much point in avoiding interaction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:

It's a primary source, in that case, and still one the article should avoid using - Zeitgeist isn't reliable in and of itself, and the source offers no clue as to the relation of it or prominence to the conspiracy theorists. For an analytical view like the article takes, a better source would be a secondary source - an outside analysis of the movie's views and relation to the conspiracy theorist movement. Toa Nidhiki05 22:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There was already a secondary source provided mentioning how conspiracy theorists in Germany cite the Reichstag fire as a historical parallel, my addition of the Zeitgeist movie was just to make it clear this was not a comparison specific to people in Germany and that it had wider acceptance. I do not think it is necessary to note the movie's known popularity with conspiracy theorists in the 9/11 conspiracy article given it is mentioned, albeit briefly, in the article on the movie. Explaining that it is a conspiracist film would be obviously an acceptable addition.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think a secondary source is needed, I wasn't even aware Zeitgeist was popular among Truthers until I read an article a few days ago. It isn't really common knowledge, so a secondary source is not a bad idea here. Toa Nidhiki05 22:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

ScottyBerg

(ScottyBerg says we are SPAs and thus unworthy of his talk page. So, I thought I'd move that little bit of conversation over here, in case you're interested in following up on your question.)

It would indeed appear that Mantanmoreland had Multiple socks operating in support of one another. How do you feel about what Mantanmoreland tried to do here? --Purgedclub (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Who are you and why are most of your contributions since joining yesterday on this page?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of many people who find the Mantanmoreland saga a very compelling one and am interested to see what comes of this latest chapter. Do you, Mr. Advocate, agree that it's odd that ScottyBerg says [2] he was emailed a link to WR when he does not have email enabled on his account, and has not offered it openly? I find it odd that he would mislead us on something like that. Makes me wonder if there might be other things. What do you think? --Purgedclub (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure he was calling you a single-purpose account and that much would be obvious to anyone.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please respond more fully to my comment (on ACBS deletion discussion) about Friman book review

In said discussion, you have misread my citing of the book review by Patrick C Friman - you confined yourself only to what I called an "ironic" circling around of Wikipedia references, while missing my more important points: First, Friman claims a literature search backs up the importance of ACT within the field of contemporary behavior analysis; and second, I claim that a search of the sort Friman describe would also turn up a massive number of author affiliations over a period of some years pointing to ACBS.

So I'd appreciate if you could reread my comment and make a fuller, more useful response - and not simply a negative response, but a constructive one if possible. Do please consider that a professional society such as ACBS, with something like 4,000 or 5,000 members, probably is notable and important within its field; and that for a Wikipedia editor such as yourself, a suitable goal might be to aid rather than hinder efforts made in good faith to add an entry about such a society to Wikipedia. Whole Sight (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited North American Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President Bush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Berg RfC

For the history of my involvement, I suggest you read this in full, including all the links. Cla68 (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why you would expect me to read all that. However, do you still claim to not have an account on WR?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

At that time, I did not have an account on WR. Now, I wholeheartedly invite you to request an account and participate at WR yourself. Now, if you are going to make accusations in the RfC, yes, I do expect you to read all that. It's called knowing what you are talking about. I expect you to do so. So, please, get busy. Read it and follow the links. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Per your request I did just spend several hours going over that material in detail and, just like I thought, it didn't actually do anything to refute the allegations I made. In fact, it did the opposite as you provided evidence that you have a history of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. All the rest of the RfC manages to do is describe what point you are trying to make through disruptive editing. That corruption and abuse of position is rampant at Wikipedia comes as no surprise to me at all, not only from witnessing it myself, but also given that I generally expect it in any organization. You seem to think that is an excuse to meet like with like. As a wise man once said: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Association for Contextual Behavioral Science

I have started a merge discussion at Talk:Acceptance_and_commitment_therapy#Merge_discussion, and will inform the participants of the AfD. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:

To the contrary - my suggestion to shun is entirely appropriate. It is the opinion of myself and several other editors that you are acting wildly disruptive and unilaterally rejecting reliable sources without showing contradictory ones. Shunning is an effective recourse for disruption, and if you weren't disruptive I wouldn't be suggesting it. Toa Nidhiki05 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DA was already topic-banned for 30 days once.[3] It doesn't appear as if he's gotten the mssage. Maybe we need to notify the previous admin or file a request for enforcement. Seriously, enough is enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already suggested to Toa that we take the particular question of this category to an appropriate venue for dispute resolution. Would either of you support bringing this question of the category to DRN?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, as there is a clear consensus against it and the sources used are all confirming of the category. You are the only one actively holding it up and one dissenter is not enough for DR - it is enough for a topic ban for disruption for you, perhaps, but not for DR. Toa Nidhiki05 00:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Two other editors have objected to this position. Just because they are not being as vigorous in defending that position does not mean their views are less important. Please, rescind your suggestion for other editors to shun me. We should try to settle this amicably.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

DA: This isn't a content issue; it's a conduct issue. WP:DRN doesn't have the authority to issue sanctions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring at 9/11 conspiracy theories

You're already at WP:3RR and you've been edit-warring with different editors for days. Keep in mind that 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement, and even edit wars spread out over multiple days are edit wars. Please stop. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't even notice it honestly. However, the only other reverts in the past few days are of Tom's insertions of material claiming the theories are antisemitic.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You missed breaking 3RR by 27 minutes:

• 15:07, February 7, 2012
• 09:56, February 8, 2012
• 11:33, February 8, 2012
• 15:34, February 8, 2012

You're still edit-warring. Please, stop. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting an edit is not a revert.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom added a mention of Princess Diana conspiracy theories and you removed it. That's a revert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I honestly do not consider it a revert to remove part of a change as part of a rewrite unless that change is somehow important or relevant to the material, which the mention of Princess Diana was not.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, a revert is undoing any action of another editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, my intention was that the removal would only be temporary anyway until I could find a more appropriate place to put it. If you can think of such a place it would be appropriate I would be happy to reinsert it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, nobody can tell what you're thinking. Since you were already at 3RR, you could have just started a discussion on the talk page and wait to see what others think. If the suggestion is good, others will agree. If it's not a good idea, people won't agree. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@TDA: It doesn't seem you realize how tendentious you've been on this topic. The RS highlights the Princess Diana conspiracy theory in the stated context. You've given no reason why you think it's inappropriate or should be moved elsewhere. It seems like a POV trying to override a reliable source that you don't appear to like. Same with the anti-semitism. No matter how neutral you seem to think or claim you are, what you're doing is no less a pushing of an opinion than what you perceive others to be doing. Perhaps you need to step back and accept that this is the present community consensus. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are misjudging the dispute. No one has insisted on mentioning Princess Di theories in the lede and I doubt anyone is going to seriously suggest they should be since they have no real significance to the subject of 9/11 conspiracy theories. As far as the antisemitism dispute, there is nothing tendentious about saying that an entire group should not be slandered on the basis of what a small minority believe. That is why we have policies like WP:UNDUE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand the dispute. Princess Di and Bin Ladden were mentioned in the lede only as examples of theories that are believed co-jointly by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. It seems perfectly alright to make such a mention in the lede, yet you removed it. You are up against 6 or 7 editors who don't agree with you about the antisemitism. You would at least need a good RS (not your own OR) that states antisemitism is a minority view within that group. Nothing available suggests it yet. Until then, you're battling for your opinion and are outnumbered. You need to let this go (get out of the bunker) so the tension diffuses. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"my position should be ignored is just uncivil"

The reason why editors are getting frustated is that won't let anything go. You just keep arguing. Yes, discussion is good. But it should be obvious to you by now that most other editors don't agree with you. State your case in handful of posts. In the "Conspiracy theories involving Jews" discussion alone, you have 24(!) different posts. Holy cow! If that were me, and most everyone disagreed with my idea, I would have dropped after 2 or 3 posts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is plenty I have let go. However, on these matters I have almost always had at least one noteworthy backer, if not more. Bearing the load of discussion for them is not doing anything inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to let go a lot sooner. In that discussion, me, Toa Nidhiki05, JoelWhy, The Hand That Feeds You, TFD and Jayjg are all disgreeing with you. The only one's agreeing with you are Ghostofnemo and Wayne and they let go after a post or two. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You missed Cptnono, who took the step of trying to remove the category. Do not presume that those editors just dropped their opposition. Sometimes people do not feel the need to weigh in if they think it is being handled by someone else or maybe they just have, you know, some real-life obligations they need to be more concerned about.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Invitation

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Hello, The Devil's Advocate. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help improve Wikipedia articles considered by others as based upon notable topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

reverting my edits

no problem, revert ahead as long as you revert back so promptly =) --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A post you removed

Re: this post, do you have any old enemies? Do you know what this user was referring to? If you think this is a now-blocked editor, we can look into it, but with only that edit and one edit to their user page, there's not much to go on. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The only "old friend" I can think of involved in the circumcision article would be Jayjig, but given the current circumstances with another topic area I found it suspicious that a new editor was leaving a message like that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. User:Jayjg? That's not likely. If this happens again, drop me a line, or maybe drop a note at AN. If it's straight-up vandalism (clear personal attacks, for instance), revert and warn, and if that continues it can be handled in the usual (WP:AIV) way. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting Jayjig was responsible for the comment on my page. The comment mentioned "old friends" at that article and so I thought the only possibility is that it was a reference to Jayjig. Perhaps the editor who left the comment here has some sort of beef with Jayjig, presuming it was not simply meant as an implied insult.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. After I hit "save" I started thinking that's maybe what you meant; thanks for clarifying. My offer to help stands: drop me a line if you think you're being trolled. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your name...

I just noticed your name on one of the pages I have watch listed and hafta say that I love it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When I saw Negro Romance on NPR, I thought, "That is the most interesting thing I have heard all week." Pawsplay (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

pawsplay here

Hi. You wrote: I looked over some other articles you created and have some comments. Raymond's Bar-B-Que Cafeteria appears to even less notable than Sal's Pizza. The only news source I could find in a Google News Archive search is a trivial mention of people talking about an old school building with the mention being a meeting some alumni had about it at the restaurant. You probably should request that it be deleted.

At one time I was working on covering the BBQ cuisine of Dallas in some detail. For some people, Raymond's and the previous incarnations of that restaurant virtually embody bbq. Unfortunately, that project has stalled out. I'm reluctant to delete it, simply because I think BBQ-in-Dallas is a very interesting topic, but as you note, sources have been hard to find. Perhaps a more general "bbq in Dallas" article would be more useful, if I can find some secondary sources that say something interesting.

The Dixie House Cafe appears to suffer from an odd, but separate issue, in that you are referring to two separate restaurants. One appears to be a mom-and-pop Fort Worth chain with five locations, all in Fort Worth area, that would suffer somewhat similar problems as the Sal's article. The other appears to be a single location in East Dallas that was part of a now defunct chain. I redirected that to the appropriate name and removed the mistaken mentions. I have an idea about what to do about the Dixie House page itself, but it involves a bit of extra work and it is really late so that is probably going to wait.

It might fare better as part of the Black Eyed Pea article, but that will take some rewriting to make it fit.

On a final note I redirected the page Imitation cheese to Cheese analogue given the two terms are used interchangeably, but there do appear to be some issues as the analogue article focuses on vegan cheese, as opposed to imitation cheese in general. Not sure exactly how to approach that, but I think cheese analogue is the more encyclopedic term.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I specifically created the imitation cheese article because the cheese analogue article covers vegan cheese substitutes. Both are cheese substitutes, but whereas imitation cheese is intended to appear as and replace cheese, cheese analogues are culinary replacements that do not pretend to be cheese and may have their own culinary properties. The categories may overlap somewhat. An example of imitation cheese is the stuff regularly served at salad bars, which is designed to not sweat, and indeed, won't melt at normal cooking temperatures at all. Kraft Singles are arguably an imitation cheese; although not cheese and never identified as such on the packaging, they are a dairy product that is used instead of sliced cheese and often called cheese. Since Cheese analogue already gets a redirect from Cheese substitute, I think a more robust solution would be to move Cheese analogue to Cheese substitute and make it a part of a larger article with a separate section on imitation cheeses and cheese foods used in place of cheese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawsplay (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Feynman

Pursuant to your comments on the Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates page, I examined the Feynman page but could not locate a source where he explicitly repudiates his Jewish appellation, though you mention "he explicitly resisted being labeled this way".
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and check out the talk page, where there is a discussion about it. I found a source that makes this more clear.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron

I don't know what you have against the Article Rescue Squadron, but repeatedly opening threads against the Article Rescue Squadron in an attempt to get it shut down is just plain disruptive. This latest thread demonstrates your unwillingness to just let the issue lie, arguing that with just a little bit more time it might have turned around. We have had seven discussions on this issue over the course of a month. How much more time do we need to get a clearer consensus. We don't discus an issue indefinitely, just because a single editor doesn't like the final outcome decided by the community. Please, you need to just walk away from this issue and let it go. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What I want is that you people recognize that a group that is dedicated to one thing: insuring articles deemed worthy by its members don't get deleted, leaving messages at a list saying it's notable and should be kept, then allowing those people to go to AfD and vote keep is no different than randomly tracking down every person who you think is likely to vote keep and saying the exact same thing. You are the worst offender in this most recent situation with your attempts to close the second ANI discussion within half and hour and after an editor re-opens it closing it within four minutes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, one of those discussions was just to inform people of another discussion. The other was about a specific user who was making numerous uncivil remarks towards me and refusing to stop.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

mmhmm, and as I recall, that thread was a tremendous waste of time, as it resulted in no administrative action whatsoever. (Odd, that's what I said would happen when I closed it the first time around) As it has been explained to you many times, the Article rescue squadron is not about canvassing. And it has been pointed out that ARS members do !vote delete in discussions if the topic genuinely fails the notability guidelines. If there is a problem with a specific editor canvassing keep !votes, bring that issue up. The ARS as a whole isn't the problem. Trying to get the entire project shut down, just because of one editor is major overkill. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't just one editor by any means. That discussion you are talking about was not allowed to be around for more than 17 hours, much less time than was given the first discussion that lead to the deletion of the rescue tag, which you cite as though it is evidence of impropriety and consensus against me when it is just the opposite. You can say ARS is not about canvassing, but it is kind of like the military isn't about killing. Sugarcoat it all you like, but I can assure you that someone else will raise these issues again without fail.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mhm, if it is indeed a canvass keep machine, then why did you sidestep this question. Looking over the ARS listed articles, there are well organized discussions on the listed articles. And there is no mass-keep canvassing. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't sidestep it. ARS voting keep on obvious keeps and delete on obvious deletes is a non-issue, because their obviousness means the result would probably be the same anyway. Also, how effective canvassing is does not determine whether it is canvassing. Going to a group called the "article rescue squadron" that warns about the loss of valuable article to say a valuable article is facing deletion and needs their intervention is textbook canvassing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Tothwolf (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong section

Sorry, i confused you with someone else. I removed my topic ban vote. Pass a Method talk 17:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

help

Hey man, my name is ryan.

For my research project in english we are looking into the flaws of wikipedia and how people can basically edit what ever they choose. I fell upon the topic of 9/11 since its so goddamn controversial and i have seen your name pop up quite a bit. So in some sense im doing my paper on your comments, and im trying to get a better understand as to why you made those comments and were so big on changing geopolitics to politcal arena.

Anyways if you'd be interested id love to ask you a couple questions which would look great on my paper if i got an actual web interview. My email is ryanksmith1028@gmail.com Feel free to email me at whatever time. Im a college student so every hour is study hour Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.80.170.161 (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss it with me here. I would rather not reveal personal information through an e-mail exchange and am not terribly concerned about people seeing what I say.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I can give you some of the background to the dispute if you like. Here is an article from September on the subject of 9/11 and Wikipedia about how even the inclusion of a link to the page on conspiracy theories was strongly resisted not too long ago. Eventually the link to the article got put in and some time later there was this discussion that led to a proposal where I first became heavily involved in the issue. When I stepped in to insert the consensus proposal after weeks of the conversation being stale I made a change to the first few sentences to improve the wording and ran into opposition from an editor for modifying the wording. Although the dispute over the exact wording of those first few sentences had nothing to do with conspiracy theories, I believe the resistance was just as severe because some editors on a psychological level want to make every change subject to discussion (at least when it comes to certain editors) so as to control the discussion about what gets included in the article. This is a pretty common problem in contentious topic areas where every little change made by one side becomes the basis for edit-warring by the other side. Basically, the real-world partisan divides come to dominate the history of the page and everyone starts arguing about what the meaning of "is" is and it results in editors being unable to make substantial, positive improvements to articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Hey TDA, I just closed the AN discussion related to you and a possible Topic Ban relative to ARS. My read on the consensus of the discussion was:

1. there was probably enough of a consensus to topic ban you flat out
2. but later views started coming in to support the need/desirability of an RfC on the subject.

Thus, I closed the AN report with:

1. A temporary partial topic ban. You are enjoined from initiating any actions relative to ARS with the exception of starting an RfC.
2. During the course of the RfC, you can continue to participate in discussions initiated by others.
3. That the RfC should not be about you, but rather about the issues you and other find problematic to see if we can get a better grip on the issue.
4. At the end of the RfC, the closing admin should review the topic ban and consider expanding it or eliminating it. (The default would be to exapand it. But the RfC should NOT be about you.)

I think this conclusion is based upon the desires of the community and one that you can live with based upon some of your comments during the ANI report. This allows you to continue participation in the discussion through the RfC, but prevents you from being the instigator. NOTE: I am going to add a time frame as well. Said RfC should start within a week, if it doesn't then a full scale topic ban will be applied.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

ARS RFC

Let me know if there's any way I can help in putting together your RFC. I'm hopeful that this process can be of use in addressing any and all concerns w/r/t ARS "canvassing" while not becoming an ill-considered witch hunt. Granted, my hope that this devolving into an angrily-contended screaming match can be avoided is perhaps on the optimistic side of things, but if there's a way to do this without that happening I'm all about helping. Regardless, drop me a line if you think I can assist. Otherwise, I'll just look out for the final RFC and participate there. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing your non-reply indicates a lack of any interest in my input, but in case it doesn't, I'll offer again; and I'll offer again by mentioning that I've looked at the RFC you're working on (I'm very curious about this), and I think you're going off in about 2.5 fundamentally distinct directions -- 1 of which has, as far as I can tell, nothing at all to do with discussing the ARS -- when you really want to be going in 1 direction. I can speak more to that if you wish. But...that is merely my 2 cents, and I won't post anything unsolicited about this on your talk page after this (promise :). Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hatting long discussion at ID

I made two technical mistakes hatting that discussion and think I got it right. I assume by "improper" you mean you don't think it should be hatted. Why not? It's unproductive; the reason for the category has been thoroughly explained, but you and the IP keeping asking/quibbling as if you hadn't read the answers.

Do you know what happened to this comment?

These guys are shameless. It's "we like POV very much, thank you." They say what they say, that DI solely defines what the philosophical content of what ID is, and since DI is so dishonest (which they are) then the teleological concept of what can naturally be labeled "Intelligent Design" is stained by association. What these other well-known physicists and astronomers say about "intelligent design" is simply doesn't count and these editors that own the article are the sole authority of what counts and what does not. They just don't get it. DI and ID are not the same thing. (Added emphasis.) Behe and Dembski are not the only people who get to define or comment on ID. And the fact that this fact (that other authors have referred to the term independently) is censored from the article is evidence of POV, not NPOV.

They're just shameless. Nakedly biased article in tone and in selection of facts. And has been so for at least 5 years. 71.169.183.160 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

DI and ID are not the same thing. This sentence shows that the IP is not getting it. I can't see he will get it with further explanations. Therefore, it's better to hat.

Also, there is no reason to run a RfC since the consensus is that the article fits in the "Denialism" category.

I'm interested in hearing your perspective on this. Yopienso (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

RfCs are for instances where an editor thinks there should be input from outside parties to achieve a more accurate gauge of consensus. My experience at articles like this is that they tend to have a lot of people with the same POV sitting on the article and so "consensus" refers to agreement within such a group, which is not really a valid consensus in the first place. The comments at that page lead me to believe that this situation is no different. Also, I think discussions on the article talk page should not be hatted unless the discussion is somehow off-topic or uncivil.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The RfC I was referring to was the informal one on the article talk page; I notice no one has responded to it but we have all chosen the threaded discussion instead. I'm all for an outside perspective, but I'm thinking you may not approve of the Denialism category itself, which is a whole 'nuther argument. Have you checked it out to see what's in it?

I think you may have missed what we are saying is being denied--evolution. We are not saying that to believe in God is denialism or that God is a fairy tale. I believe in God (Elohim, Jehovah, El Shaddai). We're saying that denying evolution is denialism of the accepted scientific theory. You wrote, "While some editors have argued that this refers to ID's alleged denial of evolution. . ." Why "alleged"? I quoted Behe to you from the DI's website: "Darwinism is false." That is patent denial of evolution.

I agree with Cla88's post of 00:57, 28 February 2012. The first paragraph of the lede is deeply flawed, and probably the tone of the whole article is dismissive editorializing rather than objective presentation of the concept. I haven't read the whole thing at one sitting for a long time, so I'm not sure of that. The first paragraph is very confusing on the identity of the designer, which should not even be brought up there. (ID proponents, though, are themselves two-faced about this point.) This subject is very contentious and I despair of ever seeing a fully objective article. When I'm in Wiki-land, I do as the Wikipedians do--adhere to the 5 pillars.

Also, I hope you've caught on that the specific variety of intelligent design of which this particular article treats is the ID of the Discovery Institute and its affiliates and sympathizers. (Can't think of a better word than sympathizer--follower, maybe; those who agree with and may promote the idea without actually being affiliated. The community church on the corner, for example.) That means everything will focus on the Johnson/Dembski/Behe/et al axis.

Best wishes! Yopienso (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with that category, but the tendency to places categories like that in articles without regard to policy. See WP:CAT where it mentions the need for neutrality in categorization.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree that ID denies evolution? Yopienso (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What I think is that ID can and has been used to refer to beliefs that don't actually question evolution. For instance, the Discovery Institute itself links to a FAQ that states outright that only the claim that evolution occurred without the involvement of an intelligent designer is incompatible with the theory of evolution. In other words, the foremost advocates do not describe this as being about challenging evolution, only about challenging the claim that the process occurred without intervention by an intelligent designer.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a circuitous answer! I was expecting a yes or no. (A yes, actually.) The page you sent me to is interesting because it seems to be written by several people over a considerable time span. ID seems to me like a bat--a bird around birds and a beast around beasts, meaning, sometimes it shows a scientific face and sometimes a supernatural face. (You do realize Uncommon Descent is Michael Behe's blog, don't you? It is, for all practical purposed, the a voice of the Discovery Institute.) I copied this from point 11 on that page: One of the most important results of ID theory is that it effectively falsifies Darwinian theory. Simple question: Does that statement imply ID theory is anti-evolution? Yopienso (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is anti-Darwinian. Typically when people say "Darwinian" they are specifically referring to the idea of natural selection and not evolution as a general theory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Wells defines Darwinism as "the modern theory of evolution," as I said yesterday on the article talk page. Please also see his glossary, and note the disagreement on its definition. From the glossary:

When ID proponents on this site use the term “Darwinism,” they are referring to Neo-Darwinism, also called the modern evolutionary synthesis or Neo-Darwinian evolution (“NDE”), the basic tenants (sic) of which are described in the New World Encyclopedia as follows: and there follows a long description.

You're engaging in sophistry here instead of reasonable dialog. Yopienso (talk) 23:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Interruption

Actually, it has nothing to do with science. It is a political red herring fabricated for the express purpose of teaching religion in public schools. Violating the US Constitution is the only thing "ID" is designed to do. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wha? I never said anywhere that it was about science.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hello. I thought this might be of interest for you: [4], since I mentioned there your recent SPI request. Regards, Grandmaster 17:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. You have new messages at Tuscumbia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tuscumbia (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ARS RfC

You do realize that by only asking people with an historic opposition to the ARS to review your draft RfC on their conduct, you're violating WP:CANVASS at least to the extent you're accusing them of doing, don't you? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That is totally not what WP:CANVASS means by any measure (there is no vote or discussion going on at the moment). Even if it was I also commented to Ginseng who is a member of ARS.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, I would definitely not consider getting my opinion to be equivalent to getting the opinion of someone who wholly supports the ARS. In the past I've wholly opposed them. If you want the opinion of a reasonable person who is predisposed to find almost all of what you've written disagreeable, I'm not that person (did I just accidentally call myself unreasonable?); although I can suggest a few people. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, honestly, I do not see what use I can get out of an opinion from someone like that. My intention is to try and see if I am covering all the bases appropriately or if there is anything I could add to improve the case. That two editors with historic opposition have raised concerns is far more informative than getting the opinion of someone who is probably going to oppose whatever I suggest anyway.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. You have new messages at Snottywong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I just happened to be visiting TParis' page... and responded to your post over there... but I agree with TParis... IMO, the RFC should focus on issues/problems, not specific users. If you focus on specific users, you will probably find a number of views raising issues brought up in the ANI filing and discover yourself in a Boomerang scenario. Plus, I'd rather see the RfC more on the issues than the users.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Methinks you misunderstood. TParis actually suggested focusing on users as opposed to the general issues. Only ginseng has suggested not focusing on a specific user, though for different reasons than you have provided. While I am putting in a lot of information on North, it actually ties up with the ARS as a group because he has played a very significant role in directing the group's activities over the past few months.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll let you proceed as you wish... I do think it is dangerous for you to go after specific individuals and would be more meaningful if it stayed focused on principles. The principle of "should not be engaged in CANVASS/Vote Stacking" are simple concepts that people can get behind without much knowledge. If it focuses on specific users, then I fear it will become insulary to the pro-ARS/anti-ARS forces already at play as people might avoid the RfC.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. You have new messages at Snottywong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Timeline Extension Request

Ok, as the closing Admin, I gave TDA a week to get the RfC on ARS started. I put the week limit there to both ensure that TDA didn't take forever to start the RfC and to prevent people from badgering TDA for not starting the RfC quicker. My intention was also to allow TDA to continue to discuss the subject on various pages during the RfC. TDA came to my page and has asked for a week extension before undergoing the full topic ban. My initial response was "no, I can't do that." But I decided to check out the RfC and can tell that he is making a legit effort at getting the RfC started---that he isn't making the request merely to game the system. To that extent, I will go ahead and extend the partial ban parameter for another 3 days. If TDA can't get the RfC started by then, then the full topic ban will go into effect. However, if he can get the RfC started within 7 days, then the full topic ban will return to the partial ban during the duration of the RfC. If the RfC doesn't start within 7 days, then the full topic ban becomes permanent.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your offensive accusation

I have noted your comment on the talk page of the editor Dehr [5]. All you needed to do was to reprimand Dehr for not contacting all of the editors who have done recent edits to the article, but you went further than that. I find your "editors on one side of the dispute" comment to be insulting and disruptive. This sort of simplified, childish outlook - that content disputes are just a result of "one side" against "another side" - might make it easy for you to ignore your responsibilities (and ignore your user-page claim that you "strive for factual accuracy"), but they do nothing to improve articles or resolve edit disputes. Exactly what "affiliation with a subject" are you accusing me personally of having, what "side of the dispute" are you accusing me of following? Or are you just going to remove your user-page claim about looking at things "with eyes unclouded by prejudice"? Meowy 11:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That partisanship exists on Wikipedia is self-evident. In this case there are people who regularly edit in favor of the Azeri view and editors who regularly edit in favor of the Armenian view. You would fall into the latter category. People usually have a bias on an issue. Recognizing when such a bias exists does not amount to "prejudice" and I imagine it would be hard for you to demonstrate that it is not accurate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So, go ahead amd remove that smug and self-praising "with eyes unclouded by prejudice" and "strive for factual accuracy". Speaking as an individual who does strive for factual accuracy and whose only prejudice is towards those whose aims are to deceive, your user-page manifesto seems unrelated to your real-world editing. Meowy 17:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I just said you are on Armenia's side in the dispute. Are you suggesting that is wrong?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are wrong. I am not on anyone's "side". Meowy 20:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ARS proposal to move the rescue list to project space

For the sake of disclosure, I'd like to inform you that I've created a proposal at the Article Rescue Squadron talk page, to move the rescue list to neutral project space and outside the ARS itself. Since you're one of the most vocal oponents of the ARS project and you are deeply concerned about the canvassing incidents, I think that your opinion on this proposal would be of value. Diego (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Expert-subject

FYI, see these threads. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)