User talk:Morton devonshire/Archive05

Further to my previous comments

I see that you have archived my previous message and have not acted on any of it. This is not in your own best interests. I am quite impartial as to the content dispute, and am solely interested in maintaining Wikipedia. You cannot be seen as a credible participant in the content dispute while you have this page in its present form. It would be a good idea to withdraw your remark here. [1]

And you cannot refuse to take part in an Arbcom case. You need to tsake it seriously.--Runcorn 11:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but your a little late to the ballgame. I've made my peace with Tyrenius, and have made the changes to my user and subpages that were requested. Moreover, the Arbcom was denied. Morton devonshire 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You don’t appear to have understood the ArbCom rules very well. I would suggest that you re-read them again, because you're not out of the woods yet. It takes FOUR arbitrators to deny or accept the case, and if it gets four accept votes, it will be accepted regardless of who or how many voted deny previous to that. Granted, that’s unlikely now because I have seen that in most cases when the first one votes to not accept, the rest generally follow suit.

Finally, you need to stop archiving your talk page when there are still open issues on it. Its uncivil and will reflect poorly on you if you continue to do so. --Shortfuse 18:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Shortfuse, as was stated by the one party that has declined to review the case, all parties can be examined...this means that your edits and activitiues can also be under review. Making bold statements about banning people that you are in dispute with is not a good thing to be doing[2] and Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy of conspiracy theory jargon. Continuing to taunt Morton here is not likely to give you the results you desire.--MONGO 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Runcorn, I have made further changes to address your concerns. I thought I had made the changes that you requested, and that the matter was over -- that's why I archived. For the sake of keeping peace, I have made additional changes. Morton devonshire 20:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

fbi

Hi, I've continued the discussion on: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/FBI_poster_controversy#Continued_discussion_from_talk_page. Would you please take a look? — Xiutwel (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WAAAAHHH

What a pity, such a great contribution such as that was lost.[3]--MONGO 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales on user pages

I thought you might like to see this contribution from Jimbo Wales [4], especially his point that "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". I am not suggesting at the moment that you should change anything. Indeed, I am not currently acting in my capacity as an admin, merely making a friendly gesture as one editor to another to keep you informed. I have no doubt, however, that you will wish to review your user pages to ensure that they are in conformity wirh Jimbo's views. Good luck.--Runcorn 14:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The userpage is fine, and he has already made adjustments.--MONGO 16:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

(refactored to avoid repeating libel) but it seems that including this adds nothing to the project anyway. Why not take it down? --Guinnog 16:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to alter my edits to conform to Wikipedia policy, and will change my edits to address perceived problems (the two are not necessarily the same). Having said that, I do not believe that I have violated BLP, but I will make the change to keep the peace. I will continue to (a) ensure that Wikipedia articles which address conspiracy theories adhere to Wikipedia policies of no original research, (b) cite to reliable sources, (c) express facts without employing synthesis to advocate a particular position ensuring a neutral point of view, (d) do not provide undue weight to a particular set of facts, and (e) describe notable subjects where notability is addressed by reference to third-party reputable sources. Morton devonshire 16:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am still unhappy with the unreferenced negative statements you make about David Icke and Paul Thomson. In my opinion, using weasel words ("many have described as...") is almost worse than the previous version. I would urge you to ensure that any claims like this you make on your user page conforms fully with policy. I would also ask you to review the value of having material like this on your user page, however well-sourced. Thanks again --Guinnog 03:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

David Icke has a whole section of his Wikipedia article dedicated to anti-Semitism and charges thereof. It seems that David Icke's encyclopedia arcticle would be a better place to start refactoring than an editors user page. --Tbeatty 03:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has, as I noticed when I read it prior to my last post. I don't have any issue with the (referenced) article on Icke. It is very clear from reading the article that Icke has denied being an anti-Semite. It is less clear, as I said, why this material is germane on a user page. --Guinnog 03:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(further clarification) The Wikipedia article on David Icke is balanced, and clearly shows that Icke has refuted these accusations. Your page appears imbalanced and a POV attack as it only shows one side of the story. If you review WP:BLP alongside [5] I hope you can see why what you have contravenes policy. Even worse than that apparent breach of policy, I think it stands in the way of collegial discussion when you have material that opinionated on your user page. As Jimbo says, "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea".

Can you at the very least please provide a reference for the "pseudonym" claim, and consider just removing that, the "cruft so crazy it would be funny" comment and the anti Semitism claim, in line with policy, with Jimbo's clearly expressed preference, and with maintaining harmonious and constructive working relations with other editors? Thank you for your consideration and the spirit of compromise you have shown in making the changes you already have. --Guinnog 20:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, the POV pushing that folks like Morton deal with leaves little room at times for compromise. Their ongoing attempts to misuse Wikipedia as an advocacy platform for their conspiracy theories is something that doesn't have to be condoned at any time. Morton has made some alterations to his userpage that is in keeping with with the current policy, maybe a couple other areas could use some reduction in opinion. If this is the only userpage that details an editors major emphasis to the project, that would be news to me. If Morton wishes to demostrate on his userpage the articles he is glad to see deleted or the ones he thinks shjould be, there is no reason he can't. There is also no reaosn he can't provide, as a disclaimer, his major emphasis on this project to keep 9/11 conspiracy theory rhetoric minimized in accordance with the undue weight clause of NPOV. I support Morton's efforts to keep this nonsense on Wikipedia in it's proper place.--MONGO 20:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than waste any more time on this, I will further sanitize my userpage. Quite frankly, this is beginning to feel oppressive to me, and I hope that you will take that into consideration. I reviewed your Rfa, and I can't help but notice that of the people that opposed your Sysops status, many of them opined that you seem to not let go of things until someone aligns with your point of view, particularly in the area of 7WTC conspiracy theories.

I am not going away. I will continue to: (1) ensure that Wikipedia articles which address conspiracy theories adhere to Wikipedia policies of no original research, (2) cite to reliable sources, (3) express facts without employing synthesis to advocate a particular position ensuring a neutral point of view, (4) do not provide undue weight to a particular set of facts, and (5) describe notable subjects where notability is addressed by reference to third-party reputable sources.

If you wish to show me some good will, I would appreciate your assistant with the new Phenomena article that I am creating and that is linked-to below. Thank you. Morton devonshire 21:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for revising your user page in the manner I suggested, and for your interesting comment on my RfA. I'm sorry that it felt oppressive, and I'm glad you don't plan to go away, as I value your contributions. I will have a think about the request, and I will certainly help in any way that I can. --Guinnog 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Morton devonshire/9/11 Conspiracy Theory Phenomena Project

Rather than waste my time arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I have started a project page at User:Morton devonshire/9/11 Conspiracy Theory Phenomena Project. The purpose of the project is to draft an article summarizing how the 9/11 conspiracy theory phenomena is described in mainstream reliable sources. I encourage you to visit the page and add your thoughts. I'm aiming for a neutral plain-Jane description of the movement. Morton devonshire 05:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Morton. I just added that Vanity Fair article you asked about to the CTPP page. (Unfortunately, all the pages have simply been scanned in as JPGs, so it's extremely annoying to read, but at least it's there.) Sorry it took me a while, but my Wikistress level has gone through the roof in the last 24 hours, to the point where I'm damn close to walking away from this place. (Nothing to do with anything 9/11 related; you can plow through my user contributions looking for WP:ANI refs and comments on other's user talk pages if you're really interested.) --Aaron 00:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

BLP is finally getting some notice from Upper Echelons -- bout friggin' time. See e-mail from me regarding the topic. Morton devonshire 02:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tarpley

What a surprise. Guess we found ourselves another afd candidate. I'll nominate it. --Peephole 00:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Webster_G._Tarpley--Peephole 00:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, now you're just being mean! Soon, we'll have no conspiracy articles left! --Peephole 04:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: No more AfDs

LOL, one part of wikipedia decrustified, 9,999,999 more to go. Someone should put together a War on Cruft campaign ribbon. GabrielF 00:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A little more info, please, if you will?

It is not that I disagree with your edits on the 9/11 CD theory article, I just think the rationale would merit some more discussion. Please would you drop by the article talk page where I have set up a couple of subheadings. We're trying to build consensus on what I know you know is a contentious and difficult article. Nothing is being done to prevent an editor from being bold, as you have been, naturally. It's just that knowing a little more there about your thought processes would be beneficial. In case you are wondering where I stand (ie pro or anti conspiracy theory) I can tell you clearly that I stand on no side, though feel conspiracy is unlikely. I am just interested in the quality of the article. which, as we know, is about the CD Conspiracy Theory, and is not about the collapse itself. I don't need a personal reply Fiddle Faddle 09:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Did it. Morton devonshire 21:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy links in Latin wikipedia

I suspect some external links in La:11 Septembris 2001 should be removed, but I don't know which ones in particular. Would you like to have a look? Thanks, Andjam 12:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfectus. Dabit Deus his quaque finem. Sorry, my college Latin is almost gone! Morton devonshire 15:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Which list?

I don't know which list to add this to - not an AfD, but a DRV. [6]. Sandy 18:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the problem by writing the article that should have been written to begin with, tagging her article repeatedly to get it cleaned up to cite reliable sources, and she became notable in the interim, as the press discovered her this week because of the tight race. Anyway, I hope admins will respect process in the future, rather than changing consensus based on IRC chat. Sandy 19:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim Hoffman

We could use your input at Jim Hoffman article. --Peephole 00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: War on Freedom AfD

Hi Morton,

I saw it. I'll notify the five people who voted to update their votes. GabrielF 00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you beat me to it. Thanks. GabrielF 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cruft... Cruft... It's everywhere! JungleCat talk/contrib 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

PEST nomination

I wonder if we would agree about Bush Derangement Syndrome as well.--csloat 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

BDS was just up less than a month ago and survived. I'd like to keep it, myself... --Aaron 03:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Naah. One is by a notable political columnist the other is by a non-notable psychologist.--Tbeatty 03:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But both are non-notable jokes that lost their relevance a long time ago. Krauthammer may be notable, but not every silly thing he says is. Anyway, was just curious, not interested in debating the issue. have a nice day.--csloat 04:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am opposing deletion of PEST. I have added a couple more reliable sources to the EL section (will make them proper cites if the article survives). This is a notable term that I hear Rush Limbaugh use at least once a week, and have heard Matt Drudge use the term on his radio show. Plus, this article gives exposure to the moonbattery and mentally unhinged state of the left, which is a good thing. Crockspot 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Walden Three

You seem to have replaced the contents of this redirect page with the actual text "The close said delete, not redirect." That is not an appropriate encyclopedia article. If you believe the redirect is not appropriate and should be deleted, we can discuss the deletion with an admin, but doing "your own deletions" this way is not appropriate. I believe the redirect is not a recreation of the deleted text, per WP:SPEEDY. Frankly I do agree the article was not sufficiently notable in itself. However, it is good enough for a paragraph in the article of James W. Walter. If the AfD for that succeeds, the redirect should certainly be removed, however if it doesn't, as I believe it will not, after the rewrite, then the redirect should also stay. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you created the redirect in bad faith, directly contradicting the remarks of the closing admin, which clearly state "delete", and say NOTHING about a redirect. Morton devonshire 23:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a certain policy that you should assume good faith, actually :-). However, that's beside the point. If you want to assume that I'm malicious, I don't know how to stop you. I could mention that I'm not one of your "walled garden" people, that I have not been editing 9/11 conspiracy articles, and so forth. But in any case - assume I am the most horrible thing you can assume. That is still not a justification for creating an unencyclopedic article. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Again, if you want the thing deleted, ask an admin. She may very well delete it, at which point I will wait for the AfD to be closed, then ask politely to restore the redirect, as a useful redirect. But I am quite sure she will not revert the article to your text. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You deliberately went against the closing admin, and you're calling me disruptive? Don't waste my time. Morton devonshire 23:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nominating it for speedy deletion is appropriate. No problem there. It's just replacing it with text that bothered me. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's gone now, so apparently your trick didn't work. Morton devonshire 00:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI: now that the JWW AfD is over, I discussed the W3 redirect with the admin who did the speedy delete, and they did restore it, as I had hoped. Just so you don't feel that this is happening in secret. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre! I had Walden Three on my watch list, and your action didn't even show up. What's up with that? Morton devonshire 01:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

James W. Walter

Hi Morton, thanks for getting in touch. As the closing admin I took into account the substantial rewrite of the article, the rationales of those who had expressed opinions, and when they had expressed them. As the AfD was 5 days old yet the debate had largely focussed on a very different version of the article I felt this relisting was the fairest course of action to take. On a general point, AfD discussions are not "votes" that can be boiled down to a ratio or percentage (unlike, say, requests for adminship), but are a place to express opinions about a given article which are then considered by an admin. I have absolutely no interest or axe to grind with this topic, I simply took a decision based on the available information. The article is now being discussed with the new sources, and this will lead to a much more complete picture of community opinion. Please give me a shout if you have any other questions. Deizio talk 00:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Morton devonshire 00:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Counter-Propaganda Unit makes worldwide wikiwide local campus news!

We've been found out! Activate plan G643BVZ-R/7 immediately!

• Talk:The Stanford Review
• "Editor's Note: Wikipedia Wars" - The Stanford Review, October 13, 2006
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#One of my recent AfDs doesn't go over too well at Stanford

Heh heh heh... --Aaron 06:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. Heh, can you send me a link to the Afd -- I can't find it. Sadly, Guinnog won't even let me use the Che image because he says it violates the spirit of the license, which he says requires users to use the image "for the good of the revolution". Which is even funnier. So, Mao had to step in. Keep chuggin Comrade. Morton devonshire 16:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Ahead Publishing. Che still lives on my page for now, since the userbox is hand-created. Unless someone starts checking for individual links to the Che image, it should be okay. --Aaron 03:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If we wanted to use the Che image to further the revolution, where would we find it? --Tbeatty 03:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't dare directly link, for the safety of the revolution, but one may wish to look for an image entitled "CheHigh.jpg". --Aaron 03:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For the revolution. Oh, the copyright actually says "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that it is used to propagate the memory of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara." So I suspect if you use the the image with the tag "A trnbute to the memory of Che Guevara" we'd be okay. Maybe build a user box that says "A tribute to the memory of Che Guevara" and put it at the bottom of all these AfD's. --Tbeatty 04:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for the mail, Morton. (I will avoid the one you mentioned in future.) --andreasegde 10:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination) - It just gets better and better

Look at who just voted strong delete! Ha ha ha! --Aaron 03:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You might get another barnstar for this for protecting the project. Way to go! JungleCat talk/contrib 03:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out Jimbo's tongue-lashing of the Spark.[7] Morton devonshire 04:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he's finally realizing all the crap that's out there, considering his own article came to the BLP notification board. Check out this highly notable politician. Sandy 04:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a guess, but I get the feeling the Klausutis AfD is going to close as either "no consensus" or, worse, as a full-blown "keep", and that's going to be the straw that broke the camel's back. --Aaron 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're right. WP:BLP could use some major reworking. The Lori Klausutis article is completely disgusting. Can you imagine being her husband, knowing that the first Google result on your dead wife's name is an article directing you to Joe Scarborough? What a legacy! The Leftists will stop at nothing to make their point. Do we not have any morals on Wikipedia? Morton devonshire 05:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why there needs to be no redirect or an article even. The delete button sure looks juicy at this point.--MONGO 05:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Morals? I didn't realize I'd come to the "joke of the day" page. Sandy 13:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am cautiously optimistic. The closing admin is supposed to weigh the arguments (i.e. it's not a vote). I don't know how you weight Jimbo's 'Strong Delete' against any other arguments. Also Fred Bauder, arbcom member, weighed in earlier with 'delete'. That will make a nice note at the top of the article after the 5th day. And don't kid yourself about keeping it opening a lot of introspection. You would be even more disgusted at what we've been fighting about Klausutis on the Scarborough page. --Tbeatty 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know it won't result in any introspection amongst the proletariat. But it will result in some amongst instrospection amongst the Jimbotariat. And when all is said and done, his is the only opinion that counts. One post from him to WikiEN-L and all hell could break loose. (Cf. Kelly Martin and the Great Userboxen Uprising of 2006, which was entirely due to a single line in one of Jimbo's mailing list posts, IIRC. Not that I in any way think her actions there were a good thing; I think it caused immense long-term damage to the entire project. I'm just saying, when Jimbo even hints that a change is needed somewhere, a lot of people will start attempting to implement that change before the words even finish coming out of his mouth.) --Aaron 05:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Jimbo will comment on it again. not on the mailing list either. But I will be looking. --Tbeatty 05:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

He may well not, but hey, I can dream. --Aaron 18:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to Closing admin Fred Bauder, arbcom member commented delete and Jimbo Wales, founder, commented Strong Delete and pointed out that the arguments for keep were not convincing. --Tbeatty 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:C&E needs some major reworking and needs to be voted into full guideline status as well; Sandy can attest to that. We're getting spammed like crazy with articles that are blatant political advertisements. Check your email, Morton. --Aaron 05:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Klausutis article does get deleted, it needs protection from re-creation. Need to add that to note to closing admin. JungleCat talk/contrib 13:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Copying an opponent's campaign ad[8] into a biography[9] is an advertisement? (Supporting a politician whose article didn't have a DRV after an AfD by the way.) No, that's an attackisement (using an attack advertisement as the source for a neutral, unbiased, NPOV edit): advertisement is more simple—using the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as a "reliable source".[10] [11] Sandy 13:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's what Jimbo Wales said today in response to former Wikipedia founder and now rival Larry Sanger's announcement of Wikipedia competitor Citizendium:

"Since then, the encyclopedia's other founder, Jimmy Wales, has taken some steps to bring more order to the Wikipedia approach, although he has avoided using authority figures such as editors. Asked in an e-mail exchange how such disagreements should be resolved, Mr Wales replied: “With strong support for individual rights, and respect for reason.” His e-mail went on: “It is the fundamental responsibility of every individual to- think-, to- judge-, to-decide-. We must never abdicate that responsibility, not to the collective, not to Britannica, not to Wikipedia, not to anyone.”

Full article at Financial Times. Morton devonshire 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Morton, I have what must be a naïve question about the Lori Klausutis deletion discussion. Why on earth is this so controversial?

To set the scene for the question, I have no idea nor interest in whetehr any of the participants are left wing or right wing. I simply care, asyou may have guessed with my intervention at the periphery of the 9/11 controlled deletion hypothesis article, about making the articles better, and able to be viewed correctly as NPOV, etc. I don't give a monkey's about US politics. So why is this article and its deletion so controversial? Fiddle Faddle 19:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You're pretty much answering your own question. MD is a controversial Wikipedia editor who, according to his user page, does "give a monkey's about US politics". So are many of his friends and enemies. So this is yet another battleground between those who care more about politics than the Wikipedia, some of which exist on each side of this argument. But don't sweat it, they're roughly evenly matched, so you, and those who feel like you, will likely carry the day. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mouse, but I like to answer my own questions. Here’s the bottom line for me: My chief objection to Wikipedia is that it is used as a political battleground, rather than as an encyclopedia. I believe that there are objective, neutral ways to discuss controversial subjects, including 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. We can do this and still follow Wikipedia rules by summarizing what third parties have reported in objective reliable sources WP:RS, and not trying to argue or synthesize these points WP:NOR. Unfortunately, that’s not what happens on controversial subjects, as people here often cite to extraordinarily subjective sources, such as blogs, slant and mischaracterize comments, and most egregiously, try to use Wikipedia to argue on behalf of their own pet theory (e.g. that the WTC towers were brought down by “controlled demolition”, violating WP:NPOV. I don’t object to describing “controlled demotion” theories by citing to mainstream reputable sources – that’s okay – but trying to prove these theories by relying on blog sources violates our rules. Because of the way Google ranks Wikipedia results, often these articles are created about non-notable persons or subjects for the purpose of creating notariety about and advancing these pet theories. For those articles, the solution is not to try to fight off the daily POV-advancement, but to eliminate the articles entirely, because they are written about subjects which are not discussed widely enough in mainstream sources to warrant notability, or to be able to evaluate what the objective facts are. Hence, the efforts of myself and my fellow editors to delete these articles.

The Lori Klausutis article is a special case. If you look through Gamaliel’s and others comments with respect to the subject, you will begin to understand that the article was created to disparage Joe Scarborough. The mainstream press says that Klausutis’ death was from natural causes, and there is absolutely no evidence that Scarborough is involved at all. So why does Wikipedia need an article about her describing thoroughly discredited facts? It’s just overkill, and not a subject that’s taken at all seriously in the mainstream press. For that reason, it’s not encyclopedic, because Wikipedia REQUIRES that objective reputable sources have spoken about the subject at length. Let me say again, there are ZERO reports in the mainstream press which say that Scarborough is implicated in Klausutis’ death. ZERO. Wikipedia is not the press, and we are not first-party publishers of original reporting. So why is there an article? To try to make Scarborough look bad, that’s all. That’s not the Wikipedia way. Morton devonshire 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Morton. I had a feeling that woudl be the case. And, Mouse, I know MD is viewed as controversial, though what he has said in his reply is flat and fair enough, and very much aligned with my own view - that we are creating an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. Fiddle Faddle 21:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

quick note

Hey Morton,

I don't mind if you comment on articles that you add or move around at User:GabrielF/911TMCruft but would you mind signing your comments? Otherwise people attribute them to me.

Keep up the good work, GabrielF 13:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Roger. Morton devonshire 18:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! GabrielF 01:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha, yeah thanks. --Peephole 01:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:GabrielF/911TMCruft

Just a quick note. I was thinking this one should be added to the list. Mostly more cruft from Mr. Jones. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bohemian Grove Thanks, Brimba 02:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You should be made aware of this

User_talk:Derex#Friends to keep in touch with. --Aaron 06:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

spam

Please do not spam my talk page again with regard to AFD. I neither need nor appreciate yours or anyone else's thanks or solicitations on this or any other AFD. If you must thank me again, a personally tailored note would be less tacky than a template; that extra bit of effort shows that you actually mean it. Derex 07:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How gracious of you to turn a thank you into an opportunity to attack me. Don't feel like you gotta hold back your feelings Matey. I hope we can be good friends. Morton devonshire 10:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I came over to thank you for the thoughtful daisies, Morton. It's rare that anything we do on Wiki *really* matters in the "real world"; I'm sure the deletion of that tragic article made a difference to Lori's family. Best, Sandy (Talk) 13:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the good spam. It shows that we can make a difference, and I am sure this woman’s family appreciates the fact that Wikipedia didn’t keep a tabloid type article on her to smear someone’s reputation. Again, keep me informed of this type article so we can keep this project presenting only proper material. Later - JungleCat talk/contrib 17:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your message, I am interested in edits not editors. I don't know you; how could I take an interest in you? Your edits interest me. I take no notice of you beyond the context of those edits. Just as admins should not involve themselves in articles they edit, you should avoid rewriting any policy the day after an adminstrator refers to it regarding your behavior.

As to spam, I don't care for it including thanks; I didn't leave my comments as a favor to you or to anyone else. That's not just you — I also don't care to be thanked for RFA votes; it's obnoxious. I especially don't care for votestacking solicitation spams. Thank you. Derex 01:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You have the timeline wrong -- what I sent you was a thank you AFTER the Afd was complete. You seem to be a very angry person -- I am concerned that you would immediately remove my comments on your talk page. That's not a common practice here. Maybe you ought to consider taking some time away from Wikipedia. I wish you the best. Morton devonshire 01:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I know when you sent the thanks. I also know that you routinely send solicitations, about 50 here, and not much has changed. I don't care for either. Also, I'm not angry at all. Annoyed by people gaming wikipedia, though. I don't like it when people try to undermine something I've worked rather hard at building.

It is not at all unusual to remove read messages routinely; I can direct you to several examples by well-known editors. Are you new here or something? I am much more concerned about someone rewriting two policy pages, without discussion, instantly after his actions are complained about under them.[12][13][14] [15] I've seen you referred to as "controversial" several times; you might find it enlightening to ponder why you have been described that way by others. Perhaps you should take some time off Morton? When you come back, please respect policy and quit trying to single-handedly re-write it without discussion. I wish you the best. Derex 06:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare

I think this refers to the same thing that the others are writing about, the Merchant of Venice quote, but I didn't want to leave my response under that same heading. Anyway, thanks. I've never gotten poetry on my talk page before, it's impressive, and quite pleasant. I didn't at all expect it. I'm even tempted to vote delete on a few more articles just to get more poetic gratitude. (I think I can resist the temptation, though.) Again, it's a really nice thing, and thank you. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 05:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Editng policies

Please do not edit Wikipedia policy to remove the infractions you've been warned for. Policy is changed by consensus, not to keep yourself out of trouble. Disrupting policies in this manner has lead to people being blocked - please cease your edits to WP:SPAM and WP:CCC until you have a consensus of editors to make those changes. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 08:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been warned about anything. I change the policies because they're redundant, and I've been monitoring both for a long time. The current wording that you say is consensus is not consensus, but is something new placed by the editor who is trying to get me into trouble here. I won't be intimidated by attacks launched by Derex, whom you well know as a trouble-maker. I follow Wikipedia policy in my edits, and will continue to do so. Morton devonshire 19:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You have, in fact, been warned about spamming internally to stack votes on an AfD - if you didn't get that last time, let me reiterate that it is against Wikipedia policy. Second, Wikipedia policy is not changed becuase you feel its redundant and I find it hard to believe that anyone else would agree with your assertation. Get a concensus on the talk page before making your changes. Shell ^babelfish 09:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Morton devonshire 19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, these edits [16], [17], [18]. Shell ^babelfish 20:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy edits I'm aware of. The warning is what I'm confused about. Morton devonshire 20:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from Joe Scarborough. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. . Also, knock off the veiled threats. --Calton | Talk 07:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not use the edit summary to threaten other editors. Consider this an official administrative warning. Gamaliel 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning another editor about 3RR is not improper. Morton devonshire 18:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Use the 3RR template or let an administrator do it. The edit summary is not the place for it. Gamaliel 18:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

That Al-Qaeda is not a terrorist organisation? I would appreciate your opinion on this matter. Cerebral Warrior 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

MfD and other matters

I have restored the MfD tag on User:Morton devonshire/Mumites. As noted on the tag, this notice should not be removed until the MfD discussion is completed. Please do not remove it again. I have also removed your comments regarding the Lori Klausutis article from your user page as they constitute an WP:AGF violation and a blatant attack on other editors and their motives. Gamaliel 21:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was commenting on the article, not editors. Please WP:AGF. Morton devonshire 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of the Word Terroist

In light of the discussion concerning the use of the word terrorist in relation to the Al-Qaeda organzation, I have made a RfC. If you would like to comment, you can do so here. Thank you Trojan traveler 03:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding you comments on User talk:Cerebral Warrior

Please tell me how this is not a personal attack? And it's not like I brought it on myself, that was my first comment in that discussion and it wasn't in any way deserving of that kind of a response. Would you mind explaining your comment further? I usually only allege personal attacks when they are made. Point out a good instance of me making a false claim please. You are encouraging an editor to continue making impolite comments and pov edits, could you explain why? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You have a history of making these allegations when you disagree with people's edits. How do I know -- because you've done it to me and to others around me. I am going to assume good faith that you just don't understand WP:NPA and WP:Vandalism -- it's okay to disagree, and disagreement, including making disparaging comments about political movements, is not vandalism or a personal attack, it's just disagreement, which is permitted on Wikipedia. Lots of people disagree with me, but that's not a personal attack, it's just a difference of opinion. That's okay on Wikipedia, even if the opinions are stated strongly. Morton devonshire 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

When have I said you made a personal attack against me? I have disagreed with you and said you have promoted a biased view of of a subject (notably black blocs), but I have not said you made personal attacks or vandalized, I merely said you were making biased statements and edits (and I stand by that). That example I provided was a clear case of a personal attack though. Here are some quotes from the policy on personal attakcs: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" and "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I made an argument and the user, instead of commenting on the content of my argument, decided to call me a traitor due to my political beliefs. That is a clear example of focusing on the editor (in a negative way) and not their actual argument. And I never accused that user of vandalism, I even said that they were not being accused of that as you seem to think they are. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean this with all seriousness when I say that you would get along better here on Wikipedia if you focused on arguing Wikipedia policy, rather than trying to influence editing by intimidating editors. This is not a dig, just a suggestion. I wish you the best here. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 01:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are still avoiding the question. Look above, I quoted policy for crying out loud. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you give your opinion at [19]? Thanks. yandman 07:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If this wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious

Check out User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All/Andy Stephenson#Evading the Wikipedia censorship, particularly the description of dKOSpedia's "non-NPOV policy". At first I thought that was a misstatement, but the rest of the comment seems to imply that the article is not written POV enough to make it into Kos' pathetic wiki. Unfreakingbelieveable. - Crockspot 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Coincidence theory

I added some references and edited the POV last paragraph to make coincidence theory an actual alternative to conspiracy theory: if you look at millions of relationships between millions of people and events, you find some which would (falsely) make you think there was a conspiracy.Edison 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Schädenfreude

Train wreck at Gare Montparnasse, Paris, France, 1895

Allow me to celebrate this for just a moment, then I'll get back to being gracious. From Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard: "The result of the debate was keep, a snowball keep and the only interested parties have now been banned from the debate for turning it into a cesspit. JzG 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)"

Take that, Evildoers! Morton devonshire 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And a "Tip of the Hat" from an opponent: "You have pissed off a well organized group of partisans, who have much more power than you do."[20] That was nice of him to say! Inaccurate? Yes. But pleasant anyway. Morton devonshire 02:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

They didn't have the train wreck when I was at Montparnesse. They should have left it. That would have been cool. Aquaman. 03:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess we're not super friends anymore. Rats. --Tbeatty 04:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, congratulations guys, you bended a novice user to your collective wills. I should make an award for this. Maybe an award with a trainwreck in it? That is something you can hang up on your walls.

Glad you like the trainwreck image, because if you read my posting really closely, I was using the "train wreck" analogy in reference to some of the partisan editors who were opposed to the novice too. In my experience, sooner or later, disruptive partisan wikipedians get AfDs against them and eventually get booted, it is only a matter of time.

In addition, the novice user appears to be changing his ways, so there is one more editor who you can't push off of wikipedia.

RE: "And a "Tip of the Hat" from an opponent: "You have pissed off a well organized group of partisans, who have much more power than you do." Please keep in mind that we are all wikipedians here, attempting to build an encyclopedia. I find it troubling that you would call me an "opponent". Further, what portion of the sentence do you feel is inaccurate, and why do you think that I was talking about you Morton? I don't recall mentioning your name. I would suggest that you all unwatch the novices user page, and quit baiting him here. Out of courteousy, I wanted you too know that I have suggested that he bring this up to an impartial/neutral third party, such as Thatcher. Actually, in regards to my sentence quoted here, everyone is biased, including me. I am a partisan too. What is the first step in AA? Signed: Travb (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A novice user with over 2,000 edits? NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . seriously, my point wasn't to "bait" him but to point out the ridiculous. I am glad that he is changing his ways. IT makes everything more partisan when we are forced to use the "wikipolicy hammer." Not only does it hurt him, but it hurts everyone that would have defended his points and it makes editing very heated. The goal isn't to piss people off. But it happens when a single edtor gets and MfD closed as a "Snowball Keep" because of the attention he attracts. No one wants that. --Tbeatty 05:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. That is why I suggested on the ANI that the page remain closed, and I have chastized him. I think he actually got the message. :) Excellent points Tbeatty, thanks. Travb (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*And after all that there was this. On it's own, no big deal. But you know their will be another "wikipolicy hammer" that will dredge this up. --Tbeatty 05:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What is a wikipolicy hammer? You mean a disruptive edit war? I strongly agree that the "novices" edits have been troubling.

I meant to quote you verbatim but my memory failed me. It is your "wikipolicy sword" on FAAFA talk page. --Tbeatty 05:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That said, are you an admin Tbeatty? I am a little concerned that your association with other wikiusers, who you edit with often on other pages and who are edit warring with him now, may possibly be coloring your administrative decisions. I don't know, I may be wrong, what do you think?

I am not an admin. 05:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is some unsolicited advice, its worth what you paid for it:

Suggestions

1) I would suggest unwatching the page, and allowing Thatcher to watch the page and his edits, (more about this below)

2)I would also suggest that other users who you associate with delete their edit history page about him, which could be considered harrassment by some, and that all of the other users you associate with, including Morton unwatch his page. I will suggest that the "novice" does the same.

3) I have voluntarily committed not to edit the terrorism page for a month, or to edit any AfDs, I would encourage the user who I was arguing with before too voluntarily do the same, as Thatcher suggested (see the ANI page). I will ask the "novice" to do the same.

In regards to getting an impartial editor to watch his edits, Thatcher has been closely involved with several disputes with the same editors (including myself) and he seems relatively impartial. I will suggest that he watch his edits. See: User_talk:Thatcher131#If_you_the_time_and_patience

I hope this all blows over, so I can get back to the real world, which I am neglecting. It appears like the user has calmed down.

Have a great evening, it is almost morning, isnt it? I am so behind in school... wikipedia: the drug of choice for computer nerds... Travb (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good night. I have my own articles that I watch and an occasional editor. You really only have to watch a few since everyone follows everyone else around. For example, I haven't put my AfD's on Gabriels page but the editors still found them. Heck, I found the Andy Stephenson recreation from FAAFA. At this point, we don't need the page for AfDs because everyone is tuned to everyone else. --Tbeatty 05:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, for what it is worth :) Good night, FYI: here is the suggestion: User_talk:Thatcher131#If_you_the_time_and_patience Travb (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, I don't believe in RFC's, and would never initiate one against him. I'd be happy if he just dis-engaged from his one-man Kamikaze assault, but I'm guessing that that's unlikely, as he seems to welcome the blade. Morton devonshire 06:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Award

		USS Morton DD-948
		I award you this image of USS Morton (DD-948) for your fight against cruft. As far as I can tell it was the only US Navy vessel named Morton. The ASROC launcher may have been capable of carrying nuclear weapons, too bad they can't be used against the cruft pages you diligently fight. Keep up the good work. --Dual Freq 03:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Special friends?

What happened to your special friends section? Did you have to delete it, or you decided to delete it. It is mentioned here, by another user. [21] Travb (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, what are you studying? Morton devonshire 06:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Law and international relations. :) Why do you ask?

You had mentioned school, so I was curious. I have a similar undergrad degree, which I discovered didn't open many doors, so I obtained advanced degrees in a different field. Much happier now. Morton Devonshire^Yo 21:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I just got back from San Diego, spent $1 K, after 2 years of my life and $100 k, to find out that the chances of me using my law degree are almost nil. So I have to scramble for plan B. Travb (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened to your special friends section? :)Travb (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dumped it so I'd be less of a target. Morton Devonshire^Yo 21:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good plan, I usually dump my sections only after getting banned or threatened to be banned, you are smarter, as I can see from your block log...Travb (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Operation Gladio

That was my thinking exactly. Apparently they not only believe it, but defend it pretty vigorously as well. I printed the whole thing out so that I could start to make notes, but have yet to do so. Brimba 05:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculousness at such a grand scale, I don't know where to start! Morton devonshire 05:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this: Keep Ganser has done important work in progressing a very important and underexamined area of 20th century history. His work is being cited increasingly on this controversial topic, including on the U. S. State Department website where he is accused of misinformation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniele Ganser follow it and it goes here: Misinformation about "Gladio/Stay Behind" Networks Resurfaces Brimba 17:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that the circular logic firing squad?--Tbeatty 17:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I took a day of down time and it looks like I missed all of the fun. Brimba 14:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I really wish you'd all understand the difference between 'true' and 'notable'. Something doesn't have to be true to be interesting and included in Wikipedia. If it did, we wouldn't have articles on Christ or Islam because you'd never get everyone to agree which is true. Tbeatty, you may consider it circular logic to say that Ganser's work has been criticised your government because you assume I'm trying to prove it 'true'. I'm not. I'm saying its notable. Whether I personally think it is true is irrelevant. If I were to delete everything on wikipedia I didn't believe in there wouldn't be much left. That would be censorship and that is what you and your friends are trying to do. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 14:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--Gamaliel 16:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cancer conspiracy

Thought you'd "love" this... Glen 13:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Glen. Almost as important to the Encyclopedia as Designer Whey Protein. Will this ever get any better? Morton devonshire 16:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That was thefastest AfD I have ever seen. --Tbeatty 05:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTE/WP:SOURCE

Hi Morton, I have been working on WP:ATTRIBUTE/WP:SOURCE, still need to add a couple of touches, but its my hope that it replaces WP:RS. Kind of feel bad about taking an opposing view, but have to this time. Cheers, Brimba 07:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow your comment: 1RR

Yours is the only edit that I have reverted for a long time, so I am not sure why you think I am preventing other people from editing. I reverted your edit because not only did I strongly disagree with it, but I believe that it runs counter to the tenor of recent discussions. We have been generally paring down unnecessary things like specific examples and moving those points to the FAQ. By all means bring it up on the talk page since you feel strongly about it.

For whatever I did that gave you the wrong impression, I apologize. Many eyes make a strong Wiki. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question. --NuclearZer0 22:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop

Please stop removing sourced material from articles. There is no justification for this and it borders on vandalism. I will block you if you continue. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 02:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to insist that Wikipedia policies with respect to original research and reliable sources be followed. Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Its silly and childish to claim that Dr Ganser's book is not a reliable source. You may disagree with him, but that doesn't make it fail WP:RS. If you remove material using this source again I will treat it as vandalism. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 02:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is improper for you to use or threaten to use your Admin powers in edit disputes. Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an edit dispute. Your are roaming around wikipedia stripping sourced material. This is bordering on vandalism. If you were an IP user I'd have blocked you already. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 02:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

These issues have come to my attention because of Operation Gladio. I am now interested in seeing that articles that mention the term do not rely upon disreputable sources. That's all. Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss it on the article talk pages. On the Italy Gladio page you removed 95% of the material without warning. You did the same on the main Gladio and this was rightly reverted automatically by the VandalBot. This behaviour is unacceptable, as you well know. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 02:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganser's seminal work on Gladio is without merit. Here's what the CIA said about his work:

Swiss scholar Daniele Ganser has written the first book on this subject. In it, he asserts that the CIA and MI6 were the prime movers behind the networks, unknown to “parliaments and populations” (1). He goes on to charge that the CIA in particular, with its covert action policies that are by definition terrorist in nature, used the networks for political terrorism.

After acknowledging the validity of the stay-behind networks, Ganser quickly clarifies his argument. He alleges that, since the Soviets never invaded, some GLADIO members became right-wing terrorists in Italy. In the 1970s and 1980s, using the explosives and other supplies in the prepositioned caches, they were responsible for hundreds of terrorist attacks whose real purpose was to discredit the communists. Although Ganser’s sourcing is largely secondary— newspapers and the like—his argument is convincing to the extent that both things happened. What is in doubt is the relationship between the attacks and government policy. Were the caches made available officially to terrorists, and were the terrorist attacks part of Operation GLADIO? Or were they separate acts by groups whose members had been trained as part of the now defunct stay-behind networks and knew the location of some of the caches? Ganser takes the former position, charging the CIA—and to some extent MI6—with responsibility for the terrorist acts. (14)

But proof is a problem for Ganser. He complains at the outset that he was unable to find any official sources to support his charges of the CIA’s or any Western European government’s involvement with Gladio. Nevertheless, his book devotes 14 chapters to the “secret war” in various Western nations on his list. Much of the narrative is historical. The chapter on Portugal, for example, begins with background in 1926; the chapter on Spain, with the Spanish Civil War. The history of how relationships were established among Western nations after World War II is interesting and valuable, as is the survey of pubic reaction to Operation GLADIO. But Ganser fails to document his thesis that the CIA, MI6, and NATO and its friends turned GLADIO into a terrorist organization.

[22]

Ganser connected dots that weren't there. Why should we have over 35 articles in Wikipedia that assert that this "Baloney" (to use your favorite word) is true? Morton Devonshire^Yo 03:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I imagine the KGB has similar things to say about charges against them. Don't know if I'd accept their say-so as the final word on those matters either. Neither would exactly be considered a disinterested party. There are scholarly sources beyond Ganser discussing this, and I've just added two of them to the Gladio talk page. Derex 03:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of what Ganser writes is not original, but it is a rare study of Gladio in the English language and across all the countries where Gladio operated. Monty, why don't you buy yourself a copy of Ganser's book and see what it says?

As for the CIA book review - it is misleading. Despite the difficulties, Ganser did get hold of official sources of the security services in most countries.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. What's next? You cite Tim McVeigh as authority as to what he did was right or not? Ganser's work as accepted as a dissertation by a university. It is your claim that his work is without merit that has no merit and suggests serious delusions of grandeur. Once you hold a professorship in history so that you are qualified to judge dissertations, come back. Until then, please stop your propaganda drivel. "Proof is a problem for Ganser" is plain and simply unauthorized assumption of authority. The faculty of history of the University Basel judged that he had sufficient evidence and it is the one who has authority to judge that. Your efforts at removing verified and peer-reviewed information for the sake of state propaganda are antithetical to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Please take your jingoism to a private blog and stop harassing those who actually do research with reliable sources. --OliverH 19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

McVeigh? When did I cite to that crackpot? By the way, it's not me making the decision that Ganser is unreliable by Wikipedia standards, it's Admin Fred Bauder. See the perma-links of Bauder cited here[23]. Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bauder's opinion is not law on wikipedia. He is wrong. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said that you cited McVeigh. I said you're doing the same as citing him. You cite the accused as an authority of whether they did anything wrong, which is just as much crackpot behavior. Bauder has no authority to do judge the reliability of Ganser's work. Neither does the admin position qualify him for such judgement nor does he have anything like professional qualifications even remotely authorizing him for such a judgment. The material is peer-reviewed. You don't like it? Tough luck. Bauder's opinion is devoid of any relevance. --OliverH 20:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bauder summed things up pretty clearly I believe...just because Seabhcan didn't get the response he hoped for from Bauder, then that makes Bauder "wrong"...anyway, as far as Ganser...I won't argue whether his work on previous issues is correct of not, but when he "joins" a group related to supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories, then what we have is a situation which simply discredits his work, and frankly, makes me wonder if he hasn't had a beef with the U.S. all along. I think for those outside the U.S., who are bigoted against the U.S., that concepts such as a government coverup on 9/11 and related issues, are easier to digest. What a pity, that someone who is supposed to be "educated" could be so completely ignorant as to get involved in the 9/11 "truth" movement...an absurdly humorous title for an organization that provides little truth.--MONGO 20:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Bauder gave a stupid answer so I don't accept it. Really Mongo, for someone from "the land of the free" you are amazingly against free speach and discussion. What are you afraid of? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not afraid of anything...and I encourage discussion, but not if it is going to be with someone who routinely works on articles that help him demonstrate his bigotry. Tell me Seabhcan...has the U.S. done anything "good"...or is it just a land of shotgun swinging cowboys, hell bent on world domination?--MONGO 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What's humorous is the delusions of a bunch of jingoists that they're more qualified than the department of history of the University of Basel. If Bauder claims the world is flat, it won't snap to conform with his world views. Ganser's ideas about 9/11 have no place here. And given that you are too lazy to actually research what they are, you shouldn't mention them. The only thing you prove is that what you're interested in is slander, not actual reliable data. And even IF Ganser had a beef with the US, it would change anything about the fact that peer-reviewed data is peer-reviewed data and doesn't become unreliable because some jingoists are jealous of other people's education. If the faculty of history decided that his conclusions on Gladio are justified, your suggestion that they aren't illustrates delusions on your part, not on Ganser's. --OliverH 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to mention something here. Some users think that just because someone wrote a book on a political subject, the content of the book must be true – after all, it is in writing. Let me emphasize that it is just as easy to write a lie as it is to speak one. If users are using unreliable outside information that is based on political bias to amend articles to propel untruths, this is a defiance of what the project is really about. I was once told by another user in a AfD discussion that "we are not in the truth business". What a dangerous thing to say about Wikipedia. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Junglecat - we're not in the truth business! This is an encyclopedia, not God. If we were only interested in reporting one version of 'truth' how can we have articles on both Christ and Islam? They can't both be true - so which do we delete? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Junglecat, we're not talking about "just because someone wrote a book on a political subject". We're talking about a dissertation here. And just because some people believe the earth is flat, it won't snap and conform with their opinion. The information has been reviewed and the conclusions found to be justified. And just because some people refuse to believe it doesn't make it less justified. Slander by some jingoists doesn't make peer-reviewed material unreliable. What's dangerous is the concerted effort to purge Wikipedia of material critical of US policy for the sheer fact that it is critical of US policy. "Unreliable information" is Morton Devonshire's quote from the CIA. To uncritically believe self-referential statements by an intelligence service is just about as gullible as one can possibly get. --OliverH 20:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not in the truth business and that is why we separate opinion from fact. The way the article is written is from the leftist propaganda POV. it is written as if certain opinions are fact. The opinions have a place, but not as fact. Let's use your analogy of Christianity and Islam. In your encyclopedia, the article would intermix historical truths about Roman rule and politics during the period with acts of faith as well as accusations of the modern era. Imagine the article that said "Jesus was born in Nazareth under Roman rule. He cured blind people and was gay. Mohammed, born circa 600 AD, however, was the true messenger of God. He recited the koran and raped little girls." That is the current state of the Gladio article. It mixes fact, fiction and the absurd with little attribution as to who says what. Wikipedia is not truth, but it is attribution and the Gladio article does not attribute it's opinion as opinion. It is sad article that needs serious work.--Tbeatty 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said the article don't need work. Its a mess. But you have to make specific proposals otherwise it sounds like you just want to delete everything.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I hardly deleted everything and only edited a small piece out of the intro before you protected the article.--Tbeatty 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My response to Baloney: Christ and Islam are both real subjects, even if they are viewed in opposition of their followers (your argument by using this comparison on this is flawed).
My response to OliverH: I guess the US government is out to “get us”. How dare we trust the CIA as a source. Cheers. JungleCat talk/contrib 21:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You prove my point, yet you don't understand that you have. Christ is a 'real subject' not because it is true or not, but because some people discuss it, believe it, write about it, etc. People also believe in Gladio, write about it and discuss it. That is all we should be interested in here on wikipedia - whether we believe it or not should be left to another website. As for your "get us" quote, I don't know who you think said that. Its sad that you can't understand that the opinion of one group of people (the CIA) of themselves should not be the end of the conversation, and that realising that is not a conspiracy theory. The organs of the US government is composed of people like any other organisation. Citicism of those people is not blasphemous, even if they work for the US government. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Then attribute it as their opnion and stop mixing facts with opinion. Attribution is the key. No one has a problem with citing notable opinions as long as they are tagged as such instead of written as fact. No one says the CIA version should be non-attributed as absolute fact, yet the current articles has the leftist view absolute fact. Imagine the article that said "Jesus was born in Nazareth under Roman rule. He cured blind people and was gay. Mohammed, born circa 600 AD, however, was the true messenger of God. He recited the koran and raped little girls." That is the current state of the Gladio article. It mixes fact, fiction and the absurd with little attribution as to who says what. Wikipedia is not truth, but it is attribution and the Gladio article does not attribute it's opinion as opinion. It is sad article that needs serious work. --Tbeatty 22:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable and I have no problem with that way of editing. You seem to have a different point of view to Monty who has been stripping out all references to both Gladio and Ganser across Wikipedia. For example monty maintains this list of Gladio related articles (User:Morton devonshire/Egadio) with the intention of deleting them. He also deleted this section from the article Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America even though the section is presented as Ganser's opinion. In fact you also deleted this section [24]. How does that fit into what you say above? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't asserted as opinion, it had no counter viewpoint and it has no place in that article.--Tbeatty 06:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What wording would you be happy with? How about:

• "It is the opinion of Dr. Daniele Ganser of the ETH Zürich that the operations directive which set up the CIA falls under this definition"

Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 12:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Got cruft?

Hi Morton devonshire,

I'm guessing your message was about my stray comment on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. I regret posting it now. Not that I think it was wrong, but I recently became burned out on all things Metawikipedian by participating in the Schools discussion. I'll let others fail to come to any consensus sort it out. I also don't need any more cruft (who does?) 'cause hanging out on WP:AFD can be slightly depressing...

Cheers! :-) --Ling.Nut 01:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Morton, my email is now up and running. Look forward to hearing from you. Brimba 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)