This is an archive of past discussions with User:Morton devonshire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Two pieces of toasted white bread. Can you say ‘Toast’! The Arbcom was derided as “frivolous” by an arbitrator and declined by four Arbitrators, and withdrawn before it was “officially” declined. Now the bringer is trying to weasel-out and say that there was no definitive decision – well, if the Arbs call your request frivilous, then that’s pretty decisive if you ask me. The bringer has now gone all passive-aggressive on us and is threatening to meatball:Wiki-Goodbye, and refuses to accept the community consensus. He said that he was going to “stand by his statement in the RfA.” Well, good luck with that! Nothing like closing your eyes and completely ignoring what your community says. Sounds like another way to say “have a nice day/F-U” if you ask me. MortonDevonshire Yo · 01:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Franklin Coverup AfD
I'm puzzled why you reverted the closure of the Franklin Coverup Scandal AfD. First, it was in fact well within process -- it had run 5 days, there was a clear consensus for Keep, and the deletion process permits any non-involved editor to close an AfD as Keep. But more importantly, I'm somewhat surprised since you did a lot of good work to improve the article and convert it from a nest of OR-type conspiracy theories to a factual article documenting the hoax. There's a lot of totally nutball cruft on the net about the case, and Wikipedia was one of the only places with actual factual information. --MCB17:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Because it's a conspiracy theory, I'm suspicious of any non-Admin getting involved in closing an Afd, because you never know what people's agendas are, and I don't know the person who closed it (or why he or she as a non-Admin would inject themselves into the process) -- CT theories seem to attract a lot of true believers that will do anything to preserve their soapboxes. Although there are some Admins who are also CT'ers, you can generally expect an Admin to act objectively, because they know they will answer for it later if they don't. So, I think the outcome will probably be the same, I would just rather that an uninvolved Admin makes these kinds of decisions. Yes, I think the article is in decent shape now, and should probably be kept. I'll weigh-in if I need to. MortonDevonshire Yo · 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. As it is, I don't think there's any question about the outcome of the AfD, although the deletion process does recommend that non-admins only close "unambiguous Keep" AfDs. I'd close it myself, but have posted in it and therefore must recuse myself. Best, --MCB19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't even aware that non-admins were allowed to close AfD's. Learn something new everyday around here. - Crockspot19:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
They can if the Afd is a "keep"...but wasn't aware they could close Afd's that are consensus based deletes.--MONGO06:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Morton
This lighthouse's beautiful brightness has led me to this talk page,
so I could finally meet you, and thank you for all you do,
and leave you a modest gift wishing you all the happiness
and peace you deserve, dear Morton. You are great! :)
Hey man! Check this out. And quote: Trend Micro advises the recipients of this email hoax to ignore, discard, and NOT forward it to anyone else. Wow! - Not only do they protect computers from viruses, they have a good sense about them - Later... JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh!01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we're on the same page regarding the lunatic fringe on Wikipedia. As you're obviously experienced in this area if you know of any articles or projects I might help balance with a bit of common sense then please drop me a line. I've put the conspiracy articles for deletion page on my watchlist. Nick mallory07:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that your last comment violates WP:CIV. I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would endeavor to abide by the guidelines.Stone put to sky02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Once more, also from the U.S. State Terrorism page:
Also, i would like to point out that your last post violates WP:AGF. This is the second time today that i have felt the need to remind you of wiki guidelines. Please, reconsider your current rhetorical habits.Stone put to sky 06:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I should let you know that these sort of false accusation tactics don't work on me -- I've been around the block. The burden is on the editor making the insertion to demonstrate that a source is WP:RS -- you haven't. MortonDevonshire Yo · 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious, why did you list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David MacMichael on your so-called "IlluminatiNoticeboard"? I understand you don't think he's notable which is fine, but do you really think he's a conspiracy theorist? What's your evidence for that? There's nothing in the David MacMichael article or the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity article that suggests that MacMichael or the group are "conspiracy theorists." I don't think MacMichael is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist which seems to be the main concern you have as far 9/11 CT propaganda making its way onto wikipedia (and I probably largely agree with you on that incidentally). VIPS has suggested that the intel books were cooked at least somewhat by the Bush admin prior to the Iraq war, but that's hardly a conspiracy theory--it's a widely held opinion (including by a large number of prominent Democratic politicians) with a good amount of empirical evidence. So I don't see how the current AfD on MacMicheal even remotely qualifies as a "conspiracy theory-oriented Afd" which is supposedly the purpose of your IlluminatiNoticeboard. It's your user space and you can of course do whatever you want with it, but I for one am pretty skeptical of your whole "get rid of conspiracy theorists" project when you seem to lump in people who aren't conspiracy theorists but rather are people you simply don't think should have articles written about them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs20:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The AfD is obviously closed now, but I really was wondering about this (not merely trolling or trying to score points) and hoping that you could address my question. Any chance of a reply?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs20:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I just object to Wikipedia being used to promote notoriety, which is a tactic the 9/11 conspiracy nutburgers and the hard-core anti-war folks have in common -- the tactic violates our rules WP:NN, WP:NOR, and WP:SPS. BTW, I believe that the WMD intel was pitifully bad, but that doesn't make living-room-sized organizations pointing this out any more notable. MortonDevonshire Yo · 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Not really sure that addresses my question, but okay. BTW, "notariety" is spelled "notoriety."
PS--Ahmed Chalabi actually edits here on Wikipedia from an anon IP address. Apparently he's been leaving a bunch of misleading information on user talk pages in an effort to convince the English-language wikipedia to invade the German one (it's completely unclear why at this point, but I'm sure he has his reasons). Fool me once Ahmed. Fool me once.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I object to propaganda, that's the common thread. And yes, I blame that asshole Chalabi for pitching the WMD crapola, and our intel folks, Administration and Congress for believing it. Chalabi is one of the most effective propagandists of our century -- he actually hired a lobbying firm to push the WMD story years ago, and just kept hammering on it. Eventually, it worked, mostly because people WANTED to believe the romantic notion that Chalabi was an Iraqi version of George Washington. Instead, he turned out to be just as corrupt as the rest of the Iraqi politicians. But I blame the Iraqis too -- we bumbled into it, but we also handed them the opportunity in one fell swoop to remake their government into a liberal democracy -- instead, they chose the same old pocket-lining oligarchy of their predecessor. MortonDevonshire Yo · 00:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Chalabi stinks, agreed. Thanks for replying, and obviously my comment about him in my last post-script was meant solely to be humorous and not start a debate about Iraq or anything. Hence its ridiculousness. Obviously, if the English-language wikipedia was going to invade anyone it would be the Swedish or Spanish-language wikis--they have fewer articles so it would be easier.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs04:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
An essay right up your alley
User:Blaxthos/Policy shopping seems to have a flawed premise that violates AGF, NPOV, and I'm sure plenty of other policies that could be "shopped" :). He's asking for input, thought you would have something cogent to say about it. - Crockspot12:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't he give it all way when the introduction calls it 9/11 terrorist attacks? Is that the faux pas slip of the fraudulent tongue? --Tbeatty02:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Why would we want gravity deleted? Gravity is true. Nutball theories about 9/11 are not. Now if there were such a group as the "Gravity Scholars for Truth" that advocated that gravity was a myth, then we might have a cause celebre. --Tbeatty19:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Tbeatty, your answer betrays you true motivations. Articles can't be deleted because you disagree with them. Even if there was an "Gravity Scholars for Truth", there should be an article if it is notable. Not notable was the stated reason for deletion of ST911, not not true. ... KafkaesqueSeabhcan21:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
"Gravity Scholars for Truth" isn't notable because you just made it up. But if it existed, it might be notable. Why can we have an article on every character in the cartoon Pokemon, but a group of 300+ people isn't notable. It seems you are using a fig leaf of notability to cover your personal bias.... KafkaesqueSeabhcan10:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I know 300 people. Can I make an article 300 people Tbeatty knows? And couple that with the fact that all 300 are covered elsewhere? The reality is that if you have a problem with Pokemon notability, put it up for deletion. I'll vote for it. The fig leaf of notability is way to big to cover the tiny subset of an organization previously known as the 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Normally I'd rather be dead than red, but I like the look of that. --Tbeatty21:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with documenting that Ct's about 9/11 exist, but over emphasizing nonsense by having articles about every wacky theory that is floating about simply makes Wikipedia look idiotic.--MONGO21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just being sarcastic, but it illustrates what is wrong there bigtime. WP:OR is very important. Yes, I preach to the choir here! ;-) I need to stay away from this computer and take a break. Later - JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh!02:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Your "Into the Cruft Abyss" is awesome, especially with the tin foil hats. I see so many people saying 9/11 is a conspiracy. What people should tell them is "There is no 9/11 conspiracy, however the moon landing was fake and the fluoride in your drinking water is mind control. Also the US government is a puppet government by aliens in area 51. But 9/11 had no conspiracy." Or "9/11 was no conspiracy. The notion that there is one is spread by aliens, the illuminati, and the CIA by their mind implants." SakotGrimshine09:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
about: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (3rd nomination)
Hi Morton,
I have no real objection for deleting these article- but I vote on the opposite since I think that too many deletions of Jewish categories already been made . I don’t think that this category some how promote any kind of position-can you please explain me why you think/feel that it does?--Gilisa10:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW
you do have an amazing user page.
I moved it, and I really don't like doing things like that, but I really think the consensus move from the AfD (and apparently an earlier poll) was to put "Allegations of..." at the beginning of the title, which I would be quite happy with it. A the AfD no one really latched on to the move you made, so I think it at least needs to be discussed before being executed. If a lot of folks want to bring in the "international law" aspect to the title we could do it, but that title does have it's own problems (e.g. "state terror" could still have been committed even if it did not violate international law, much of which is fairly new and therefore may not have been codified at the time of the "state terror" events) and I think some of the same POV problems would simply be solved by putting "Allegations of" at the beginning.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs07:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I know we dont get along well in the past, so the kinds words on my user page was valiant and an extremely terrific jester of good will. Thanks Travb (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
In a now-funny irony of ironies, that book almost ruined my life, as I was reading it while I should've been studying for a huge post-grad school exam (the kind you spend a month or two preparing for). When I got to the point in the book when the characters realized their lives were being consumed and destroyed by their silly game, I "woke up" and threw the book out, knowing that if I just put it away I would have my nose back into it again in a day or two, rather than my studies. A few days later, I dug it out of the trash can and made a bargain with myself that I would allow myself to read it for 30 minutes after each 6-hour block of study. My head was so confused by the endless days and weeks of study that like the characters in the book, I actually believed that the bargain took on some sort of mystical power (i.e. that if I kept my "bargain", I would pass the exam). It worked: I kept the bargain, and aced the exam. Looking back, I realize I was completely frickin' delusional during that period because of the stress and mountains of information I had to learn in a short period. But I also realize that my delusional mind came up with a clever trick to get myself through. Even today, I can't look at that book without recalling that soupy molasses of thought -- a world where Eco's miasmic dystopia fused with my own. MortonDevonshire Yo · 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Morton devonshire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Mobile 01Talk 14:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
