User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch

Smert' spamionem! This user is a member of WikiProject Spam.

I check in most mornings and most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my new office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets.

I am under considerable personal stress at the moment; my father died and I have a lot of other stuff going on in RL including a new job as senior engineer for enterprise storage and virtual infrastructure in a Fortune 500 company. Great job, lots of shiny expensive toys, big responsibility. But Wikipedia is still one of my top hobbies, and I come here to do what I can. I respond much better to polite requests than to demands. People who taunt me with "I dare you to block me" may have cause to regret it, as may I. Don't even think of trying to drag me into one of the many cesspits this project offers, I will likely choose only those disputes where I don't actually care too much. Not coming to your party? It's because I've decided it will make me unhappy. Sorry about that.

Above all, please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

the internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
• My take on the Durova incident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747

..is using the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technocracy_movement Talk:Technocracy movement page like a personal attack blog. Example : Skip quote: "I am not involved in TechInc or NET.". Wow! somebody actually got Skip to admit that he was kicked out of Technocracy Inc.! It took him about 2 years to admit it and come to the realisation, but better late than never I guess! What you didn't mention of-course, is that you were very embittered by that dismissal and have since attacked the organization in any way you can (including on Wiki) and even tried to setup a rival group. You've recently also attempted to insert the name of your "group" into Wiki articles. Hmmm no, no conflicts of interests there, I think Skips just a honest contributor with no hidden agenda at all (And if you can't guess, yes I’m being Sarcastic). --Hibernian end quote.

Could you do something? Could you edit that type of attack off the page ? skip sievert (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a report here as another editor advised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Talk:Tomislav_II_of_Croatia.2C_4th_Duke_of_Aosta Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts - skip sievert (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Responded my talk page. Basically, when told by parties that they don't need to include everything in the source, despite that being the only source they have, because it's "crufty", after seeing them in engage in similar insults to the previous editor who assessed the article, I lost my temper. If you see fit to indicate loss of admin status on that basis, say so and I will withdraw from that status. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, you just got carried away. Happens to all of us. Feel free to delete the comments as read and understood, if you realise you did a silly thing then there's no need to rub anyone's nose in it. I only spotted it because I went to Geogre's page for something else, and I was probably overly aggressive myself due to the place I'd come from before that. Bloody Wikipedia, full of loons, kooks and Chicken Littles - and that's just me! Guy (Help!) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm a loon who claims to be from another planet and Chickenman at the same time. But, yeah, I did cross the line. No need to remove the comments though. Megalomaniac types like me need to be reminded to be humble once in a while. :) John Carter (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you fully protect the page? I can understand a semi-protect, but a full is absurd. Every other article about the Playboy "playmates" that I have seen here on Wikipedia includes the disputed information. While I disagree with the tactics employed by a certain editor, I agree with his basic point. Playboy is a reliable source for articles about the "playmates," unless someone can make a darn good argument as to why it's not, in my opinion.

I guess I'm not asking you to unprotect the page. I am asking you to restore the information that was being disputed because, in the end, it is accurate and it is standard information for articles of this nature. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#technocracynet.eu MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia user Hibernian (Ross Murphy) is mentioning this site.. which is another blog/forum that is not connected to TechInc the actual group. http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Members_List&file=index&letter=I&sortby=uname&authid=b31ea5612f1f6ec34062fd85bc4cdb96 Hibernian/Icarus user page. Technocracy.ca

I just wished to mention that he is a registered user/participant there.. and that site is a sponsor of the NET site http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Web_Links&file=index&req=viewlink&cid=1 NET promo.Technocracy.ca Also... as has been mentioned he is a registered forum member below. http:DISABLE//en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=85&Itemid=65 Network of European Technocrats - Ross Murphy.

Another editor on wiki named Kolzene is the leader of the TechCa group. Isenhand, Hibernian & Kolzene have acted in unison to control these related articles. Plus other NET forum members. If I could make a suggestion... Technocracy movement would be another good choice in my opinion to put up for an article for deletion. It was purely an invention to support NET. skip sievert (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I know you're capable of drastic action in cleaning this sort of thing up, I was wondering if you'd noticed Historical pederastic couples, which, judging by the one I removed, is full of gross overstatements and misrepresented citations. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is too late becuase it is summer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.105.89 (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not in Australia :-) Guy (Help!) 13:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this template is completely unused and it's purpose easily fulfilled by other existing templates, I was wondering if you would mind deleting it yourself and sparing me from filling out forms 1A through 5D.--BirgitteSB 16:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Which template is used for an article sourced solely from partisan sources? Guy (Help!) 17:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Jim_Butler, for the same username as in User_talk:Anthon01. I'd rather not do it myself for several reasons. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, would you please not be uncivil to me in edit summaries? Today you've told me Don't be too silly, Martin and Be interested to see if anyone other than a notorious POV-pusher thinks this is inaccurate. Thanks ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The solution is for you to stop being silly and, incidentally, stop POV-pushing. You are becoming tiresome. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate for you to respond to a request for basic civility with further insults. Please stop it. I had hoped that the RfC would do some good, but apparently it hasn't. Also, this edit summary is completely inappropriate [1] because it is insulting to many who visit the article, and who might want to edit. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate for you to continue this line of baiting. You may now go away. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will go away after this if you say, because it is your talk page. However, I am in no way baiting you. I am asking you, nicely, to stop the inappropriate behaviors in which you continue to engage. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I am asking you, very firmly, to stop advancing your fringe POV in articles, because that (unlike my being impatient with you) actively degrades the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation - I'm entirely certain that Martinphi does not see himself as "being silly", "POV-pushing", or "baiting". If someone does not think they're being silly at all, then what good does it do to tell them, "stop being silly"? If he doesn't think he's advancing a fringe POV, then what good does it do to say "stop advancing your fringe POV"?

Reciprocally, Martin, if you're reading here, I'm pretty certain that Guy does not consider "stop being silly" or "stop POV-pushing" to be uncivil. I may be wrong about that, in which case Guy will probably correct me, but we might as well realize that nobody is intentionally doing the things that are being accused here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I really can't believe that 1) anyone could believe that calling another person silly in a non-joking way is civil. There is a point beyond which credulity cannot be stretched. However, just in case, we had the RfC, where Guy was told that, indeed, this kind of thing is uncivil. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously proposing that Martin is not intentionally "advancing [his] fringe POV in articles"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'm seriously suggesting that he believes that he is making the articles neutral and correct. Why would anyone try to edit an article into a state that they think is incorrect or biased? He probably actually believes what he believes (like most of us), so he doesn't see it a a fringe POV.

What kind of person sees himself as a fringe POV pusher? "I'm off to push some fringe POV on Wikipedia!" What? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GTB. Actually, I would -and have- edited articles in whose subject I do not believe, with exactly the same principles as I apply to other articles. Examples include Psychic surgery, Sylvia Browne, Spontaneous human combustion, and others. As to Remote viewing, I tend to believe it has not been proven to the level of other scientific facts, which makes me more skeptical than Richard Wiseman, member of Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and debunker of paranormal claims. If editors here are to the right of senior CSI members, there is something very wrong. However, my belief or lace thereof makes no difference to my editing of the article. The same principles of ATT, the ArbComs on Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, and neutral tone apply. There is no article on WP which I would not be able to edit neutrally, because I have enough reserve to edit any of them in a neutral way. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Delusions, imagination, even fraud is a process. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but this was not a process for viewing remote object, sit was a process for extracting money form the government to bolster a fantasy. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that, it is still a process where someone ostensibly views a remote target. If you frame it as a con-job, that's the "trick". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really understand what you;re saying. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a proces for attempting to view by ESP. There shouldn't be any controversy about that. There are completely neutral ways to put it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are, I've just not seen any of the pro-parapsychology POV-pushers suggest anything even close yet. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Shermer describing remote viewing: "2. ESP and Evidence of Mind. Here Chopra relies on psi research in remote viewing and telepathy, in which subjects locked in a room alone can apparently receive images from senders in another room without the use of the five senses."[3] Understand me now? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here. Needs another pass or so.--Filll (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in the content dispute, have have tried to delete this article--in fact, you were the nom for the recently failed Afd, and now you blanking this long term section against consensus--through protection! This is clear abuse of the tools:[4]. Protection is not an endorsement of a version, and its quite improper to use ones tools to get it locked in the version you want it in. I ask for this to be undone. I am making an official effort here to resolve this with you. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, so you don't risk loss of your tools, please self-revert this. The article's protected. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see someone was already discussing, I reported to AN/I. If this was an accident as it appears, please revert. Thank you. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== re Allegations of state terrorism by the United States ==

Hi. It appears that you edited while the above article was fully protected. Perhaps you may wish to self revert while the discussion plays out on WP:AN? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Already brought up above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is poor conduct. The section he took out was a good section, too. I also found it interesting that he took it out for POV reasons. Isn't that also against WP policies? We are supposed to leave our own POV out of it?Rafaelsfingers (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (copied from WP:AN) I have reverted to the version in place when protection was imposed, on Guys behalf. A review of Guys contributions indicate that he has not edited since last night, and has likely not seen the various requests to self-revert. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I would be the first to admit that I do not know all the details about the many disputes you have apparently been involved in, and I do not even have enough of a background to comment on your RfC, I just wanted to say that when I do come across you on wikipedia I almost always agree with what you are doing. I'm sure you hear this a lot, but I hope that no matter what the outcome of everything is, you keep making valid contributions. Random89 05:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side issue I agree with those a couple of sections up that you obviously need to revert yourself on the state terrorism article since the page was protected (I'm sure there will be all kinds of boring drama surrounding that, but if you just undo it the whole thing goes away). But really I wanted to engage with you about the Japan section you removed, hopefully in a less antagonistic way than usually happens on the article talk page (I'm trying to avoid participating there for now anyway). I apologize in advance for the length but hope you can bear with me here.

I strongly feel that section should be in the article and will explain why, but let me first give you a little background on where I'm coming from with that which may be a bit different from how other folks feel. Morally speaking I'm deeply opposed to the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan (this belief has always posed something of an existential quandary for me...my paternal grandfather was to have been one of the first on the beach in the event of an invasion of Japan, and given that it is very likely he would have been killed, one or two years prior to my father's birth, I in some perverse sense might well owe my own life to those a-bombs...not a fun thought). Evaluating it as a historian, I find it utterly inconceivable that Truman would not have dropped the bomb (in no small part due to domestic political concerns - if it came out the bombs existed and he didn't use it no Democrat would have been elected dogcatcher until 2014 - which too often are undiscussed). Whether or not the action should be labeled "state terrorism" is utterly uninteresting to me. I have no problem calling it immoral, horrific, and politically necessary but beyond that and a few other scholarly judgments (e.g. a strong element of impressing/frightening the Soviets was clearly there) I don't particularly care. I think a focus on labeling the actions "terrorism" (state, war, etc.) or not is wholly misguided.

That said, it's obvious to me that the section is appropriate for the article. The article has survived yet another AfD, so it seems for awhile we will be discussing claims from notable people that certain things the United States government did constitute "state terrorism." It also seems apparent that notable people have described the atomic bombing of Japan as state terrorism. The real deal breaker for me is Richard Falk, who might not be so well known in the UK but is a huge figure in left academic circles here in the States (and no slouch either, he's been at Princeton forever...I have no idea what he's been doing in recent years slumming with 9/11 conspiracy theorists). When he says "Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki," and when you combine that with a number of similar statements from other notable individuals, I think it's very difficult to deny that such a section is appropriate for the article in question.

Your objection to this section seems largely centered on your own argument that the bombings, even if immoral, are not state terrorism since there was a war going on. That's a very legitimate argument, and one with which I agree to an extent, but it isn't a relevant rebuttal to the fact that there are notable "allegations of state terrorism by the US" when it comes to this issue.

I worked on this section months ago and was actually able to bring some balance to it (balance which at some point was apparently removed). It was difficult to provide the "opposing view" because few scholars bother to respond to the question "was this state terrorism?" My solution was to have a paragraph at the end of the section citing a historiographical overview of recent literature on the bomb from the journal Diplomatic History. In quoting from this article the concluding paragraph pointed out that basically none of the scholarly literature debates the question this way - i.e. it is a fringe viewpoint. The section then read as a series of allegations followed by a "mainstream-historians-don't-give-a-shit-about-this" (the wording was different) paragraph. I thought it was actually one of the better sections in the article as a result. At some point that last paragraph got eviscerated (I don't know when since I stopped editing there awhile ago) though in the version you removed there was still a watered down quote from the author, J. Samuel Walker.

I'm wondering if you might re-evaluate your objection to this material being included. We can probably trim it (there's been a tendency in this article to include every allegation from any notable person to guard against deletion, but that has bloated the article) and I'd like to see the old end paragraph I wrote come back (me write good!). But I really think this Japan section meets the standards of the article, whatever you might think of those, and as some have been suggesting there really was consensus for it going back quite a long way (it was actually one of the more well-sourced sections). A lot of the recent general debate seems to be about the inclusion of this section, and if you were willing to drop your objection to keeping it in there it might allow for work to proceed on other aspects of the article. I know where you're coming from on this issue (i.e. the a-bomb question) and probably am in relative agreement with you in most respects, but am hoping you might re-consider the article content issue in light of this comment.

Again, my bad on the length, and I'll check back here for any reply if you're so inclined.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• These POV-pushing idiots have got to go. They insert all sorts of shit on the basis that any two people who agree with them is consensus and any number who disagree means nothing. They are monomaniacs, disruptive, the article is an embarrassment, and they have showed long-standing determination to make sure it remains that way. I want them topic-banned. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you. You've always been one of my favourite admins for Doing the Right Thing^TM, and we need more admins willing to enforce Jimbo's November 2003 post. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]