This user is a member of the Counter-POV Unit

Archives Archive 1 (December 2005 to April 2006)

Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:

• by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results;
• by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
• by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
• by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
• by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
• by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
• by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
• by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible; or
• by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.

Allegations exhibiting several of the following features are candidates for classification as conspiracy theories. Articles by User:Blackcats and User:Zen-master (who has since been banned from Wikipedia for one year) are good examples of articles containing these traits. Confidence in such classification improves the more such features are exhibited:

• Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence.
• Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
• Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact.
• Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
• Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions.
• Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
• Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators
• Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
• Allots superhuman talents and/or resources to conspirators.
• May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, never to repent, to possess unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, etc.
• Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning.
• Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
• Appeals to 'common sense'.
• Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological phenomena.
• Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies
• Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
• Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', generally lacking peer review
• Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
• Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science
• At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
• Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities
• Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
• Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative
• When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence.

If you ever wonder if there's any science behind the conspiracy theorists claims, take a look at this excerpt from the Steven E. Jones talk page:

wait-both Jones' paper and many points in Toms reply are debateable. If anyone is really wondering about the science, they should look here [1]-Jones' paper. SkeenaR 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I know you have an engineering background. Do you personally have any kind of opinion on the veracity of his 9/11 paper? I'm pretty sure you have an opinion on the whole controlled demolition theory, but I would still be interested to hear what you have to say from a technical standpoint if you care to share your thoughts on it. SkeenaR 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and I have worked with structural steel, but in bridges rather than buildings. I am in no sense qualified to hold an opinion on the structural engineering aspects of the collapse. I have significantly more experience with explosives and demolitions, and I have used linear shaped charges and thermite. I have not done any work in controlled demolition of buildings, and I'm not qualified to evaluate Jones' work, except as a layman. His work does not have the ring of truth. Jones writes like someone who has read about, but never used, explosives. "I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel." This is technobabble. In what sense is RDX a high-temperature cutter-charge? What does that even mean? Is he suggesting that linear shaped charges of RDX melted the steel? From what I've seen the results of shaped charges on steel are more like tearing. Later he refers to pools of molten metal weeks after the event. Certainly thermite will melt steel, but how much thermite are we talking about? Truckloads? (By the way, I think some back-of-the-envelope heat-transfer calculations are in order there.) Rigging a skyscraper for controlled demolition is a massive undertaking, and a disruptive one. You would need open access to the structural members for weeks, there would be detonating cord everywhere, other members would probably need to be protected from damage so they didn't fail at the wrong time, and the workers would probably tear up the drywall and trash the carpets. And then what about priming the whole thing? Is it going to be left for weeks or months with blasting caps installed in the high explosives? I don't think so. And where is all this thermite going to be? I don't see how it would be possible to do this secretly. I don't see any basis for concluding that these puffs of smoke are from 'squibs.' He seems to just say they must be, because squibs can make puffs of smoke. "See the puffs of smoke? Those are squibs. How do I know they're squibs? Because of the puffs of smoke." I read through his paper, and read through (parts of) the NIST and FEMA reports, and the Popular Mechanics article. Jones' work sounds like junk science; The NIST and FEMA reports are less exciting, but seem solid and workman-like. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I'm not qualified to do a point-by-point debunking of Jones' work. It doesn't really matter what I think anyway. All we can do here is write, "This is what Jones says" and "This is what others say." Everyone with an interest has to read and make up his mind. Tom Harrison Talk 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is my user page, and I can do with it what I want. If that pisses-off unemployed pedantic teenagers, then all the better. If, on the other hand, you want to have a rational discussion with me about articles and edits, I will treat you kindly.Morton devonshire 23:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Morton, CheckUser does not give any indication that these editors are sockpuppets of one another. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Of course, I could be conspiratorial, and advance the theory that these conspiracy theorists have some radical new technology to mask their IP address, and further elaborate a conspiracy theory to address the facts, but that would be just too wacko now, wouldn't it. Morton devonshire 19:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove an AfD tag that has been properly placed.

• You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.

Please post a note at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fry Mumia to explain why the article should be kept. Thanks, -Will Beback 02:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from Wikipedia:Vandalism

• Avoidant vandalism: Removing {afd}, {copyvio} and other related tags in order to conceal or avoid entries to risk deletion.

Further deletions of the tag may lead to your being blocked. Please respect the process. Thanks, -Will Beback 02:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD tag was improperly placed. The article, which is still being edited, was up for less than 2 minutes before it was marked. Not much of a process if you don't have a chance to even edit an article. I think you are harassing me, and if you continue, I will report you to an administrator, which seems to have happened to you numerous times. Morton devonshire 02:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF Ashibaka tock 03:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before all other disputes, please do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer of another Wikipedian because we both share the same point of view. Looking throught AfD pages reveal many people with the same point of view, and they are obviously not sockpuppets or sockpuppeteers.

Secondly, the tag {{totallydisputed}} is allowed to be set if there is at least a single dispute. It is not illegal to place that template on an article.

Thirdly, in the defense of Will Beback and Wikipedian policy, WP:AFD states that an article can be nominated for AfD despite the time since creation if the article meats AfD requirements. Placing an AfD tag within 2 minutes of an article's creation is not abuse. Sycthos^Talk 03:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems terribly suspicious to me when 2 or 3 people chime in almost instantaneously with delete and NPOV tags, and leave supportive messages on each other's talk pages. I can't tell if you're a sockpuppet or not, because I don't know how to run checkuser, but it sure seems like you all are the same person when you all mysteriously support one another almost simultaneously -- Guettarda, leaving sympathetic messages for Will Beback, Will Beback instantly chiming in with a revert of a Gamaliel change, Sycthos, King of Hearts, et al -- big mystery how all of you could have seized upon one article in less than a 5 minute span. Too mysterious if you ask me. Please remove the NPOV tag and the Afd tag and allow me to edit the article without further harassment, whoever it is I'm really talking to. Morton devonshire 03:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marking an article for AfD and totallydisputed is not harassment. Again, if you look through the AfD pages, there are many users that agree with and debate against the deletion of dozens of articles. It is highly improbable that all users agreeing with each other are the same person.

I have replaced totallydisputed with disputed to lessen the severity of the message. Sycthos^Talk 03:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the disagreement. I have a problem with the coordinated attack. Morton devonshire 03:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this AfD page. (Note: Large page) This page lists examples of many "coordinated attacks" which are simply many users agreeing with one another. Sycthos^Talk 03:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of articles on Wikipedia. Why all of you would converge upon one at the same moment is what seems suspicious to me. Particularly when I haven't even had a chance to properly edit the article. Please allow me some time to actually write the f___ing thing. Morton devonshire 03:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I don't think there are that many articles on the English Wikipedia. Last time I checked it was under one million, and far less than two million (< 1.5?) if you include all the wikis. You may want to read Wikipedia Statistics. As far as everyone converging at once, there are a number of factors involved, including the public listing on AfD, user talk page notices, and rc patrols (including new page patrol). --—Viriditas | Talk 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than engage in this mechanical war, I have redirected the page to try to make it more acceptable to all. Thanks. Morton devonshire 05:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last few days, I've discovered that the supporters of Mumia are cult-like in their support and defense of Mumia and his public image. As such, I doubt very much that the article Fry Mumia will survive. The response has been incredible, and instructive, and I've learned something about my fellow-man -- that he's willing to elevate to sainthood even the most common criminal, so long as his image can be coopted to advance their own misguided vision. So be it. The article will be deleted because of the Cult of Mumia is obsessed with cleansing his public persona, but no amount of public cleansing will change the fact that Wesley Cook aka Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of murder of a police officer, and will likely die in prison. The larger issue is the cultural phenomenen of the FM movement, which is interesting in its self, and worth exploring and commenting upon -- that's the purpose of the article. So have at it, and feel free to contribute to the article. Thanks. Morton devonshire 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morton, you may want to review WP:NPA. —Viriditas | Talk 04:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected the page to Free Mumia Movement, in an effort to try to find some balance. My hope is that editors will discuss the political phenomenen which is the Free Mumia Movement, which is larger than the man himself and his case. Please help me to do this by removing the Afd and other tags. Thanks. Morton devonshire

User:Golbez -- quit stalking me dude! Morton devonshire 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And calling me out like this is supposed to get me to stop looking at your edits? --Golbez 00:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little weasel dude, would you please just leave me alone. You're starting to scare me. Morton devonshire 00:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, before things spiral out of control, please review WP:NPA. —Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. The guy/girl is following me around in my edits, editing pages that I edit and that he/she has never edited before, and marked an article Afd before it was even edited. That seems WP:POINT to me, and don't know what else to do than to call him/her out on it, as nobody on the Admin side seems to be willing to help. Worse yet, he/she is an admin. I'm on my own, and here you show up and are critical again. Doesn't feel good man. Morton devonshire 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help with, exactly? You seem to be doing fine on your own, although I recommend toning down the rhetoric and familiarizing yourself with policy. You might even want to lend your hand to a WikiProject or some non-controversial articles. You could even patrol recent changes for vandalism. There's lots to do. —Viriditas | Talk 04:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is for the "stalking editor" activity to stop -- feels retaliatory to me. Is there a Wikipedia rule against it? Morton devonshire 04:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, see WP:HA, but in my opinion, you have not been stalked by anyone. It might be best to just let this go and move on. I think most editors understand that having an article up for deletion that you created and have an attachment to can be stressful. Try to focus more on your edits and less on other editors. —Viriditas | Talk 04:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. Got an answer only from one of the comrades, and now all have ceased their edit wars, and their replies. Is it live, or is it Memorex? Morton devonshire 06:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. I think it's best to leave the page alone until the Afd process is completed. Unless your move is reverted, the redirect may have to be put up for deletion, further compounding the problem. --—Viriditas | Talk 06:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Blackcats/SkeenaR as Sockpuppets -- why: Both hover at 9/11 conspiracy theories, and patrol the page like wildcats. Blackcats goes off the radar screen early Jan, stops editing, except for welcome messages on SkeenaR talk pages, etc. SkeenaR starts editing early Jan, immediately posts very sophisticated user page and demonstrates sophisticated tagging and editing skill immediately, while feigning newbie weakness. SkeenaR accidentally responds to a perceived affront to Blackcats, and leaves smoochie-smoochie messages on Blackcats' user page. Don't get me wrong, they're both interesting editors, and kind of fun to spar with. Both are also so sold on the 911 "Truth" Movement propaganda (yes, those are scare quotes) that they have trouble seeing just how biased their edits are. Morton devonshire 03:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They just both smoke the same dope. Morton devonshire 18:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaimiddleton, Bov, Ombudsman, Zen-Master (now banned), EyesAllMine, Adam Adler (probably Ombudsman), ILovePlankton (a real piece of work), Normal nick, Pedant (need I say more), Kmf164, Siva1979, Skee-man, Blackcats, Hyperbole, Irishpunktom (friend of Striver), 198.207.168.65 (definitely SkeenaR), and Strive-Man the Magnificent

IslandGyrl placed me on some sort of Wikiquette list, but I've never had any interaction with he/she/it -- most likely a sockpuppet of someone who doesn't like my criticism of Mumia. I now suspect it is Viriditas, who jumped to the aid of an editor who was stalking-editing me several months ago, has connections to Hawaii (as does IslandGyrl), and who has a vegan/ALF bent -- if it's you, please contact me and explain. Also, if Admin Golbez would just apologize for retaliatory-stalking me, then I will completely remove all refs to the dispute -- the refs are there because I believed (and still do), that Golbez violated his station as Administrator when he engaged in the retaliatory editing practices he used to punish me for my views of Mumia.

• Gamaliel/Guettarda/Golbez as Sockpuppets -- why: Sockpuppet 1 feels insulted; Sockpuppet 2 responds to purported insult, forgetting I'm actually talking to Sockpuppet 1; Sockpuppet 3 responds with retaliatory stalking-editing -- all within a space of 3 minutes. Funny stuff! Morton devonshire 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are pedantics! Morton devonshire 18:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for kicks, I created my own sockpuppet -- his name is User:MortonsSockpuppet. Do not be confused -- he is me and me is he -- he's a sockpuppet. I think it's useful to have your own sockpuppet, not to masquerade as something else, but to point out actual sockpuppetry and poke fun at others. For comic relief -- MortonsSockpuppet will sometimes agree with me, and sometimes not, depending on the desired comic effect. As Wikipedia is the land of point of view advocates and gatekeepers, and therefore not really a serious enterprise, I needed a tool to help point this out. Morton devonshire 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Morton devonshire/Finding your inner sockpuppet

[[image:[censored]Eddie Haskell played by actor Ken Osmond.gif|frame|right| The quintessential weasel: Eddie Haskell -- don't ya just wanna smack him?]] I've initiated a permanent weasel list for those pedantics who make Wikipedia a less pleasant place.

"I stalk all martyrs, it really makes them sweat. --Golbez 00:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)" (from the administrator board)

This guy is supposedly an Administrator, and I'm supposed to assume good faith. Screw that. Morton devonshire 23:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In context, it appears that Golbez was being facetious. —Viriditas | Talk 06:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your generosity my friend. Morton devonshire 08:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel -- this thing put me on its permanent watch list because I accused it of liberal bias. If it is an administrator, Wikipedia is truly lost. Morton devonshire 02:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback, Golbez, Ashibaka, Sycthos, Gamaliel, Bletch, Peyna, Fagstein, Viriditas, Astrokey44, StuffOfInterest, Zoe, SarekOfVulcan, Guettarda, Fawcett5, Taxman, [deleted], BadSeed, Catsv, Kmac1036, and Jim62sch. See the Fry Mumia delete discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fry_Mumia get an idea of the vociferous nature of this Klan.

me and User:ClicketyClack worked so hard at making this NPOV. Can you be specific about what isn't. We'll get on it. Gah!!! Saboteurs destroying our hard work. I meant to check the updates but I've been busy, so if you can pinpoint some that would help! JamieJones ^talk 12:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saccharine-sweet, hagiographic, puff-piece, and you're wondering why it's labeled POV. You can't honestly believe what you're saying -- if you do, you're terminally stove-piped. Morton devonshire 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Morton, that was pretty funny! SkeenaR 07:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually liked that. But where are you going to go with that? SkeenaR 07:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure yet. Lots of possibilities. Trying to get people to lighten up right now, and just laugh. On both talk pages things are spelled out clearly, yet you still doubted the plain words -- You gotta admit that's funny given your interest in conspiracy theories. I officially dub you King of Conspiracy Spotters. Morton devonshire 07:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on the first part Morton, but I could point out that you seem to have an infatuation with sockpuppet conspiracies, even when you are given 'proof' otherwise. I'm not a bloody sockpuppet, you should know that by now. Anyway, conspiracies whether real or imagined are pretty interesting don't you think? I'm not just talking about the sociological aspects like what causes these to be prevalent in society and I'm sure you agree with me judging by your conspiracy theory loitering and your sockpuppet fetish. :) SkeenaR 07:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking to your less scary looking alter ego from now on. SkeenaR 20:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC) And I jumped on it first chance I got. I admit it. It was too funny. SkeenaR 07:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the comment you added to my discussion page. Sorry I didn't respond sooner. It raises my blood pressure and aggravates my disability to spend too much time on Wikipedia, so it can be weeks between visits. I was just editing the article on Rush (correcting some really bad writing, e.g. "independent freethinking" and "totalitarian dystopia"; can you say "redundant"? I can.) And, not that it was political, but the article was littered with POV, making statements about Rush's music that are merely opinions held by just one faction of their vast fan base.

I agree 100%. Wikipedia simply cannot be considered a reliable source of information unless its confirmed by at least one, preferably more, sources. The Left-Liberal bias reins here--regardless of the injury to the facts or reality.

the article on the commie and admitted liar Rigaberto Minchu was absolutely ridiculous. And people were down playing her lies! Lies I documented by using, among other sources, the Lib bible, the New York Times. It just goes to show you that anything that contradicts the Lib-Leftist canon is rejected regardless of the source.

Like you I've noticed that not only is Left-Lib (and outright Communist) POV tolerated, its positively encouraged. Only a conservative view point is labeled as such. I'm not advocating for conservative POV. The constant refrain from the worst of the Lib POV'ers is that wikipedia is supposed to be a "real" encyclopedia.

OK. Fine. Quit filtering the articles through the daily DNC talking points fax and you've got a start.

I find it more sad than amusing that some people, specifically this gamaliel person, clearly have so little to do that they watch so many pages like a hawk to ensure they adhered to the Left-wing kook blogosphere's "ideology"* (I freely admit I borrowed the phrase from the Maha-Rushi).

• If one can dignify what is nothing more than a muddled collection of hatreds, half-baked hypotheses (e.g. "global warming") and anti-family moves (e.g. gay marriage; I have no problem with protecting gays/lesbians from discrimination in the work place, housing, etc, but marriage is in big enough trouble with redefining it into meaninglessness) and propaganda with the term ideology. But this what modern Liberalism has become. For all his mediocrity in office--and failures as a person and his unique status as the only President elected by La Costra Nostra--Kennedy was a tax-cutting Cold Warrior. He'd puke if he could see what the McGovernites have turned Jefferson's party into. Jefferson himself would go cataleptic.

Ciao.

PainMan 10:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't be taken as a reputable source, unfortunately. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:File_Allocation_Table, Error List (Scott is right), for example. I'm not saying that people don't make honest mistakes, but they aren't exactly always using the facts at hand to create articles.

MSTCrow 22:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His supporters, however, strike me in the way that LaRouche supporters come across -- you could have a 4-hour conversation with a LaRouchian, and never approach common ground. They have drunk the Koolaid, man, and are ready to tie on their trainers and matching track outfits, and take the ride to the sun. Out there, and so far beyond reasonable belief that you really wonder if psychosis isn't at the root of it. I'm not sure what it is that motivates the Mumites in their obtuseness -- it certainly isn't righteousness of their cause, or justice, because the evidence against Mumia is so compelling (see http://www.danielfaulkner.com/mythsdir.html) -- so what is it really? Whatever it is, of one thing I'm certain -- there is no possibility of reasoning with them. Mars and Venus have a better chance of convening than do the Age of Reason and the Mumites.

I think the motivation behind people who support this thug is pretty obvious. His guilt or innocence is irrelevant to them. He's a "symbol" of "The Man's" "oppression" ("the Man" murdered my great-great-great mother and drove my Cherokee family out GA @ gunpoint).

It is a classic cause celebre. In a way it reminds of the anti-Dreyfusards during the controversy of Alfred Dreyfus. They simply refuse to believe overwhelming evidence because that supports their weltanschauung. Protecting the French Army became more important than injustice done to one man (and the fact that an actual traitor was still on the loose!). Despite the mountain of evidence against this cop-killer (and where's the sympathy for the families of the murdered cops?), his "supporters" close their eyes and mindlessly chant slogans. In the vacant reflection in their eyes you can see the vicarious thrill: "Dude, this is what the 60s was like, dude! Like, fight the Power, bro!"

To take a mirror example, look at the OJ case. I realize as a so-called "white" person (tho' in fact I'm mixed race, Anglo-Celtic-Germanic-Cherokee-Jewish-African-American), I'm in a minority in believing that OJ should not have been found guilty on the evidence. That's not to say he didn't do it or hire it done. Just to say that there were holes big enough in the case to drive a truck through. One of the homicide detectives takes a vial of OJ's blood from the crime lab and disappears with it for at least three, perhaps five hours. The infamous white Bronco is left completely unguarded in an impound yard--where LA city workers actually steal stuff out of it to sell! The blood-stained socks in his bedroom, supposedly one of the main pieces of "evidence" against him, were created by someone with an eye-dropper! The stains on one side are identical to the stains on the opposite.

But the biggest piece of exculpatory evidence in that farce was the fact that I watched the deputy LA County Corner say, in the Preliminary Hearing, that one victim had been killed by a left-handed person, the other by a right handed person. OJ's one of the greatest pro athlete's in history, but he ain't ambidextrous. (This deputy coroner, for having the audacity to speak the truth, had his reputation trashed and was forced out of his job.)

I could go on and on. The point is that vast numbers of people are just as convinced of his guilt as the tiny number of "Mumia" supporters are convinced of his innocence. It's taken on almost religious overtones. "Don't confuse me with the facts!" The willfull suspension of belief in contrary facts in the very diagnosis of fanaticism.

But the country's getting more and more like that. For too many people it doesn't matter what the truth is--the Left questions the very concept of truth!--but whether it benefits the agenda and the ideology. When reality and my ideology part, I go with reality every time.

PainMan 10:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the charming note you left for User:Bigplankton. I find it hard to believe you have so much anger over the fact that I submitted your stub article for deletion a while back. That's pretty routine here and certainly nothing to justify so much rage, but I can't change how you feel about things. However, before you attempt to recruit new users for your righteous crusade, consider that you are only encouraging the rude and uncivil behavior that could eventually get Bigplankton banned. Getting newbies to join you in shaking your angry fist at The Man may make you feel good in the short term, but will accomplish nothing and do neither of you any good in the long run. If you really think that you and he are the victim of "abuse", feel free to start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment about me. That might not be as much fun as ranting, but would be a lot more constructive. Gamaliel 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not angry about the Vfd -- I think that was inevitable given the strong feelings people have for the Mumia cause, and I understand that now. There are some subjects on Wikipedia that people feel so strongly about that it skews the entire Wiki process -- objectivity will never prevail. What I am upset about is the behavior you exhibit when people disagree with you--I don't think you even realize what it is that you do. Admins need to set a better example, and should remain neutral for the most part. I am hoping that you will take that into account in your future actions. Morton devonshire 05:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have attributed strong feelings to me regarding the Mumia case which I simply do not possess. Since you've placed me in the "cult of mumia", whatever that is, I doubt you'll believe that I am neutral in that matter, nor do I care. What I do have strong feelings about is the creation of articles about insignificant T-shirt slogans.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "better example" as an administrator, as I've performed no administrative actions regarding you, and my sole interaction with you (that I can recall, and I only remembered that after I checked my list) has been submitting your stub article for Vfd, a normal and routine non-administrative editing action. My sole interaction with BP has been to ask him to be more civil and productive in his comments. How that adds up to administrative abuse is beyond me. Gamaliel 05:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason BP is angry is because you prodded him -- I saw his comments, and he was Wiki-civil. I don't think you understand how insulting and subjective your comments and edits are. And now you add more on your todo watch list and remove BP's comments that are critical of you as an admin. Incredible behavior from an administrator. Morton devonshire 07:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. BP started out angry, before I said a word to him. His first comments to me were a series of rants: "But wait, Gamaliel comes along, doesn't care about anything except that they don't like Savage, and reverts. And this is an administrator. Doesn't care about the encyclopedia, cares about their own bias." This is not anything resembling civility. My sole response to this attack was "There is no reason to make this personal or adversarial. Please keep your comments civil and productive." We must live on different planets if you see an attack upon me as civil and my plea for civility as "insulting" and "prodding". Gamaliel 08:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to sort this out myself -- I think the reaction you get comes because you are an admin, yet you make substantive edits. That practice makes people feel very uncomfortable, and less confident in the neutrality of Wikipedia. Morton devonshire 08:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most if not all administrators on Wikipedia are active editors. Gamaliel 08:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you're not in a mood to take advice from me, but maybe you would get into fewer fights like these if you created a firewall between the activities -- one suggestion would be to exercise admin-like functions only on those articles for which you do not engage in substantive edits, and to engage in zero admin-like functions for those pages that you substantively edit. Maybe even staying completely away from deleting peoples comments and the like when you are making substantive edits. I think that would cut down on the disputes you find yourself in. Trying to step back and be helpful here. Morton devonshire 09:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I already do have such a firewall. I do not block people I am in disputes with, I do not lock articles (with the exception of simple and obvious vandalism) I am editing. While I am more than willing to accept advice from anyone, I don't see how any of this applies to the matter of BP, whose first act in relation to me was to attack me on the talk page unprovoked. I exercized no administrative functions in regards to BP or the Michael Savage article; all I ever did was ask him to be civil. Deleting his final attack on me was not something I do often, and I only did that after spending several frustrating hours attempting him to act in a reasonable manner while ignoring his previous attacks upon me. Gamaliel 09:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[Image:[censored]Cowbell2.gif|frame|100px|right|Animation of Gene Frenkle (Will Ferrell) in the "More Cowbell" sketch]] ...and thank you for reverting yourself on List of songs featuring cowbells. - CorbinSimpson 06:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article is one of those let's see how ridiculous we can make Wikipedia things, right? I don't think I can really take Wikipedia seriously anymore. Morton devonshire 07:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, I think that we have to remember that we are more or less unbounded in the amount of information we can record here. If we're going to try to write about every village that has ever been mentioned in Brittanica, we might as well make a list of all songs with cowbells in them too. I mean, Cajatambo is not an article that I thought was meaningful, but I wrote it anyways...even though it's a tiny stub that nobody except Peruvians are really knowledgeable about... - CorbinSimpson 18:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morton, I am glad to see that I'm not alone. Too many people belive that crap. Kurt Leyman

Lol@ att message. Is there any barnstar for that? peace :) --Striver 18:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the "this article is about ... for ... see ..." line at the top of Protests against the Iraq war doesn't add much. I have removed it. See Talk:Protests against the Iraq war#Disambig'.--JK the unwise 14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the more annoying aspects of Wikipedia, an aspect which hurts its credibility, is the concept that every point of view, however poorly sourced, must be represented. This leads to the truly strange phenomenen that when someone says the Earth is round, the page may contain an "alternative" theory that the Earth is considered flat by some persons. This is just nuts. I am recruiting a squad of editors to combat this obvious flaw in the Wikipedia system. If you are interested in contributing, please let me know. Peace. Morton devonshire 16:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The noise of wikipedia criticism is still a low chatter in the background, but I see it continuing to grow as more cases of vandalism, inaccuracy and bias filter to the surface and become news stories. I look forward to it. One of the problems with wikipedia is its prominience in search engine results. To an unsuspecting user, wikipedia has an air of authority because of the word "encyclopedia" and it looks polished and professional. Lurking underneath is awful bias, inaccuracy, and power-tripped administrators. For example, if you Google "New York Post", the wikipedia link is second! Little does the person know who clicks on it that some of the Post article was edited by two people who know very little except their own narrow bias. You know one of them. It ain't me. Luckily, there's a "disputed" tag above the article. There should, however, be a "disputed" tag on the main page of wikipedia. "The entirety of wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia is disputed." So who cares, someone can come along and fix the page right? That's the whole idea. But right now, the page is as it is, a biased mess. I can't be bothered arguing with people on the internet, I was done with that 4 internets ago. So, wikipedia does have tons of cool info on it, but it's weaknesses are going to be exposed eventually and changes are going to have to be made. Soon the internet meme of how bad wikipedia can be will spread faster than an owl at a O' RLY convention. --Bigplankton 19:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy jeez have you been to the admins alt. user page? That is some scary psycho sh-t! I was just there. I'll tell you what, you're not going to win an argument with that obsessive compulsive disorder. --Bigplankton 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following is taken word-for-word from Wikimedia Don't be a dick. If Admins took this to heart, most of the disputes they find themselves in would go away, and Wikipedia would be a happier and more useful space.

Generally speaking, if you are being a dick, the likelihood of whatever point you are trying to make (or whatever you're doing) reaching the ears of your intended audience dramatically (even exponentially) diminishes. Why? Simple: no one likes listening to dicks, no matter how correct or in the right they are.

If you've been labeled as a dick, or if you suspect that you yourself may be one, there is hope. The first step is to realize that you are being a dick. Ask yourself what is causing you to be one. Change your behavior and your mode of presentation. If needed, apologize to anyone who you may have been a dick to. It's okay! People will take notice of your willingness to cooperate and will almost always meet your efforts with increased respect.

Mistress, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would let it go. This sort of practice makes Wikipedia an unpleasant place. Thanks. Morton devonshire 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? - CorbinSimpson 02:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress User:[censored] insists that I violate some pretend WP fair use construct by using them on my user page. I insist fair use is permitted under US Copyright law. However, she won't leave me alone unless I give in to her threats, so rather than fight some silly pedantic[2] war with her, I choose to remove the pictures so that she goes away and chooses another to harass. Ironically, she cites Ignore the Rules and Don't be a dick as two of her most cherished precepts. Morton devonshire 08:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dot dot dot. No comment here. - CorbinSimpson 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nderstand-uay, our-yay, oncerns-cay. Kay-oay? Morton devonshire 18:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting ready to nominate these for deletion -- violates WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:NPOV, WP:BALLS, WP:BEANS, and WP:OR. Morton devonshire 03:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rationale_to_impeach_George_W._Bush for interested parties. Morton devonshire 03:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination) Morton devonshire 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of surprized that you asked me, I don't even think I've read the article before. But I did read it and the other opinions before I voted. I do not feel very strongly about it, however. Bubba73 (talk), 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. - I don't mind being asked for my input. Bubba73 (talk), 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think the BCC is impotent and kind of sad, but nonetheless notable because of media coverage and the notability of some of the people involved. I'm questioning why you're labelling it propaganda. I think there may be cases where articles are irredeemably POV, but it seems to me that this is an article which could be covered objectively. Шизомби 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were notable, then I wouldn't come to the same conclusion. But it's not notable, and the article was obviously created to assert the position that Bush is a war criminal -- that's the very definition of propaganda. If a real international body operating under the Rule of Law, like the International Criminal Court, were to create a tribunal with the same name, I would see the issue differently. My perspective is that Wikipedia should be free of advertising and political campaigning. Cheers. Morton devonshire 02:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble following your POV here. I could understand someone saying the group is not notable enough for an article; WP policy isn't clear on notability for groups or events, so that's a judgment call. The article may have been created by someone who believes Bush is a war criminal (I don't know Ombudsman's position, though I would guess so), but WP doesn't prohibit people from adding articles about things they agree with (how awkward would that be?). What I don't understand is why having an article about a group that decided Bush is a war criminal necessarily pushes that group's POV and acts as propaganda. WP does not endorse things as valid by having articles about them. If the problem is POV pushers owning the article, then a RFC might have been a better way to go (I realize it wasn't you that nomed it). Шизомби 02:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP is replete with POV-pusher articles like this one. I just don't see the merit in taking it to Rfc, as the article could never really be any better than it was when Ombuds started it, as the BCC is nn. As such, the article doesn't attract many editors, except those that agree with its political premise -- those kinds of article quickly become politically slanted and non-encyclopedic. It's best to delete them rather than try to fix, because they will never be encyclopedic. Peace brother. Morton devonshire 02:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What basis are you using to decide who to notify about this AFD? Шизомби 03:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about that too. Anyway, please don't notify me about any more AFD articles - if I feel like contribituting, I'll find the AFD myself. Thanks. --Tim4christ17 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer both of you, my interest is in combating POV-pushing and political agenda-pushing on Wikipedia. WP strives to be an encyclopedia, and should be NPOV. Morton devonshire 11:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Morton, look I'm the one who added the Afd to the Crimes commison page. Please don't notify people about it (This might cause said article to be kept and votes thrown out). If they wish to vote on it they will look it up on the Afd list. Also If the delete fails (which I think it will now) I'm going to oush for the merger of it into the Not in Our Name article. Aeon 13:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Morton devonshire 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did talk to you above, trying to understand your motivations. I appreciate that you're being polite, and I agree with you that WP should be an encyclopedia and NPOV, and that POV-pushing and political-agenda pushing should be dealt with. However, I think you're guilty of both by contacting 50+ people who could be expected to recommend delete on this article. Many of them have not articulated valid reasons for deletion (or any reason at all), which merely displays their own POV-pushing. As Aeon notes above, your action may backfire on you by the closing admin throwing out votes (unless that was your intent?). Should the article be deleted, you've given ample reason for a Deletion review by your actions. You would have done better to simply recommend the best possible reasons you could identify to delete the article. Maybe had you found a good one I would have agreed with you; I try to keep my recommendations in line with policy even if it means recommending deletion on something I like/agree with/find interesting/don't object to, or recommending keep on something I dislike/don't agree with/don't find interesting/find objectionable. As it is, I think you've done something wrong and felt obliged to report it. Should I have mentioned that to you before I did or immediately after? I don't know; I was debating it; I had most of this comment written and in an open window. Шизомби 19:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF Editing Wikipedia is a learning process, for me too. I've made plenty of mistakes, and want to get into fewer unhealthy exchanges with fellow Wikipedians. Here's hoping we can get along, even if you disagree with me. Cheers. Morton devonshire 23:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob Dev. Its all cool Aeon 04:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:The Attention template, AFAIK one doesn't have to be an admin to place it. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion which states "If you expect that the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia (possibly because the article itself is linked from some visible place outside Wikipedia), or if you notice this happening after the AfD page is created, you might want to insert the {{Template:AfdAnons}} template into it." That seems to be directed at all editors, not just admins. Шизомби 20:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. When I first came to Wikipedia, I was impressed, and sometimes intimidated by those sorts of canned notices and messages, because I assumed that they came from Wikipedia Officials. I even got one off the bat from someone calling himself Ombudsman, which I wrongly assumed was actually some kind of Ombudsman -- turns out he's a POV-pusher, and not a neutral at all. So, I think it's helpful to note that the message is not an official one, just one placed by a regular user/editor who is apparently trying to intimidate voters. The template is meaningless -- it's not official Wikipedia policy -- I didn't want viewers to give it any undue weight. Morton devonshire 20:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what status that template has if it's not policy, but it's certainly not deprecated. If you want the wording of it changed so that its meaning is better understood, you might try raising your objections on the discussion page for it. As for the deletion policy, you gave the link for the deletion guidelines for admins, not Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Шизомби 20:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, no invite? I guess I have to crash!!!! SkeenaR 03:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that people are very seriously taking this place as a field of Information warfare. I was alerted by Striver to most but not all of the Afd's I've participated in and voted KEEP in almost all of them. I didn't base my votes on politics though, I think pretty much every one has been notable and worth keeping. It looks like articles are always nominated for this because someone has an axe to grind. Hey, here's one, I don't know if you've seen it. Wikipedia Watch (Daniel Brandt and the history is pretty interesting I think) Good luck by the way. Check your mail.SkeenaR 22:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of becoming involved in any of that controversy, but thanks for the advice anyway. BTW, I have a hard time seeing this struggle as a war between Left and Right. Sometimes rightwingers see my ideas as leftist("You hate America don't you? Are you French SkeenaR? You pacifists are blah blah blah" and sometimes I hear from lefties things like "You intolerant redneck! No wonder there is so much war. Here, sniff this incense blah blah blah") People should get over this left/right thing. It seems like tunnel vision to me. Don't know why the mail didn't work. SkeenaR 02:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• TOAST! Morton devonshire 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morton, it's been awhile. Since there is no more Bush Crimes Commission we can replace it with Colbert. Here. Also, you think you could put a message in my email for me? I need to test it. Thanks man. Colbert with Bush [3] Colbert with Kristol [4] SkeenaR 21:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you are under attack, of course that is what happens when you enter a war zone. I see you have a lot of support as well. I don't know why the hell I can't get a message through to you by wikipedia, but I got your address now so I can go from there. Thanks for testing that for me. SkeenaR 23:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lonely Troll! Hey, I was looking at Prison Planet like I enjoy doing because it's so interesting and I found this. Here is an excerpt out of an article that has to do with what we were discussing above. I just figured you'd want to read it and it's kind of funny too.

"In an interview with Alex Jones this week, a liberal radio talk show host for GCN Radio Network, Sheen relived his thoughts and shared his theories on what happened that historic day four-and-a-half years ago," states the article.

Alex Jones a liberal? That one's going to keep us laughing all through until next winter! Alex Jones cut his teeth bashing Bill Clinton and in his youth even campaigned for Republicans before waking up to the false left-right paradigm. Within 10 seconds of meeting Alex Jones anyone would know that he is not a liberal. But in the upside down world of neo-cons and neo-libs, where the drumbeat of state worship has flipped them over so many times that they aren't even sure of their own phony political labels, Alex Jones is a liberal.

If George W. Bush, an assault weapons ban supporting, amnesty loving, abortion supporting, biggest spender on federal government ever, faux cowboy from Kennebunkport Maine is a conservative then I guess we're all Hollywood liberals. In truth both Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen are real conservatives, adhering to the legacy of the founding fathers who advocated constant vigilance of government.

SkeenaR 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The Barnstar of Diligence Thanks for helping with the Afd of the Bush Crimes Commission and your diligence in pursuit of a NPOV on it. Aeon 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]