Hi CesarB, just to clarify since there's now some confusion there, did you mean to cast a vote or just post a comment? If you could clarify what you intended there it would help. Thanks either way. FeloniousMonk07:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A comment, of course, I even said so in the edit summary (in fact, it's more of a reply to Sam Spade's vote, and I formatted it in the same way replies are usually formatted on RFA discussions — and on almost all talk page discussions). I see no way anyone can confuse that for a vote. --cesarb13:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians often sign both the originator's view or the respondent's view and an outside view. If you agree both with my comments and with FW's summary, I think you may sign both. Robert McClenon22:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't wish to badger you to death over this issue, but I do hope we can put the matter to rest. I remember that you were one of the most vocal opponents of the effort to keep the election endorsements/disendorsements from spinning out of control. While I understand the concerns about open discussion, many people feel the atmosphere that resulted was detrimental in a way that requests for adminship generally are not.
Let's suppose that the format and groundrules for publishing endorsements/disendorsements in the arbitration election had been developed and announced ahead of time, instead of being a hasty response to problems that had not been fully anticipated. Would you consider this a more acceptable solution? --Michael Snow05:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael, no problem, I understand the concern and the need for settling this matter now. I fully agree that the endorsements/disendorsements section of the last election was "out of control" and hence detrimental. I've always felt that this was directly due to the absence of rules and format. Any effort there, like that you mention, is bound to be an improvement I feel. Also, I'd suggest that early on interested parties in the community need to come together when drafting the ground rules and decide on an effective method for dealing with blatant personal attacks (as opposed to legitimately voiced concerns using the public record) in the endorsements/disendorsements section. I feel that with both of these things in place, effective ground rules and format, you can structure a solution that addresses the often conflicting demands for open discussion of candidates and civil discourse. That would get us back on track to the ideal solution, an election by the community. FeloniousMonk15:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. I'm willing to consider our past disagreement settled. Having not observed much of your other work, I'm not sure that I'm prepared to support your adminship nomination, but I won't be opposing at any rate. Whether you become an admin or not this time around, I hope you'll continue your valuable contributions. --Michael Snow17:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I voted on your RFA as Neutral for the reasons I stated. I hope you understand. Since I know we've gotten into conflict in the past over SS, I thought this [[1]] might intrest you. Even if my tone isn't as sharp, the words are much harsher, atleast thats the way I read them.--Tznkai16:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, baby...those are my kinds of pictures. She's a beaut! My 6.9 is still in the "beater" stage, but I'll definitely get some pictures back out your way. Body, engine, tranny and most of the interior are nice. The paint is so-so and the replacement seat upholstery is shot. For 99 bucks and not much more than some deferred maintenance it really came back to life. The rear hydropneumatic suspension spheres are on my short list since mine are blown, which locks the struts. Easy fix once I scrape some dough together for some parts. Thanks for sharing!! - Lucky 6.905:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathiontalk08:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just briefly, two things: (1) I love the Nutritional Information, it's a work of genius; and (2) thank you very much for your support of my adminship nomination and your kinds words. I really appreciate them. I'm sure I'll see you around, but in the meantime, thanks again and happy editing. Slacspeak up!22:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WikiwiseowlAthena, goddess of wisdom, was often depicted to be attended by an owl. Since then, owls have often been associated with wisdom. Good to see you've got the buttons finally. :-) Use them wisely! Kim Bruning02:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your elevation. I opposed your nomination, but only because I wanted some time for the SS dispute to simmer down. I'm sure you will do an excellent job. Best of luck. Rkevins8204:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fuss and antics were illuminating (especially in shining a light on the character of one or two editors), and in the end the result was the right one. Welcome to the rack; prepare to be tormented. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)15:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
!מזל טוב (That's "mazal tov" for the non-Hebrew-readers) and may your Adminship be less contentious than your wickèd and drawn-out RFA. On the other hand, if you turn out to be as good an admin as I hope you'll be, you'll probably look back on your RFA as a sunshiny time :-P TomerTALK 06:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations, FM, for the adminship and for the repaired relationships. Use it all for the good. ;-D SlimVirgin(talk) 06:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well, after all this, it's only appropriate to quote the fine words of Oliver Hardy: "That's another fine mess you've gotten me into."
Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! --Merovingian(t)(c) 17:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
me too - eh - I thought you were one already -- eh, congratulations! may you manage to keep disputes and admining firmly separated, always! dab(ᛏ)17:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to repeat what seems to be the common theme here, thanks for supporting my RfA, I will do my very best to live up to your support! -Loren00:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting my RfA, Felonious. That nutrition facts chart on your userpage is fantastic, BTW. If I was just a shade more shameless, I would blatantly steal it for my own userpage. See you around the Wiki. Fernando RizoT/C19:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FeloniousMonk. Sorry that you think I'm being dishonest. If you could, please define "pro-ID" for me and how you think you can get away saying that you aren't "anti-ID". David Bergan21:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to play games. You know exactly what I mean. I have little patience with those who'd waste the time of good faith contributors with disingenuous claims. FeloniousMonk22:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll say it for both of us. I'm pro-ID, and you're anti-ID. You claim to be somehow above the controversy, but every edit I've witnessed you make has been critical of ID or its proponents. And mine have been in their favor. David Bergan01:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for at least being honest about your own motives and biases, but it should have appeared at Talk:Antony Flew, not here after being called on it.
As for your personal opinion on my position regarding ID: As I've said before I am neither pro- nor anti- ID. You're entitled to your own opinion as whether or not that is true. Aside from your personal feelings about ID though, you shouldn't confuse opinion for fact. As far as I'm concerned ID is just like any other argument for the existence of God; it is an object-of-faith beyond verification, thus I don't waste time in either attacking or defending it. It's the actions of ID proponents though, their manipulating of facts, gaming of the social and political systems and conflation of religion and science that I document or excise from articles as accuracy and policy require. Since ID proponents have a well-established history of behaving thusly and wikipedia being a near constant target of their various efforts, I'm neither surprised by your admission, nor moved by your accusation. Please keep the pro- ID campaigning to your Talk pages and out of the articles and their Talk pages. Again, thanks for being honest about this. FeloniousMonk02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I half-agree. For what it's worth, I would call myself pro-ID-theory/ID-movement-neutral, and from your claim I would call you anti-ID-movement/ID-theory-neutral. Your work suggest anti-both to me, since you seem intent on muddying up the theory with the politics, but that's probably because in your mind they are inseparable. And if you asked me about whether or not ID should be taught in high schools, I wouldn't jump up and down in favor of the idea. I think it's interesting, but I also think the Koran is interesting, and I wouldn't have a strong opinion on its inclusion.
Please keep the pro- ID campaigning to your Talk pages and out of the articles and their Talk pages. - The only agenda I am campaigning for is truth and accuracy in the articles. And the articles need both of us to be accurate. David Bergan07:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you look in on the bottom of Talk:Holocaust denial? Bdell555 is looking for some admin other than Jpgordon and Jayjg to confirm that simple admins can't mess with article histories. Thanks. :-) TomerTALK 19:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's meant in no way to lessen or play with the fact that the real Red Brigades did some very nasty things, but I couldn't resist. Geogre23:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, any special friend of Sam Spade's is definitely worthy, in my opinion. :-) If Sam puts you in the same category as Bishonen, then you definitely deserve an award.
As for the oddness, I think that's listed on wp:an (where you may now go with immunity by right). Apparently Mr. I. decided to post that message on every administrator's user page, alphabetically. This is what the wp:an notice said. However, folks with d- admin names, f- admin names, and g-admin names (i.e. you and me) didn't get it. We are the happy few, it seems. No one's entirely sure what Mr. I. was going on about, but he had apparently intended to send a copy to every admin page rather than to simply put it up on the Village Pimp...er, Village Pump. Geogre19:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FM, I just thought I'd let you know that the Image:Forestfire4.jpg you have on your talk page is a copyright of National Geographic and is currently listed on the copyvio page. I tagged it two weeks ago, and I guess it's in the process of being cleared, but I thought you might like to know. I think you also have a copy on one of your archived pages. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ 14:03:28, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, but unfortunately you're a bit off the mark. No one is edit warring except Sam Spade, who is flouting the consensus of the other participants in the discussion, two admins, Exploding Boy and myself. There is further discussion here: User_talk:Sam_Spade#Redirect_of_I_am. Sam's "evidence" for his insistance for repeatedly reverting is uncompelling. The stats are that almost the only people landing on this redirect are EB, SS, and myself. This article redirect is little used, adds nothing to wikipedia, and become a constant source of contention for Sam, it should be deleted. The consensus is that I am should not redirect to God, so I'm undoing Sam's revert once again and I'm adding the vfd template. FeloniousMonk15:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that you took it upon yourself to create an editorial out of the What the Bleep Do We Know article...
Quoth the Official Policy of Neutral Point of View, "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. [...] Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section. [...] We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail."
Could you please fix the article? I tried to tone down the POV, and you made it quite worse. I think that with all the criticism in that article, it would also be necessary to include a Response section to balance things out. Yes that movie is loony, but no Wikipedia can't say that it is. --Berserk798 15:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Since you don't appear to have been watching my talkpage, I guess I'll move what I said over to your talkpage.
Is calling the experts "those that have been presented as experts" less POV? We're supposed to give a sympathetic view to both sides and assume that everything is at least plausible. We can't just say they're "presented as experts" as that's your point of view. There's a sizeable community that considers them to be experts in the field of quantum physics.
Your reinsertion of the sentence "The filmmakers assembled a panel favorable to their views to make their point (see below)." is redundant, as the next paragraph says "The film presents scientific experts to support the film's underlying philosophy, but, by and large, the scientists have previously been involved in promoting similar ideas. Arguably, their presence in the film represents the filmmaker's efforts to find scientists sympathetic to the film's ideas.", and it doesn't seem very neutral at all.
Saying that these chosen experts do not represent the scientific community is just stupid. There isn't one scientific community with one outlook on things. I suggest we change it back to may not.
Using words like "purported" and "alleged" is also a bad idea. I think "controversial" is much more neutral.
Please explain how each of these changes improved the article. Thanks! :) --Berserk798 16:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
I am unclear as to the best place for us to talk about FTU
Consider your statement: "... a creator of the universe with almost but not quite omnipotent powers?" By definition any being sufficiently powerful to create the universe will be omnipotent by any common understanding of the term. A "creator of the universe with almost but not quite omnipotent powers" is a definition that is so attenuated and ill-defined that it ceases to be meaningful. ID and the fine-tuned universe argument are inextricably linked; the fine-tuned universe argument implies Design, and ID makes explicit and essential use of the fine-tuned universe argument. FeloniousMonk 19:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
1. I deny "something that creates" MUST be a "being".
2. I deny that the ability to affect the constants of the universe necessitates "omnipotence". Maybe the lack of ability to go back in time restricts this creator. Maybe the lack of ability to add or subtract a spacial dimension restricts this creative force. Maybe there exists only the ability to create other universes with slightly altered constants by universes such as ours will become in a trillion years of evolution. Genes make random changes that as a whole make incremental improvements in the ability of life. It is a failure of imagination to pretend only ommipotence can do the job. It is the god of the gaps in yet another guise.
3. A fine tune universe implies design no more than evolution implies design. Maybe universes are created in numbers like the squid and only universes that produce life can evolve themselves to the point where they have the technology to create other universes. The point is not that this happens, but that it is logically possible, thus "fine-tuned" does not REQUIRE omni-anything. WAS 4.250 05:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Please understand that I am not trying to belittle your beliefs when I say that you denying these things is insufficient justification for their inclusion in the article. Without the claims being anymore significant than your opinion or that of a small number of others (I've yet to see otherwise), they fall in the realm of original research. They would need to be presented as arguments by a significant number of credible participants in the debate beyond wikipedia's pages to qualify as not being original research and hence warrant their inclusion in the article.
That a being sufficiently powerful to create the universe will be omnipotent by definition is something you do not find compelling also is not sufficient justification for us to dismiss the common understanding of omnipotent. The same is true for Design implying a Designer. Since you are the one making the assertion, the burden is on you to demonstrate how a universe could be created/fine-tuned without an intelligent agent such as The Designer (formerly known as God), after which you'd still have to show it's not an uncommon position to make it into the article. Again, your idea of a "creator of the universe with almost but not quite omnipotent powers" is a definition that is so attenuated and ill-defined that it ceases to be meaningful. Logic dictates that creation requires a creator. FeloniousMonk07:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering why you reverted my changes to the Blue Martini article. The article looked like it had been scraped directly from a Blue Martini Software web brochure - I have firsthand experience using the system and tried to present a more balanced view of its capabilities.
-Raskol20:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This message is in response to your comments on my userpage which accused me of obstructionism, and ad hominem comments. I will continue to improve the article regardless of the tactics that you employ. It is your attempts to paint fine-tuned universe theories as creationism that are sophistry, obstuctionist and transparently original research. The category "pseudoscience" is particularly abusive. --goethean ॐ 17:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That the fine tuning argument is a specific argument within the anthropic principle is not in question, nor is that it is an argument that the universe was created. The FTA asserts that the universe was created in particular way. Creationism claiming to be science is perforce pseudoscience. It is your assertion to the contrary that constitutes the personal research here. The real topic here is your behavior, and that needs to change, particularly now in light of the personal attacks on your user sub-page User:Goethean/Examples_of_sophistry. FeloniousMonk18:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You awarded Mel with a Rogue Moderator prize. Were you being sarcastic? If you weren't being sarcastic, perhaps you should join our resistance party against Mel. Either leave a message on my talk-page, or email me (see my user-page).
The user user:Adrigo who has been editing articles about atheism, agonisticism, and theism, is Donald Alford (AKA DotSix) who has been injoined by the Arb Committee from editing any page except the evidence page for his Arb Hearing [2] and his own user pages. Please revert EVERY edit he makes to any other page, including talk pages, with a simple comment that he is injoined. Please do not argue with him. Doing so just feeds a troll. Whether you agree with one of his edits doesn't matter: he is not allowed to edit. Revert it anyway and then, if you want, make a similar edit of your own. Thank you. --Nate Ladd22:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It took me only 3 minutes to find the moved article and fix the link. My view is that's what responsible wikipedians do when a link is broken. Either way, it's fixed now. FeloniousMonk02:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see the new link. How should I have done this given I didn't know the link? I thought to be accurate it should be deleted. I could not locate the article it referred to. Should I have left it and then mentioned it on the discussion page?--Swmeyer03:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article's content to see who the broken link refered to (Pearcey), then I went to the homepage of the site that hosted the broken link and used their search function with Pearcey as the search term. The moved page was in the search results. If the hositing site does not have a search function you can use Google to search a particular site, see Google's "advanced search" page. Thanks for asking how to do this; it's good info to know here if you're going to contribute. BTW, it's not that I'm unfamiliar with the articles and tracts on the discovery.org site, it's that I don't find them credible enough to trump more neutral sources. FeloniousMonk02:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I think the Mel's issue was with unwikifying certain words in the infobox and some textual changes. However, there is nothing wrong with having the album covers in the chronology. It's currently being added to loads of other album articles by other users and is perfectly valid with wikipedia album article regulations. I've just re-instated them - minus the other changes I made before (which I still feel are valid as well, but I will relent on those issues since Mel is very obstinate). Could you please help me on those articles to make sure there are no more petty revisions on Mel's part? I'm sure you can agree that adding the album pics only adds to the quality of the articles...
Thanks for intervening, FM. With regard to the album covers, I've raised this at the Album project. It's not mentioned there, and I suspect that the new template has simply been created by an editor working solo. It's a bad edia, in that, first, it adds nothing useful but makes pages take longer to load, and (more importantly) it overuses "fair use" images, when we're trying to cut down on their use. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)22:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get a chance to see my reponse to your sources in the Creationism talk page? I'd be interested to see how you respond to each of my points. I didn't see much weight to the sources you cited (one I could not get to). Please respond.
Swmeyer13:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FeloniousMonk,
While I can appreciate your warning, I am afraid that my views are supported by others individuals who have stopped in to question the neutral point of view and think the criticisms are unfair.
Hey, sorry to cause problems with the form. I didn't intend to--there was a problem with 2 windows being open. Hope you can revert without a problem. I tried to find how to do it, but I couldn't.
Swmeyer07:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am a relatively new wikipedian and an appreciator of the band Einstürzende Neubauten. Would you please restore the 'bias' template in the articles Larvatus, Erin Zhu, Min Zhu, that I added and you removed. The reason is: these is particularly, a personal issue, and an only POV in the articles is a POV of Michael Zeleny, who is personally very involved into this story, both in private and business life.
So, I ask you to restore the 'bias' template in these three articles, for the reason that they provide only one POV from a very concerned person. Anyway - thank you in response. Alex ex08:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will not reblock him, but I want to let you know that I think your unblock was inappropriate, especially considering that you didn't discuss it with me before doing so (posting on my talk page a few minutes before doing so doesn't count). The edits he reverted were not simple vandalism; while it could be argued that the user in question was a vandal, the edits themselves were not "vandalism". 3RR applies to good-faith users too, if they break it. Ral315WS16:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mel's work has been simple, uncontroversial (anywhere else) tidying and formatting. These two editors are clearly bullies and vandals (at least when it comes to Mel's edits). Getting them to play nicely with Mel has been the subject of much discussion and effort at WP:AN/I#User:Winnermario and WP:AN/I#User:Anittas:_personal_attacks_.26_stalking. Anittas is on WP:NPA watch. Winnermario is complicit due to Anittas fanning his flames. Mel should not have to suffer because they are saavy enough to game the system to attack him. FeloniousMonk16:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a serious allegation against Mel, and as one who was there, I saw nothing to back up what you claim. You need to either present some evidence to support it, or withdraw it and apologize to Mel. Oh, and WP:FAITH. FeloniousMonk23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which particular allegation? I have accused him of edit warring. The evidence shows that he has engaged in egregious edit warring for a shockingly long period. I have accused him of biting newbies; there is evidence that he has done this. I have accused him of dishonesty by saying on WP:AN or WP:ANI that other editors were engaged in edit warring, but omitting to say that he himself was the other party. I have also based this on directly cited evidence--to wit, an exhaustive analysis of every single edit he made on those pages during September and October. --Tony SidawayTalk23:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to play games. You know exactly which allegation I'm talking about. The one where you accuse him of being dishonest [3]. There's no evidence for what you allege. Not only do you cross the line on WP:FAITH in making it, but WP:CIVIL as well. Again, an apology is in order. Along with a restatement of your assumption of Mel's good faith, I'm willing to chalk it up to tensions running high. Otherwise, accusing a fellow admin of being dishonest is a pretty serious form of personal attack, and one I'm not inclined to overlook. FeloniousMonk01:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See above. I had no idea which of the several serious allegations I made about Mel Etitis you were referring to you when I replied to your edit, so I enumerated them all and summarised the extensive evidence that I had given, which is available in exhaustive detail on his talk page. No apology is in order; rather I would like Mel Etitis to admit that he's led us all up the garden path for months by edit warring with editors at the same time he purports to be asking for some help in reasoning with them. This makes administrators look like utter clowns. Faith can be extended until it becomes clear that someone is doing something wrong. --Tony SidawayTalk
You have not demonstrated that Mel has been in any way dishonest. You publicly identifying him as such constitutes a personal attack. Personal attacks are no more acceptable to the community than edit wars, meaning your actions are now as harmful to the project as the edit warring you confronted Mel over. FeloniousMonk03:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wont go around in circles with you. I'll just beg to differ on the material question. Obviously if I'm right then it's correct to identify this behavior, and if you're right Mel deserves an apology. I'll wait to see if he gives a good explanation of, for instance, why when he said that BGC was acting unreasonably and "mass reverting" his changes, he didn't say that he, Mel Etitis had in fact engaged in a protracted edit war with that user. Mel knows as well as I do that the response to edit warriors who make such pleas is somewhat different from the response to people who have refrained from warring, because it is difficult to reason with someone while you're both engaged in reverts of one's work. --Tony SidawayTalk03:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To T.S.: "have accused him of biting newbies; there is evidence that he has done this". You suddenly went vague. Please supply it if it exists.
Hi there! I have openend an RFC on Tony Sidaway's frequent incivility and poor response to criticism. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. If I understand correctly from his talk page, you have recently tried to discuss this very issue with him, and it didn't really resolve anything. I hope that an RFC may be more fruitful. Yours, Radiant_>|<12:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have three questions related to this block: First, why a 48hour block when the standard for 3RR is 24 hours? Second why did you warn the user, then three minutes later block when the user stopped editing after the warning? Third, why did you go straight to a final warning when the edits appeared to be just a little POVness from an uninformed new editor? --Gmaxwell19:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is subject to constant barrage of pov-motivated vandalism from a range of IPs. Based on the fact that the exact POV content being added was not what you characterize as "just a little POVness from an uninformed new editor," but largely identical to that used by previous vandals, I believed the editor using that IP is one of the repeat offenders. Those repeat offenders have been warned many times before at their corresponding IPs addresses. Hence the final warning. Then I noticed the additional 3rr violation after having left the warning. Taken together, I exercised my discretion to issue a 48 hr. block. It is an action which I stand by, as the vandalism has slowed since.
I can't seem to find where that text was inserted by anyone else. The range of IPs that were blocked (indefinite? on an IP? well thats another matter) appeared to be inserting entirely different text. In the future when you block one account because of the actions of a presumed related account you should try to provide a link to the other account because this was not at all clear. The fact that the article is POV-edited (POV edits by themself are not vandalism, although they too may warrent blocking) does not excuse blocking people without warning. If the user was deserving of a final warning because you believed they were the same user, they would have been just as deserving having made three changes rather than four. So I still strongly disagree with your action. That said, this alone is not the end of the world. --Gmaxwell20:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's your turn to provide some answers: Explain to me how your sudden interest in my history does not have anything to do with my comments left at Tony Sidaway's RfC. And what possible justification do you think there is for altering evidence at an RfC left there by someone other than youself, particularly when your changes affect it materially?
Actually, It was your reference to Mel's RFC that sent me auditing your blocks for the same sort of new user rough treatment that Mel has committed. It might be cliche, but my only alliance is to the facts. Indeed, I think my only interaction with Tony on wikipedia was actually an argument some time ago. I'm seriously concerned with your recent activity with respect the treatment of new users, but thats an entirely seperate matter from your evidence on Tony's RFC. Even if you don't believe my motivation, my concerns stand on their own. --Gmaxwell20:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I have difficulty believing someone who claims to be dedicated to facts yet repeatedly tampers with RfC evidence [4][5] under a utterly BS pretext. Apparently you have no problem with acting on behalf of those who treat established users with a lack of respect, so why the focus the treatment of new users? Please. We're all bright people here. Your motives and your actions today are completely transparent to anyone who cares views them, and biting newbies is an all too facile objection in witch hunts. FeloniousMonk20:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Felonious, There was no tampering. The RFC had a subsub section referencing your discussion with Tony. I read the links and was at first shocked that Tony didn't reply to you... only to realize a moment later that he had replied, and you'd decided to link in a way which made it unclear. I presumed you made a mistake and changed the three links to a single link to the entire unaltered conversation. No information was changed or removed. Since it wasn't an attributed comment, I didn't see any reason to pass the change by you ... As far as my comment on the newbie treatment goes, my recent editing record (including my criticism of Mel) predates the entire discussion, in fact I was really dissapointed that unlike the Mel supporters no one came and told me about Mel's RFC so I could comment as well. --Gmaxwell20:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In your response to me, you semed to misinterpret what I was saying--intelligent design isn't a theory counter to natural selection but rather to the Darwinist model of evolution. Natural selection is common sense and while it may go by different names in different circles, I don't think there's anyone out there who really wants to attempt to refute the concept.
Evolution, on the other hand, which I referred to, lacks tangible evidence. It's a scientific theory, but not a fact. And, I see no reason why those who believe in a Darwinist model of evolution ought not to be called 'darwinists.' After all, those who believe in Marx's dialectic are known as Marxists, are they not? Freudians, Machiavellians, etc. Darwinists model of evolution is currently the popular theory amongst many scientists, but intelligent design is there, too.
Think of it this way: Alternative medicine is still known as medicine. Even though some techniques are outside of the mainstream and not accepted by many doctors, there isn't an attempt to purge the term 'medicine' from them. Why then must there be the attempt to purge 'scientific theory' from intelligent design? Unfortinately, scientists have always been an obstinate bunch.
Trilemma20:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
