User talk:Gorgonzilla/Misc

Checking for sockpuppets

Multiple editors on Talk:Neuro-Linguistic Programming are using the same silly arguments and fail to use primary sources for definitions. Any challenge for for logic, specifics or reputatble sources are ignored. I added 'dubious' and 'dispute' tags to the document, but they were also removed quickly. Now they are shouting at me for acting against consensus. This does not make any sense because I have been offering well-researched contributions. I suspect that one user is using multiple accounts to manufacture consensus. The document as it currently stands is in need of major revision. Can you assist or point us in the right direction? --Comaze 11:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They might be sockpuppets or they might just be two people who share the same opinion of NLP. I think you are simply discovering one of the problems with the NPOV rule here, encyclopedias are not written to a neutral point of view, they are mostly written to conform to the dominant POV the day which is currently scientific rationalism. This creates a big problem when trying to deal with pseudo-scientific theories. I don't think you will find many people wanting to read the article. --Gorgonzilla 15:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

just wanterd to say...

thanks for helping me with the Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal.

grazon 01:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Terry Moran

can you kindly tell me why I the system dislays showing a pic or waits until asking the browser to view the picture?Kyle Andrew Brown 20:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image in Jack Abramoff

Can the image in Jack Abramoff be properly sourced? John Henry tried to speedy the article over it (an incorrect speedy reason, of course) but I wouldn't want the image to be used as a reason to disrupt the article. Cheers! BD2412 ^talk 03:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother, I am pretty sure it is actually of Grover Norquist. I have meant to look into it several times. --Gorgonzilla 03:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I already made the connection. His sockpuppet User:DEastman made a few edits to the Karl Rove article and then this John Henry account started editing soon afterwards, including inserting more evacuation plan garbage into the Rove article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if people choose to sockpuppet then you should not feel any disinclination to block them on the basis that you have edited articles they have previously edit warred on. I removed the copyvios he just posted as they are obviously in bad faith. --Gorgonzilla 04:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should choose a name for him like we do with viuses. I nominate GOPAstroturf. --Gorgonzilla 04:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, an RfC may be in order. BD2412 ^talk 04:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now listed the article on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. BD2412 ^talk 04:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AAR/Gloria Wise AfD

I saw you withdrew the AfD, but wanted to comment on what you wrote.

I still think that the same points could be made more forcefully and effectively in far fewer words. In wikipedia the point is not space, its the reader's attention. Splitting off criticism into ghetto articles is a bad idea.

The problem was that the AAR article was getting rather large. I was looking for pieces of the article to daughterize, and this section was becoming far too large and far too contentious. Daughter articles appear all over the place. (That's why the 9/11 domestic complicity theory is not fought about on the George W. Bush article itself) I felt that the AAR article could be an NPOV place, and having this touchy subject didn't do it any favors. There was almost constant fighting over it, and honestly, it was fairly unnecessary to keep the entire thing in the AAR article. I think the AAR/GW loan article needs a lot of work, but since there seems to be a lot of interest and information, it would be hard to slim it down. What do you think we should do about it? Do you really think it should be deleted? If you honostly think it can be chopped down into a one or two NPOV paragraph section, I will gladly help try and put it back into the AAR page, and vote delete on an AfD. I am not a POV pusher, and would be glad to help. Just let me know. Cheers my friend. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. If you look at the John Henry RFC you will see why I thought there might be a problem. In general I dislike a daughter article with criticism haveing see obvious shills for WalMart remove every critical statement from the Walmart article off to a separate article and then edit it so that the wingnuttiest parts come first and the most important criticism burried at the end.

Problem with such articles is that they do tend to expand. I would like to reduce the Abramoff-Reed article I started but people just keep adding in every congressman who ever received a free lunch from Abramoff, arguably illegal but could be done as a bullet list much better. In that particular case the material was spread half over the Abramoff page and half over the Reed page so it did seem worth combining. --Gorgonzilla 02:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite alright. I understand your frustration. Many of us share it. It has been a couple of days since I've really, actually looked into the AAR/GW article, so I don't know exactly what is happening currently, but I'll be sure to check up on it soon. See you around. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earle

Gorgonzilla, I completely re-worked the external references section and ran across several bad references. Please advise. kgrr ^talk 13:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT fox news

This page has been moved to your userspace, at User:Gorgonzilla/Wikipedia is not Fox News, per discussion at WP:MFD. R adiant _>|< 17:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights

Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights is a proposed policy / guideline that has been supported by Wikipedians who are concerned that the long term neutrality of Wikipedia depends upon input from minority viewpoints. Continued input from minority viewpoints, in turn can be assured only if the actions of admins and ArbCom are applied fairly and with an even hand. Although the proposed policy / guideline is under active discussion [1], [2], there have been attempts to close the discussion on the grounds that "there is not a snowball's chance in hell" [3] that such a proposed policy / guideline will be accepted. One editor was sanctioned [4] for an allegedly "disruptive" edit, of removing a "rejected" template while discussion was ongoing [5]. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. (The current version of the proposal appearing on the page is a semi-blanked version which was semi-blanked by opponents of the proposal.)[6] --BostonMA 14:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abramoff stuff

cheers on our good work

04:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)~

I guess "good" is a relative thing.

At any rate, We don't agree that any Jewish info, Academies or not should appear on the page. If someone really wants to know if this guy is a kike then they'll have to work a little to find out. We don't need students or children getting the idea that Jews are bad people. - Brad (Jew-HATE WATCH)

Brad, I agree that the comments being made by 'Siegheil' are clearly motivated by anti-semitism. However the fact that Abramoff was funding religious schools and far right causes in Israel is very relevant to his biography. What do you expect from a guy who claims to get religion from watching 'fiddler on the roof' [7] ? Thats like someone saying they decided to become a Catholic after watching the sound of music. Removing all mention from his biography is simply giving the conspiracy theorists ammunition. -- Gorgonzilla 03:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"borrowed" header

Are you using a standard template at the top of this page? I tried {{Talkheader}} but that seemed crafted for article talk pages, while your's is more appropriate to use on a user talk page. I appropriated a copy of it for mine, I hope you won't mind. --Flawiki 03:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I seem to remember that it was dumped onto my talk page during a flame war when I filed an RFC against another GOP POV peddler. The idea seemed to be to try to intimidate me into thinking that they knew what was going on here and I didn't --Gorgonzilla 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Culture of Corruption

Template:Culture of Corruption has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. I agree with you in principle, but...BD2412 T 01:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want a template to tie together the various linked scandals. I retitled it Bush Administration Scandals but that is inaccurate since only Plame is a direct administration issue. So far the press has not developed their own name. Arguably the WMD scandal should appear here as well.

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Regarding your reply to Macwiki in Talk:Mary O. McCarthy, I'd like to politely remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground.

From the WP:NOT article:

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly or intimidatingly towards you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same unto them ("he started it!"). Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavouring, or ignore the relevant message entirely. When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution.

A comment such as "Stop being idiotic" is not interacting with others in the spirit of cooperation, and it is insulting someone with whom you have a disagreement. Believe me when I say that I'm a supporter of free speech, and I even somewhat agree with the rest of your comments in that paragraph, but telling someone to stop being idiotic is inappropriate. ekedolphin 18:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument about being an activist might make sense, but I am pretty sure that when they think about it the posters trying to make a comparison with Abramoff will recognize that it really is a clanger. Its like calling someone a weight lifter because they once had a trial membership at Gold's Gym and using the Schwartzenegger piece as justification. I changed it to ridiculous, happy?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). The issue of the name has not been resolved and therefore people are now recruiting others to delete. Feel free to make your judgement known, thank you. Nomen Nescio 21:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]