User talk:Morton devonshire/Archive06

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Morton devonshire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ganser's Work Written With Both Eyes Closed

See this book review, where the reviewer easily discredits the so-called scholarly nature of propagandist Daniele Ganser's work.

It isn't "so-called" scholarly just because you don't like it, and just because you like the reviewer's opinion more doesn't mean he "easily discredits" anything. Frankly, you don't have the slightest idea what constitutes scholarly nature. Hint: It's not telling you what you want to hear. The fact that you continue to suggest yourself to possess greater expertise than entire university departments is what easily discredits you. Grabbing random pages off the web has nothing to do with "discrediting scholarly nature". Maybe before rambling about "so-called scholarly nature", you familiarize yourself with the concept of peer review. --OliverH 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OliverH, theres no point getting cross with Morton. His aims here are so hypocritical as to be laughable. He is a caricature wont unto flesh. His world view is so narrow that a cigarette paper of enlightenment could not be slipped between his prejudice and his bigotry, etc.

The funniest thing is that he hadn't even read Ganser's book, and sees no reason to, before dismissing it. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been published in an academic journal, and was an associate editor for an entire year. I've spaded (i.e. citation and fact-checked) dozens of articles at the doctoral level. Yes, I'm quite familiar with peer-reviewed work, and I'm telling you that Ganser's work would not have passed review where I edited, because a review of his primary sources would have revealed their tabloid nature and outright fabrication. So much for academic rigor.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 18:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read it? Raemie 18:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just been looking through the 960 references in Ganser's book. Can't see any `tabloids'. Which ones are your referring to specifically? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That Ganser's work would not have passed peer review where you edited may well be. The question is whether there would have been academic reasons for it or if it would just have been your lack of scholarly integrity. "Academic rigor" is what your conduct is completely, and utterly, devoid of, because no one considering himself seriously a scholar would "criticise" an academic publication in the defamatory and unscholarly way you are doing it. Most of all, no one would dare raise accusations of fabrication without bringing more than arrogant, jingoistic "everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" language. No one seriously considering himself a scholar would grab random articles off the web claiming they prove anything, much less that a few lines of unreferences text would debunk an academic publication. Raising allegations of fabrication without any evidence clearly demonstrates the complete and utter lack of scholarly integrity on your part. Your "editing" would fit neatly into a chinese government publication. --OliverH 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Journal of Intelligence History is very scholarly and reputable and they say "Ganser fails to present proof of and an in-depth explanation of the claimed conspiracy...." That's pretty lacking in a book that claims a conspiracy. --Tbeatty 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Even a cursory examination of the literature would reveal that FM 31-30B is a fake, a document which Ganser accepts without critical examination, and relies upon heavily in forming his conclusions.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 08:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganser does not accept the FM without criticism and certainly does not 'rely heavily' on it for his conclusions. He mentions it on 3 pages in the book of 300 pages and it is 1 of 960 sources.

Tell me how he's critical of the authenticity of the Field Manual. Morton devonshire 06:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is quite clear that you have not read the book.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 10:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation to the fabricated Field Manual is enough to call the whole work into question, but that's just the low-hanging fruit. I've read the relevant discussion about the FM, and he's hardly skeptical of its sourcing.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So you admit you haven't read the book? Don't you think its dishonest to dismiss a book you haven;t read and make comments on that books' `tabloid' sources, when you have no idea what you are talking about? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not a provocation, its a very serious question. Its important for every editor you work with to understand what you think is acceptable behaviour. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't have time to read all the crackpot books. There are enough legitimate historical references to read. But in the context of Wikipedia, your reading and interpretation of Ganser is Original Research and reading it is not required to find critical references to it. Other people have found his use of the FM to question all of his conclusions and, indeed, his methods. The only thing I have seen that you have provided to support him is a vague affiliation with a University. Nothing at all though that rises to a peer reviewed substantial historical journal. There are two facts worth noting 1) Ganser wrote it and 2) it is a bunch of baloney. --Tbeatty 00:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the best one yet! `Its a conspiracy theory because I haven't read it, and I haven't read it because its a conspiracy'. Further your suggesting that if I read it and you don't, thats Original Research. Ha ha. ~~Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard.~~

I know you know this, but I'll repeat it again - The book itself has been reviewed and accepted by one of the world's best universities - and here's a list of Ganser's other peer reviewed journal publications [1].

You attempt to use misquoted wikipedia policy as a mental shield against reality. It doesn't work and just make you look silly. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I take that back. Sorry Tbeatty. The stupidest thing I ever heard was actually Mongo this morning claiming that Occam's Razer was a danger and threat to 'bodily harm'. Its hard to beat that!... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, I saw the conversation over at ANI earlier today. Seabhcan, why do you want to bring that subject here? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mainly because its just so delightfully funny! ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see this as a joking matter. Seabhcan, I am asking you this out of personal request, please stop. Have you not considered what has been discussed at your RfC? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Has no-one a sense of humour around here anymore? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I presume the logical intuition that has led you to trust Ganser has also lead you to the fallacy that you stated above. I am glad you read Ganser. It means nothing however. I make no claims about whether someone has read Ganser or not read Ganser makes it a conspiracy theory. However, the criticism from third party sources is what is relevant to Wikipedia, not your own interpretation. Nor does someone's lack of familiarity with that work make their criticism using third party source less valid than your own. Further, you seem unfamiliar with Ph.D. dissertations. They are reviewed based on the individuals ability to do research and also on it's novelty. Those are the two major requirements. Ganser has done plenty of research and his conclusions and analysis are novel. Whence the Ph.D.

So here's the deal: If Morton says that the Editors at Historical Review say Ganser is a loon, and you retort with "No, I read it and he is right." Guess who gets to put his stuff in Wikipedia? If your retort to Morton's sourced criticism is your own personal interpretation of what you read, well, that and a quarter will get you a phone call in the U.S. (that's probably a Euro where you live). --Tbeatty 03:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do the editors at historical review say 'he's a loon'? Is that opinion in print and is it peer reviewed? Or is it just some crap you pulled of a blog somewhere? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 03:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I just made it up. ~~Is English your first language~~ I also made up Historical Review. The policy is that third party verfifiable sources are preferred over your opinion. You can memorize Ganser word-for-word and I won't care what you have to say about it. Only that you can source it. The same is for Morton. If Morton sources "Ganser is a loon." that trumps your "Ganser is right and I meomorized his work in anticipation of making him God-King.". --Tbeatty 03:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Roland Rance

I tagged Roland Rance with a db-bio, but someone removed it. I am considering an AfD. The subject just does not seem notable. He chaired a meeting that looks like it was attended by a couple dozen souls at best, another source doesn't seem to exist anymore, and one source is an online petition. He has had a collection of his pamphlets published. I don't think this qualifies for the CT board, or I would have posted on the talk page there. What do you think? If he is truly notable, it isn't established in the article. Crockspot 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have any reliable sources, just citations to blogs. Place a tag on it requesting citations, like {{primary sources}}. If it doesn't get fixed in two weeks, then nom it.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Another list of pages

User:Rhobite/9/11 watchlist

Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Pearl

[2] Whats up Monty? The President of a country where a thing happens says something interesting on that topic and you call that "undue weight". Its one sentence. Do you think that the President of Pakistan is a 'conspiracy theorist'? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

First, that sort of thing may belong in the Musharraf article, but here (in Daniel Pearl) by itself without examination it is undue weight. Second, my name is not 'Monty' -- if you wish to shorten it, call me Mort, Morty, Matt or MD. Lastly, please refrain from personal characterizations such as "obsession" -- it's not appropriate on Wikipedia to make ad hominem attacks. I know you have been warned about this before -- I do not wish to bring an Rfc or Arbcom case against you -- I think they are mostly ineffective. Instead, I will just ask you politely here to stop making insulting comments towards me. Thank you.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are very sensitive to criticism, Mo-ty, but I don't 'attack' you. I am sensitive to your attacks on wikipedia content. If you believe the comment by the president of Pakistan on the case is 'undue weight' why do you leave the next comment which states, "The U.S. Government believes that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed conspired in the kidnapping." Is this not equally unweighted? Or do you think everything your government says is gospel? I will remove this statement also for the time being. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Say it with me: "Morty". I know you can do it.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Devon Mortonshire? Feel like answering the question yet? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Baloney, this looks like borderline trolling. Just thought you ought to know. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for your support. Mo-ty needs to learn to put his fanatical nationalism to one side when he edits. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here, I am not "supporting" you - especially since you cannot have a discussion without attempting to push someone’s buttons. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but pushing Mo-ty's buttons is so easy and fun. You should try. Its addictive. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So this means you admit that you are trolling? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm calling Mo-ty on his biased edits. When I do that he ignores my point and choses to be distracted by my misspelling his name (which is childish - few people ever spell my name correctly yet I take the time to answer their questions anyway) So, Morty, any hope of you explaining why a comment by the US government on an event in Pakistan is acceptable while a comment by the Pakistani government is 'undue weight'? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

First, knock off the insults. You are not accomplishing anything. Second, with your confrontational attitude, I wouldn’t deal with you at all. You got off to a bad start on this one. I wouldn’t keep this harassment up if I were you. Cheers. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it would make any difference. After months and years of dealing with people like morty, TDS, Mongo, and the rest, it is clear that they have no interest in wikipedia. They are here to push their personal nationalistic bias. History, citation, reality, take a back seat to promotion of their personal myths. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay, if you feel that way, I'll let you have a chance to prove it.--MONGO 07:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

OMG

How did you do that thing with the title of your talk page, I must learn. Miltopia 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

All of the formatting is borrowed from User:ST47. One trick learned from him is that he also uses a header which is a separate page that he has built, and then inserts using the page name inside little two sets of opening and closing paranthesis. See his page and the one marked Head to see what I mean.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Olbermann/Rumsfeld edit war

Hi, I started a topic in the Keith Olbermann discussion about the recent edit war. I invite you to contribute. Thanks, CalebNoble 09:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

'Nother conspiracy

What needs deleting. See here.[3] This one may take some off-wiki work, but I'm sure you'll manage to get her scrubbed anyway. Cheers. 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.2.85 (talk • contribs)

Now, now. Must play nice here.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 23:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't trouble yourself Mort. I've already faxed Rove, and the helicopters are spinning up as I post this. - Crockspot 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Black helicopters??? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not just any black helicopters. We have our own VRWC-Logo fleet! - Crockspot 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome pic. Blackhawks?

Morton Devonshire^Yo 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's another two cruft articles: Pierre Amine Gemayel and Rafik Hariri. There are editors suggesting it was some kind of conspiracy! Silly people - we all know conspiracies never happen. These were clearly cases of suicide and/or lone gunmen. Get de-crufting! ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to start your own conspiracy notice board. I would keep it in your own space though. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Na, I trust Morty to route out all this conspiracy stuff. I know he doesn't just do it for America-related conspiracy theories. That would be biased. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I know we all joke about conspiracy theories, and most of them are of little consequence because they are so outlandish. Those are the ones I'm most interested in eliminating here because they are not described widely by reputable sources. With respect to the two honorable gentlemen, Prime Minister Hariri and Mr. Gemayel, I will ask kindly that you not joke about their deaths. My friends in Beirut are heartbroken, and tell me that there are at least a dozen more assasinations carried out by Syrian agents that we haven't yet heard about in the Western press. No, not a laughing matter at all.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that Hariri and Gemayel are not the butt of my joke. But I note with interest that you seem to believe the conspiracy theories regarding Syria's involvement. Have you seen any evidence of it? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Syria at the behest of their masters, Iran. There are conspiracies in the world, they just don't involve teh hand of Rove crumpling the WTC. - Crockspot 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

True or not, there is no evidence of that theory publicly available. I'm interested why you choose to believe it? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill Kristol told me it was true. :O - Crockspot 01:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. Why think for yourself when you have someone to do it for you, eh? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You catch on quick! Crockspot 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Iran isn't Syria's master as they are not particularly aligned religiously or ideologically. However they both support the terrorist group Hizbollah. They both support terrorism against Israel and they both thwart Democracy in Lebanon by undermining the legitimate government. Neither country wants Lebanon to go the way of Jordan and Egypt - namely peace and prosperity while bordering Israel. --Tbeatty 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Peace and prosperous! Egypt and Jordan? Read up on them, they are both brutal dictatorships with massive poverty and unemployment. Egypt recently passed a law making it illegal to accuse a public official of corruption!

Israel isn't exactly interested in a democratic Lebanon either. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to read any more about them as I've been to Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon and have seen it. Israel certainly wants a democratic Lebanon that controls it's borders. It also wants a democratic Palestine that controls it's borders. It's like saying they don't want a democratic Egypt or Jordan. Certainly they do. --Tbeatty 01:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If Israel wanted a democratic Palestine independently in control of its own borders why has it built hundreds of settlements throughout the west bank? Do it intend that the settlers will become Palestinian citizens when the new state is formed? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What do the West Bank settlements have to do with Palestine democracy? The west bank is what it is. There are few if any Palestinians in the settlements. Talking about west bank settlements is about as pointless as talking about right of return. But to help you out, Israel is building a fence to define the border so that settlements cease to be an issue. One side of the fence is Israel, the other side can be a democratic palestine. --Tbeatty 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a common misconception. The settlements are distributed right across the west bank and are connected with each other by a vast network of highways which the Palestinians need permits to cross. The West Bank is no longer a single continuous territory but an archipelago of Palestinian land, literally walled in by a sea of Israeli controlled land and roads. You can't make a country out of that. Its a prison. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 11:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

One user's view

Hey guy. I saw where "stone" censored your questioning his accusations. I was thinking of confronting him about it myself, but he doesn’t look to friendly. I’ll just let his comments at the RfC suffice to let everyone see his "good faith". I didn’t know I was part of a cabal. I didn’t know someone could make accusations like that and get away with it. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is where I am “honored” as part of the cabal. In his own words: I have been frequenting one of the boards on which this cabal of page vandals -- devonshire, junglecat, tdc, nuclearzero and their sockpuppets… Pretty strong statement. I am surprised no one has called him on it. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I placed a warning on his talk page -- depending upon his response you may want to chime in as well.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 01:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You know what is ironic about it? Look who he lists as a "page vandal" - someone he endorsed in the RfC! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Years ago I attended a campaign workshop put on by the National Organization of Women (heh, it was free and I was a broke campaign staffer who wanted to meet chicks). They said: “There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests.” I guess they (the Liberals) really mean it.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 01:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

HeHe, well I wouldn’t go that far. I left a message as well on his talk page. I hope he will consider his statement and help us to come to a peaceful solution. I don’t think those kind of remarks are helping tensions. I have a feeling this whole situation could get bad. I hope not. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

History of Soviet espionage in the United States

I do not believe your recent edit of History of Soviet espionage in the United States was proper given the unresolved conflict in the Discussion page. The fact that you have edited that talk page indicates you are aware the dispute was unresolved. Please revert your edit until the unresolved citation dispute is resolved via mediation or by the addition of requested citations. Abe Froman 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I did it myself. If you happen to know the citations and page numbers for the unsourced fact tagged passages, please post them. Abe Froman 19:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Striver's Request

Hi Morton. I know this is kind of off-topic and not directly involved to Wikipedia, but considering our many contributions to the encyclopedia, I'm sure they can expend us a few bits of data.

I wonder if you are willing to take a pledge?

If you ever find yourself in the situation were you find yourself believing that the USA government actually did or allowed 911 to happen, then you will inform openly to everyone you know about your strong efforts to destroy as many articles as possible that represented that point of view on Wikipedia, in contrast to hiding your current and previous actions. Deal?

It should not be any problem for you to make such a pledge, since you believe that you will never find yourself in such situation, right? In fact, don't even answer me, just make up your mind about the pledge, and make it a firm pledge, if you choose to do so.

Peace. --Striver 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Striver, you are an earnest guy who seems genuinely concerned about these issues, and I respect that. Let me say with all seriousness that if the leadership of my country were implicated in the 9/11 attacks, that I would not waste my time writing about it on Wikipedia. I would go to the streets, and take direct action to overthrow my government. And I don't mean 'direct action' in the way the Anarchists mean it. I wouldn't be alone. We are a People who threw-off the Tyrant, and push come to shove, would do it again. We have lots of faults, we Americans, but tolerance for getting shoved around by the elites is not one of them. Long live the Republic! And Happy Thanksgiving to you in The Netherlands(?). Peace to you, my Brother.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is almost the exact same thing I have mentioned to Striver as well...and I repeat it...had the U.S. Government been responsible for 9/11, we would be in the midsts of a revolution.--MONGO 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have opened a case of arbitration at Requests for arbitration:Seabhcan--MONGO 07:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Name Calling

What are you talking about? Who did I call a clown? I used the word, but I didn't call anyone a clown. You're all starting to take everything said as if it's a p ersonal attack. I would suggest a short break from Wikipedia when the feelings start to overcome you. --Cplot 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I provided the diff. You appear to be new at this, so I will direct you to WP:POINT and no personal attacks for a copy of our policies. We have a progressive disciplinary procedure, which starts with asking people to stop disruptive behavior. You'll get along much better, and last longer without getting banned, if you choose to keep your attacks in check. Attacking other editors does not help you get your favored version of an article, but paying attention to our policies with respect to the ones I've mentioned, and reliable sources, no original research and WP:Verify, will help your edits to stick. Peace. Morton devonshire 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

Hello, An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A Schism in the Ranks

Gentlemen, I wish to announce that our efforts to promote the scientific theories of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth have been successful. The Official Organ proclaims that the movement has been rightfully cleansed of the heretical teachings of Truth-Professor Steven E. Jones. And let this be a lesson to all of you who dare question that space-beams were involved in the controlled demolition of the towers!

I actually think the solar cooker is pretty neat. You have a point about its shape though. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to make some of my own tin-foil hat photographs and put them on my page. Just a sign of the times. :-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you use real tin. Many people think aluminum works as well, but that is disinformation. They used aluminum on top to the Washington Monument, after all. Making cheap aluminum to replace tin is what the Hoover Dam was built for. See Charles Martin Hall. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good article. I had heard that over 100 years ago aluminum was considered a valuable metal, now we just pitch it in the trash. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Best page design

Your user page design is excellent and by far the best I have seen on Wikipedia. Congratulations!. Edison 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

United States Executive Branch Controlled Agent

The Swedes earlier charged that I was some sort of Disinformation Agent on Wikipedia. Apparently, now it's been confirmed [4][5][6][7]. United States E'xecutive Branch Agents Controlled Article (USEBACA) indeed. Get it right, I'm the with the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement. And now, the official Wikipedia/CIA working policy. Morton devonshire 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad the first link had the word "chemtrails" in the second paragraph, so I could stop reading and start laughing. Crockspot 05:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys...you can join Tom and be a real secret agent with A.P.E.here...I put my application in.--MONGO 05:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I want in on the gravy train of federal contractor money, dammit! Crockspot 05:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Crockspot, you can't want it for the money. You'll never get in on the deal. You have to want it for the Presidential semen. --GenericClownTaunt 19:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Glen S. just indef blocked this guy -- in his edit summary, he says "you are crazier than any frickin Clown, Bud." Classic. Morton devonshire 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm already doing the bidding of teh hand of Rove, just for the fun of it, so I might as well make some scratch while I'm at it. Crockspot 19:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm in a special counter-disinformation division: Counter Tactical World Indoctrination Team. I have to revert a lot of people. It's my job. --Tbeatty 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel smarter after reading this. Can I join A.P.E. too? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose a new codename for our ongoing eevil activities: Mean Americans Clearing Away Crappy Articles. MACACA. Crockspot 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How about F.A.A.F.A.? Featured Articles Always Favor America. --Tbeatty 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

SAY NO TO USEBACA PSYOPS AND INFILTRATION !
FAAFA, Member #1, COUNTER-USEBACA Squad

F.A.A.F.A. 08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that's the spirit! Are you the inaugural member? Morton devonshire 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He needs a snappier logo, and some merchandising ideas, like this - Crockspot 17:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added my A.P.E. badge to my user page. When will we be issued our spy gear? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I'm stealing that! - Crockspot 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have a problem with the logic of the use of the name USEBACA. Since the executive branch of the US govt. is the only branch that is authorized to have "agents", are not all US "agents" controlled by the executive branch? Why not just call it USA - United States Agents? And where is that extra "A" coming from? Shouldn't it be USEBCA? Inquiring minds want to know. - Crockspot 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Crockspot, you need to bone up on the US Constitution some more. You misunderstand so much about it. --Novus Ordo Seculorum 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We need a new, more accurate acronym. How about UBCWD?...... Unpaid Bush-Cheney Worshippers & Defenders. The great thing about the 'UBCWD's is that they do their work for free - almost like they're brainwashed! Kinda like Moonies, LaRouchies and Scientologists! There are new articles out asking if Bush might be 'the worst president ever'. The UBCWD's have lept into action to counter these fifth-column liberal-media-lies with unprecedented aplomb and vigor! They are truly an inspiration to us all! - F.A.A.F.A. 23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Note: In an Editorial on the "anniversary" of Seigenthaler's report on finding misinformation about himself, the Yakima Herald-Republic advocates government oversight of potentially libelous statements made on the Internet. Hmmm? Morton devonshire 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please defend your edit at Steven Jones

Hi Morton, I've cleaned up the "schism" section you introduced, but I still think it should go. Please make your case for it over at Talk:Steven E. Jones over the next couple of days.--Thomas Basboll 20:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Morton, you're not being careful

What did I say? --Novus Ordo Seculorum 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Or what, you'll call me a Clown? Are you one of those ED trolls I've heard so much about? Morton devonshire 03:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, he's blocked for good now. Morton devonshire 19:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you're still not being careful! --IlluminatiAreWatching 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And you're blocked too. Give up? Morton devonshire 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would I give up when you're all helpless and unable to do anything to stop me. --ItsALostCause 02:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A team has been dispatched to transport you to the FEMA camps. You won't hear their jackboots in the hall, because we have all been issued indian mocassins. - Crockspot 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's only a matter of time before you are disposed of by the Admins. Morton devonshire 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

59 of your sockpuppets have been blocked. Given up yet? Morton devonshire 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/September 11, 2001 Attacks.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

MONGO and Seabhcan

Hi Morton.

You wrote "G, This is a serious question: Then why do you tolerate the ridiculously rude behavior out of Seabhcan?"

I criticised Seabhcan quite severely in his RFC; I thought that some of the way he approached other editors was indeed rude. As with MONGO however, I would distinguish between occasional loss of civility in a well-intentioned editor (I have definitely criticised MONGO too in the past for this), and the subject matter, the content they are arguing about. While it is tempting to see loss of temper in those we are arguing with as evidence of the weakness of their arguments, and this can sometimes be true, as I have said before the biggest tragedy of the conflicts there have been is the loss of value to the encyclopedia. Conflicts like this lead to articles being poorer than they should be and to good editors like MONGO and Seabhcan suffering undue stress.

This was the reason I took out the comment in User talk:MONGO. I don't think using a sad event like MONGO's departure to score points over the other side in the debate is appropriate. I don't think either that any one "side" of this has had a monopoly on rudeness.

I am very keen to focus on bringing this matter to a better state; all sides in a dispute have to remember to treat each other collegially. As you know I was criticised in my RfA for forgetting this on occasion in the past. I have tried extra hard ever since to treat those I disagree with, especially on controversial issues like this one, extra politely. This has included people I greatly respect like MONGO, Tom Harrison and Durin.

I humbly contend that you can help reduce the stress for everybody by following my example and remembering to disagree patiently with good faith editors. Every editor should be considered a good faith editor, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The consequences of forgetting this include the loss of good people as we have seen here.

Very best wishes, --Guinnog 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and personally, try to avoid discussion about editors during content disputes.

Because you have had positive interactions with Seabhcan in the past, I thought you might be able to calm him down. The name-calling and insults make this a much less pleasant place. I hope that you will consider talking to him. I think if you would, that the current Arbcom would probably fizzle out, and we could all go about our business. He seems to be stuck. Would you consider that? Morton devonshire 21:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've already been in email contact with both Seabhcan and MONGO about this matter, and I'll certainly continue my efforts to try and resolve the situation.

In future, I'd like to think that there will be less incivility and fewer put-downs in what should be a serious academic enterprise, to improve our coverage of difficult articles. In their different ways, I know that has been the intention of both Seabhcan and MONGO. Name-calling and insults from both sides have led us to where we are at the moment, and MONGO's action should be a wake-up call to all editors involved in editing controversial subjects like the 9/11 articles. I hope you agree with me here.

I'd like to think that we have all learned something from what has happened, including you. I remember our last major interaction being about some content on your user page which I thought contributed to the bad atmosphere around the 9/11 articles. You were fairly reluctant to remove it, as I remember. I hope you see better now why we all have to take an especially encyclopedic and collegial approach to controversial subjects. This isn't for a moment meant to blame you for what has happened with MONGO, but the bad atmosphere and bad events which took their toll on MONGO's resilience, and must be taking their toll on Seabhcan's, did not come from nowhere. One of the precepts of WP:AGF is "Equally important as assuming good faith is to assume high intelligence. Although we may not know many of the other people who edit Wikipedia articles alongside us, it is likely that they have a curiosity about life that derives from high cognitive ability." Now, your user page currently still has all these pictures of people in tin-foil hats. Given the main slant of your editing here is to get what you regard as "conspiracy cruft" deleted (and I'm not saying I disagree with this wish in all instances), don't you think there's a slightly uncivil connotation for those who you disagree with on 9/11 issues who view your page? Don't get me wrong, I think there's a place for humour, and for deletionism, on Wikipedia; but in terms of the tone of how we do business here, there's still something about your page that it seems to me goes beyond declaring one's POV.

This isn't intended as a "warning" and I don't intend to take any further action if you decide you want to keep it as it is. Just some musings on the situation, partly because I was impressed by what you wrote and it gives me hope that there may be willingness around to make for a nicer atmosphere around these areas. Maybe we can at least ensure that MONGO's departure will not be in vain if we can learn from what has happened. Best wishes, --Guinnog 05:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the more measured tone of your recent contributions to User talk:MONGO. I appreciate your civility and assumption of good faith here. I am sure that by working together, we can help make Wikipedia a better place. Reasoned debate and listening to the other person are imprtant here. Best wishes, --Guinnog 05:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 08:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

911 Conspiracy Theories/Alternative Theories

Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. "Snorkel | Talk" 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BryanFromPalatine

All right. E-mail enabled. Thanks. It's obvious that the sock puppet allegation is being used solely as a vehicle for interrogation and harassment. It's been ten days now, and no CheckUser request has been made. -- BryanFromPalatine 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Blogs and notability

Per your addition of blogs to Notability exclusions: "The "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, self-published web pages ("blogs"), advertising by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias." Just to clarify: Joes'self published blog is excluded as a source to show Joe's notability. What about Sam's self-published blog to show notability of Joe, assuming Joe and Sam do not have a "vested interest or bias"? Would you exclude all blogs, period (except as sources about the selfsame blogs)? Drudge? Wonkette?Edison 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. They lack oversight. Morton devonshire 04:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Kind of ironic

Kind of ironic, listing the MfD notice within the page that will delete itself. If it were to be deleted, would it create a black hole or do something like divide by zero? ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, the same thought crossed my mind when I added it -- sort of made me feel giddy. And yet, it still exists in this dimension, and may forever exist in the 'diff' dimension unless perma-deleted by our Keepers. The whole thing is quite silly -- of course we would just re-create it in another userspace if it got deleted. I've got a spot all lined up.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 00:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I get a kick out of this video on Yahoo videos. There is a screen snapshot where Weird Al is editing Wikipedia, or being a vandal? Ha Ha! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, but it needs more cowbell. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would post the uploaded screenshot for the video here just for laughs, but I am really questioning the attribute tag. Here is the screenshot. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Neil Cicierega

While I find the attention, um, interesting, he is not me. Tracking back through my edits to find the first article I edited and conclude that person is me and posting such information (even if wrong) is clear WP:HARASS and a violation of WP:BLP when it comes to Neil Cicierega. Restore it and we go to AN/I. --*Spark* 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It was just a joke. Relax. But that leads to another question -- why are you here? The ref was to Sparkhead, not you.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 17:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a nice holiday Morton. --*Spark* 18:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're no fun. A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you!

Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

911 External Timeline

If you have time, please take a look at the 911 External Timeline individual passage discussion [8] and comment/contribute. Abe Froman 18:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

9/11: The Big Lie

I have now totally revamped/stubified this article in order to deal with the POV issues. Please take a look at the new version if you like. Thanks, Bwithh 08:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Iocaine Poison

An homage to the debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd):

[Humperdinck and his men scurry off, while the man in black finds and confronts Vizzini, who is preparing to eat.]

Vizzini: So, it is down to you, and it is down to me. If you wish her dead, by all means keep moving forward.
Man in black: Let me explain...
Vizzini: There's nothing to explain. You're trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen.
Man in black: Perhaps an arrangement can be reached?
Vizzini: There will be no arrangement... and you're killing her.
Man in black: But if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.
Vizzini: I'm afraid so. I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
Man in black: You're that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way: Have you ever heard or Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
Man in black: Really! In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.
Vizzini: For the princess? To the death? I accept.
Man in black: Good, then pour the wine. [Vizzini pours the wine] Inhale this but do not touch.
Vizzini: [taking a vial from the Man in black] I smell nothing.
Man in black: What you do not smell is called iocaine powder. It is odorless, tasteless, dissolves instantly in liquid and is among the more deadly poisons known to man.
Vizzini: [shrugs with laughter] Hmmm.
Man in black: [turns his back, then sets down both goblets on the table] All right, where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink - and find out who is right, and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine it from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: [happily] Not remotely! Because iocaine comes from Australia. As everyone knows, Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are no trusted by me. So, I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait 'till I get going!! ...Where was I?
Man in black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes! Australia! And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you! You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong. So you could have put the poison into your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied. And in studying, you must have learned that Man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!
Man in black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the poison is!
Man in black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose... [pointing behind the man in black] What in the world can that be?
Man in black: [turning around, while Vizzini switches goblets] What?! Where?! I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Oh, well, I... I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.

[Vizzini laughs]

Man in black: What's so funny?
Vizzini: I'll... I'll tell you in a minute. First, let's drink, me from my glass and you from yours.

[They both drink]

Man in black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!

[Vizzini continues to laugh hysterically. Suddenly, he stops and falls over. The Man in black removes the blindfold from the princess]

From The Princess Bride. Morton Devonshire^Yo 20:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a conspiracy to me... ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 17:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole movie is tongue-in-cheek humor -- the kind that stands up over time. Given our interactions here, I think you would enjoy it. Happy New Year!

Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My comment is also tongue-in-cheek - I know the film well and have enjoyed it more than once. Happy new year to you too. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 23:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sides?

Those that support me? MONGO? Tom Harrison? I cannot choose "sides" if sides do not exist. In the Cold War we did not just aim missles at Russia, but everyone that sided with Russia, innocent countries had nukes aimed at them because the country they sided with decided to attack another country. Interesting how politics work, lucky their is no sides here. If there was, someone may say you are one of those small countries and your larger allies pointed missles in the wrong direction. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That may very well be, but I have not involved myself in those disputes. It sounds like I've missed some of your battles, but in the ones I've witnessed and had a chance to help you, I did.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 21:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sure there was plenty of countries during the Cold War that had no clue what they did, or even that they had missles aimed at them. I guess the difference is during the Cold War no one changed sides mid way, then again, I do not think Russia attacked one of its own either. But you would know better then me. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see that the wound runs deep. I hope that I have not been a part of that.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 22:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just discussing history. You would be Latvia, as far as I know they had nothing to do with anything. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 02:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fun

Have all the fun you'd like!

Did you know that some on the far-right suspected the US Gov of the Murrah Building Bombing and blamed their own gov for a terrorist attack? (those who didn't welcome it!)

[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae09bb25c23.htm The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire from Free Republic]

[www.freerepublic.com/~actionnewsbill/links?U=%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2Fbrowse More Tin Foil Hattery from Free Republic]

Everything old is new again ! ;-) Cheers - F.A.A.F.A. 04:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Freeper. We got rid of the Oklahoma bombing conspiracy here.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 04:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're not a Freeper. Give yourself a gold star! ;-) They're still on 'your side of the aisle' though'. Plenty of other right wing cruft needs addressing. Maybe I should start a board! (or maybe if and when the CT board becomes a project we can make it bi-partisan) Happy New Year - F.A.A.F.A. 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

image in a sig

hey man, just a heads up, seeing as you seem to get fairly involved in rather heated issues with some regularity, you might want to re-think having an image in your sig lest someone replace it with goatse or some such thing, eh? – Fʀijølɛ _{( tɐlk • ¢ʘɴ†ʀiβs )} 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, per the preferences page:

Raw signature (If unchecked, the contents of the box above will be treated as your nickname and link automatically to your user page. If checked, the contents should be source code, including all links. Do not use images, templates, or external links in your signature .).

... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 23:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Seab-Man, I did not seek your de-sysopping. If it had been up to me, I would've blocked you for 3 days, and then sent you on your merry way with mop and bucket. Don't let your pride eat away at you like this. Wikipedia is just not that important. Mother Jones Magazine had it right -- Wikipedia is lame. Morton devonshire 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

? Huh? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 18:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#Images -Slash-^μιλώ 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice sock. Morton devonshire 03:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Morton devonshire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.