User talk:Tmtoulouse/archive1

Truth != Vandalism

Conservapedia

You'll be missed over there, dude. Sorry about your desysopship (and now inevitable banning). Keep up the good work over here. Mykll42 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I want to make the "encyclopedia" as conservative as humanly possible. That is, after all, the goal, and it will be regarded with even less respect as it gets more conservative. Ugh... --Hojimachong^talk 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see that you got zapped at the "other place.--British cons 19:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually want to make it as respectable as possible to show far hypocrisy can be taken. Mykll42 03:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that sucks balls. You should go back in 6 months to gloat. The renus 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's up? I hated to leave, the whole "Panel" shenanigans was the final straw for me, at least for a good while. Nevertheless, how goes the fight for reason and logic? ColinLR^talk 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, Hoji banned me from there =P Btw some of the admins over at conservapedia don't appreciate comparisons between frogs and Jesus.

I've just been banned by karajou because they changed the rules and I had broken them before they became rules. Anyways, twas fun while it lasted. The renus 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there TMT. Free at last, free at last! Thank God almighty, I'm free at last! --Ruby 05:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I got it last night, thanks. Oh and by the by, tsumetai unblocked me because it turns out i hdn't broken the rules (according to tsumetai's calculations) but TK reblocked me immediately. I think they are trying to have a bit of a purge at the moment. which is great considering the new scientist ran a bit of an article on them in the most recent issue. Oh and Ruby, why did you end up getting blocked? The renus 13:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(just noticed this thread) - TK's sysopship and status as Aschlafly's right hand man is ironic in the extreme, since he's also a sysop & bureaucrat ("manager" in their lingo) for boob-and-butt site supreme Hot or Not (under the name Terry92270), which I very much doubt gets the Schlafly seal of approval... :) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Philosophies

spectacular post! for some reason i missed your additional paragraph until just now -- it is a beautiful example of the differences between the two wikis. we might be able to combine the two paragraphs into one paragraph in order to really hammer home the ideological differences between the two wikis -- do you have thoughts on the matter? anyway, great contribution! παράδοξος 05:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap

You DID find me! I really need to get my user page up to snuff! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brandon cohen (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Plot

I hear theres a plot to destroy Conservapedia you posted on my friends user talk page. Your sending him an E-Mail or somthing. Good luck. You might have noticed me on Conservapedia before I sign as icewedge 06:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Andrew Schlafly

Those who commented in the AfD discussion seemed to think that he was notable and had sufficient sources. Seeing as three or four users agreed on this opinion (as well as other factors), I surmised that a keep conclusion was appropriate. You mention that there were not really more keep comments than delete comments, when the count in the !vote was 7-4, almost double the delete votes. A number less than that might have merited a no consensus result. If you still disagree with my opinion, I invite you to relist the debate at WP:AFD, or if you prefer, Deletion. I may have messed up on this one, but you may take whatever steps you want to correct the matter. Hopefully I've answered your question. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it does, but I must remind you AfD is not a vote. You are welcome to appeal my decision. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point on those non-trivial sources. If you have any difficulty at all, don't bother wasting your time straining to find additional sources -- it may just be better to delete the article. Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry if I was a bit rude to you in my comments. :-/ If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Std terminology

The note at Conservapedia is a nice idea, though I suspect it won't have much effect, as the edits seem to be ideologically driven. If it comes up in discussion, (and I'm not around :) it may be worth mentioning that U.S. English is the name of a political organization, not a dialect, which is American English. - Nunh-huh 00:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not random, since the same IP (Shaw Communications, Inc., of Calgary, with the IP tracing to Vancouver) has made the same change on separate days. But we'll see what transpires :). - Nunh-huh 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Attraction

You asked about a link on the Law of Attraction article. I don't remember who originally posted it. It was several months back. There was a long conversation in the discussion for the page that has since been deleted on what links and such should be allowed. I don't remember everything about the conversation, but I think some of the people involved were Jossi and Halil1. I could be wrong. There was a vision board link that was determined should be removed because the whole page was advertising a fitness site. I think there was also something else about a squidoo page. I restored the link based on the discussion from that time period. You can go back through the history and search for it if you want. But, basically it was determined it should stay because the information contained met the requirements of permissible links under WK:EL because the information on the website provided a lot of information on the Law of Attraction, was too much information to put on WK and couldn't be placed due to copyright infringement. There may have been some other reasons, but again, it was from a couple of months ago. Bestlife 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask you: why are you suddenly making yourself the sole authority on the Law of Attraction page? You comments on the discussion page about what you would consider allowing, how to structure the article, etc. really make it seem like this is what is happening. Based on comments by others on the discussion page for the article, you are upsetting a lot of people. I thought it was strange to see all of the changes and hostility being vented on Sunday, but now I understand why. Do you have anything else to do? Halil1 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I am attempting to create a discussion about how to structure the article based on wikipedia policy and precedence, thats it. Tmtoulouse 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is one thing to tell others to assume you are acting with good faith, when you are not assuming the same thing yourself. Please allow other people to express their ideas of what is ok rather than telling people what you think belongs in an article, as evidence by all the comments on the discussion page for the Law of Attraction article. Other people do have valid ideas and they should be allowed to post them without seeking your approval first. Halil1 18:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never prevented people from posting ideas on the talk page. The issue is what belongs in the article, people say what they think, I am allowed to respond, and based on that exchange it is determined what goes in the article. I don't think you understand the process of wikipedia too well. Tmtoulouse 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were preventing people from posting on the talk page. I was using your comments on it as an example of how you are trying to dictate everything in the article page. I do understand Wikipedia despite your telling me that I don't. I have been editing here long before you. I have never tried to rewrite an entire article because I know that I don't know everything about anything and I know that other people present valid ideas. I am tired of dealing with disrespectful people on Wikipedia. I am tired of dealing with people who try to control everything. And yes, I do include you in both categories. I am through with your threats. I am through with you. I am through with all things Wikipedia. I have a life. There are far more important things than a website. I am not so lonely that I spend an entire weekend editing something that someone else will change in a few moments. None of this matters. It never has and it never will. Halil1 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your life, obviously this place is not good for you, and I concur that you need move on. Tmtoulouse 19:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing

Please be arware that your actions on the following articles is tendentious editing: Law of Attraction, Vision Baords, and Wayne Dyer. If it does not cease, I will report it. Svery 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aschlafly

Even though it's still three days before your month's up, I think it's time to pull the plug now. This is unsourceable and I'm getting fed up with trying to keep it clean — ironically, I seem to spend more time reverting attacks on this page than I ever spent reverting stupidity on C'pedia — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV Pushing

Yes. I am pushing it. I'm making my POV cheap for now, but as soon as the public gets addicted to it, I'll start charging.brandon cohen 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead I should have referred you to WP:SOFIXIT?brandon cohen 18:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It does suck. What form of internet chat do you use? I don't think that's blocked, so I'm going to download something.brandon cohen 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Conservapedia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Conservapedia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia. Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Doreen Virtue

Just noticed you have made a stored version of this article. I was wanting the gossip on why someone deleted it, as I would say she's noteable. Was it for BLP reasons? Email me if you would prefer.Merkinsmum 23:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunately true that a lot of new age sources don't count as 'proper' for wikipedia so it's sometimes hard to make articles, it seems even for some quite well-known names. It takes someone who can be bothered to hunt down the hard to find sources too, they probably would have to be a 'fan':)Merkinsmum 01:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm

No offense on the user page edits, eh, but why do you want to delete Wikipedia articles that you don't agree with? Scilol 00:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain standards for articles at wikipedia. Any article I am involved with that I am deleting material on or recommending for deletion is because I feel it fails to meet basic requirements. Tmtoulouse 01:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cryer

Dear Tmtoulouse: By the way, I don't know whether you're still following it, but the Tom Cryer article is still the occasional target of various new users (including one or two operating from anonymous IP addresses) trying to remove material they apparently deem to be "negative" about Tom Cryer -- and all using pretty much the same dubious excuses. The latest excuse seems to be that references to court decisions that contradict Cryer's own tax protester theory must somehow be "original research." I have repeatedly explained on the talk page what original research is and is not. Yours, Famspear 14:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I will check it out, I am at the start of a semester so things have been a little hectic and my wikipedia editing has had to be cut down a lot. Tmtoulouse 16:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Church

I have been following your edits. They seem balanced and from a neutral viewpoint. On the unity page I have introduced third party references and links and have been chased off that article, The article is referenced from the Unity website. I was trying to show its roots in New thought and Christianity . They have put on a christian tag removed the God tag which is overall since their main beliefs concerns God. I have tried to have a discussion they just remove my edits and call me a vandal. I thought this was an Encyclopedia and some critiism is not a bad thing if balanced. I will not goback to that article. What do you think? Peace151.202.182.100 05:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

I quote: It is not in "competition" with wikipedia, but rather something we hope will some day be complimentary. I assume you mean complementary, but I hesitate to go ahead and change it! Maybe you mean both complementary and complimentary. GNUSMAS : TALK 11:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that misspelling also. -- Fyslee / talk 04:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

Hey, you might be interested in taking part in the discussion on the status of the campaign on the talk page, here [1] ~Rangeley (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I could have sworn I recognized your name from some place, and then I realized that you were at Rational Wiki. I posted there a bit ago about my experience at Conservapedia [2] ~Rangeley (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Congrats! You must be doing something right...;-) -- Fyslee / talk 05:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring at orgone

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on orgone. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit-warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at orgone. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tmtoulouse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Oh, that's smart, an established tag is being unilaterally deleted by an editor against all evidence on the article talk page. Removal of a tag is tantamount to vandalism, but whatever, let the article degrade into complete crap because of some quack.

Decline reason:

Disagreements about the placement of tags within articles is not a valid exemption to the WP:3RR rule. Additionally, being right is also not an exemption to the 3RR rule. If you are right, then seek outside help in the form of dispute resolution while leaving the wrong version of the article visible. If you are in the right, uninvolved editors will back you up. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And when dispute resolution is largely ignored, and the few editors that respond all go against the one user who is vandalizing the page? The only reason I am getting the block is because I brought the problem article to the attention of the community. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orgone Lede

Orgone energy is a term coined by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich in the late 1930s for a proposed omnipresent force in nature. Reich's theory is derived from Freudian psycho-analysis and biological vitalism and was claimed to account for wide variety of phenomenon including "the color of the sky, gravity, galaxies, the failure of most political revolutions, and a good orgasm."^[1] Orgone has failed any attempt at repeatable measurement and has been repeatedly classed as pseudoscience by critics.^[2] ^[3]^[4] In the 1950s all reference to orgone was banned by the US Food and Drugs Authority but the National Ceneter for Complementary and Alternative Medicine defines orgone as a "putative energy" that may provide a clinical paradigm for some psychotherapist.^[5]

Hi, did you know about user subpages? You can use them as a workspace and delete them later, if you want, using the {{db-user}} template. –Gunslinger47 00:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of quick questions

1) If you could provide the IP addresses that User:Karajou used to harass you (as you stated on his talk page) then I can block him as a sock. Also, could you point me to the place where the "FBI incident" is detailed? Or give me a summary? I'm genuinely interested. Thank you. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI Incident is here [3]. --87.80.133.64 (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr.Ip. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His contributions as the ip are here. He doesn't really need to be blocked though, as his is a single purpose account it seems. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://skepdic.com/chi.html
^ Gardner, Martin (1952). "Chapter 21: Orgonomy". Fads and Fallacies in the name of Science. Dover.
^ Gardner, Martin. On the Wild Side. Prometheus Books.
^ Lugg, A. (1987). Bunkum, Flim-Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical Problem. Dialectica, 41(3), 221-230.
^ http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm

[1] ttp://skepdic.com/chi.html

[Gardner-2] Gardner, Martin (1952). "Chapter 21: Orgonomy". Fads and Fallacies in the name of Science. Dover.

[3] Gardner, Martin. On the Wild Side. Prometheus Books.

[4] Lugg, A. (1987). Bunkum, Flim-Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical Problem. Dialectica, 41(3), 221-230.

[5] ttp://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]