Jump to content

User talk:FNMF

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FNMF (talk | contribs) at 04:39, 23 March 2007 (→Block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello FNMF! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

It is important that you familiarise yourself with the three-revert rule. Please read the linked article. Thanks. Guettarda 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the issue of "potentially libelous information" was already addressed. The material is based on reliable sources. It's accurate and relevant. So that exception doesn't apply in this case. Guettarda 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that some people have "discussed" the material and do not think it libelous does not make it not libelous." True, but the fact that you claim it's "potentially libelous" without bothering to support the allegation doesn't make what you say true. The issue has been discussed. You can't simply declare the arguments invalid by fiat without bothering to address the issues. Guettarda 03:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you have cited policy, but you haven't made any attempt to show how these policies apply, or why the arguments made previously are invalid. Guettarda 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about your edits to Christopher Michael Langan

Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#Asmodeus_banned and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#DrL_2 and note the passage that says "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern." This is a warning that you have definitely exhibited a similar editing pattern and may be blocked for walking in their footsteps. FeloniousMonk 03:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Guettarda 03:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Blocked

You've been blocked for 48 hrs for the method of your participation at Christopher Michael Langan per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#DrL_2; 24 hrs for walking in the footsteps of DrL and Asmodeus, and 24 hrs for personal attacks and disruption. Please use the time off to reconsider the method of your participation. FeloniousMonk 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad move, FM. --Otheus 04:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unclear how "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#DrL_2 applies here I'd be happy to explain it to you on your talk page. Otherwise, I request that you do not cause yet another disturbance over my conducting my duties. FeloniousMonk 04:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your post to User talk:Jimbo Wales

Jimbo very rarely intervenes in disputes. You may have more luck looking at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem. --Deskana (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely unlikely. I urge you to follow other methods or your problem may be ignored. --Deskana (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations at Christopher Michael Langan

Thanks for your positive work on the Langan bio! The references in question can be found at Langan's CTMU website. See http://www.ctmu.org/Q&A/Archive.html#CTMU, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/Esquire1.jpg, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/TheSmartGuy.pdf, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/MrUniverse/MUTitle.jpg, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/BBC.html, http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/CTM.htm. I lack the technical expertise to edit the references myself or I would! --NightSky 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this on the talk page of the article. Hope I didn't step on anyone's toes - seems like a lot of touchy editors over there! --NightSky 15:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTV

Nice touch ;) Good to see you have a sense of humor --Otheus 01:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

improper block by involved editor without sufficient explanation

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=improper block by involved editor without sufficient explanation |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=improper block by involved editor without sufficient explanation |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=improper block by involved editor without sufficient explanation |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I have just been blocked by user FeloniousMonk for issues surrounding the entry on Christopher Michael Langan. This entry has been fraught for some months, but my contribution has been confined to the last week or so.

I acted several days ago on a longstanding request by the subject of the entry to remove what he considers a potentially libelous section of the entry. User Jimbo Wales judged the section to be blatant original research and deleted the section. This followed many months in which several editors, including FeloniousMonk, refused to see any problem with the section. Some editors were needless to say displeased with this correct decision by Mr Wales, and argued against it, although they did not try to re-place the deleted section.

I have provided extensive arguments on various other content issues to do with the entry. Progress was being made toward improving the article, but some users whom I consider clearly biased against the subject of the entry, had difficulty accepting these arguments. Other editors agreed with my arguments, which were extensively but politely put. Some editors changed their position on some issues, such as the issue of whether to include certain links, which user Arthur Rubin originally opposed the inclusion of (deleting them with little reason given), later acknowledging that inclusion of the links was legitimate.

FeloniousMonk is an editor involved with the entry, and he is blocking for reasons of a content dispute. This is in violation of policy. In addition, he has not provided any arguments why my edits are sanctionable. I do not believe there was a problem with my edits, the vast majority of which were confined to the talk page of the entry, and I would ask any administrator to examine my record. My userpage contains some links at the bottom to recent important edits in relation to this entry, including many by myself.

Some users implied that I was in fact a sock-puppet for the subject of the entry. I realised just before this block was placed that a checkuser request was conducted a couple of days ago that showed I was unrelated to Langan. I in fact live outside the United States, do not know the subject, am not a proponent of his ideas, and am not a proponent of intelligent design. I have stated this previously on several occasions. A link to the checkuser request is located at the bottom of my user page.

Furthermore, I am accused of making personal attacks. This refers to a comment I placed about a user on the talk page of the entry (a user with an IP address as an identity). The user has been disruptive, ignoring discussion on the talk page, and reverting legitimate good-faith edits without explanation. The comment I placed was not in any way a personal attack.

The other justification given for the block was violation of a ruling in relation to user Asmodeus and user DrL. I point out that I was accused of the very same violation for arguing for the deletion of the section that user Jimbo Wales shortly thereafter judged needed to be deleted. On no occasion has it ever been explained in what way I have violated this ruling, other than the statement that my "edit pattern" is similar to user Asmodeus. I do not know what this means, and nobody has tried to explain it. It seems simply to be a means of intimidating editors.

I would like to point out that I have been at pains to explain at length every element of my position on this entry. I believe the entry has suffered from editors who do not quite understand some important points, and who are inclined to introduce controversy and original resesarch into an entry about a living person. My intention has been to improve the entry, and I believe I have worked very patiently and fairly to do so.

This block is a clear violation of policy by an administrator, and an abuse of power. FNMF 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unclear how "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#DrL_2 applies here I'd be happy to explain it to you. You may indeed not be a sockpuppet, but you have certainly shown an identical editing pattern at Christopher Michael Langan to Asmodeus (talk · contribs) and DrL (talk · contribs); I view you as more of a meatpuppet than a sockpuppet, but the only relevant point per the RFAR ruling is your editing pattern, which I'd already warned you about, not your identity. FeloniousMonk 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have explained it to me before placing the block. Or, rather, perhaps you should have explained it, and then brought an uninvolved administrator in to see if he would like to block me. You have not ever argued for one thing I have done wrong. FNMF 04:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FNMF&oldid=117216988"