User talk:Tmtoulouse/archive2

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly (4th nomination)

I speedy closed this afd, as the last afd was closed only two weeks ago as a default keep. That is way too narrow of a gap to be creating a whole new discussion. If you think that the last closure from July 18 was wrong, then you're more than welcome to take it to deletion review or the article's talk page instead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC) I don't think you can "appeal" a speedy closure. If an admin disagrees with my closure, they can undo it. However, I still think that it was way too soon to re-nominate the article for AfD; it's been my experience that you should wait at least a couple months. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you have made a very poor decision then. But fine, we don't need an AFD for a redirect anyway. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a good idea to just take an article of that size and redirect it without discussion first. If you think it should be redirected/merged, please get the consensus of other editors first, especially if it might be a controversial choice. I would recommend using {{merge}} templates to indicate that you wish for Schlafly's article to be merged to the Conservapedia article. (Personally, I think that's a good idea myself, but I still think you must get the consensus of other editors first, as others might disagree with such a move.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policy shopping is another name for Forum Shopping. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Law of Attraction edits

I am responding to your note to me. I hope I am responding correctly (This is all new to me). I basically cited three references defining Law of Attraction. Could you give me an example of how to shorten it? Thanks--Ahnalira (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you:) I was attempting to prevent a bias by using my own 'voice', but I'll give it a go.. and see where it takes us; >)--Ahnalira (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea, and - if what I wrote doesn't work - let me know and I'll do that. I cut it down significantly by summarizing quotes rather than putting the entire quote into print.--Ahnalira (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Answer

You know, I hadn't thought of that, but, now that you mention it, I would say that it seems very likely. If it wasn't sock or at *least* meat, I would be quite surprised. Bhimaji (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I understand your perspective, although I disagree with it. You may be right, wikipedia probably is not the best place for me! However, this particular topic does concern me. Chances are that this may be the only topic that concerns me enough to deal with the style of communication that you prefer.

I will refrain from Hitleric references in the future. It would also be nice if you did not go around accusing me of being a sock or meat puppet in a publicly accessible forum, you could at least discuss these things in a place that I don't have access to! --Alyanm (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

*shrug* the editing pattern is just very suspicious, since it is not actionable (either meat or sock puppets only become a problem if it is evading a block or creating false consensus) and I didn't plan on doing anything I just ignored it. However, it is always nice to get a third person check on ones paranoia. Would you like to explain the editing pattern? Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain this much: I am a living human being with my own thoughts and opinions. If I'm somebodies puppet then it is news to me. Would you care to discuss how it is that Bhimaji has never once disagreed with anything you have to say nor has he ever agreed with anything anybody else has said on the Law of Attraction discussion? I find this to be rather interesting myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyanm (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Because he understand wikipedia policy as do I. Agreement or disagreement does not sockpuppetry make. Rather it is the editing pattern. Anyway, it doesn't really matter as I said I have not seen evidence that the two accounts are being used in a way that would violate policy. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you are the expert at Wikipedia policy, I certainly don't dispute that. I don't see any evidence that he is a sock puppet, didn't mean to imply any such thing. --Alyanm (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that you?

Hey, is that you over at the Quatloos forum? Famspear (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to have you over there! I've been posting there only a little over a year. It's a good group of people. Tax protesters do wander through from time to time, which makes it even more interesting. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Esther Hicks

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 Esther Hicks. 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.

EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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:

One user and a series of single use new users (probable sock puppets) gutted an article removing all sources and then flat out refused to discuss it on the talk page. All they said was there was no need for discussion. I did 4 reverts, but the changes seem borderline vandalism to me and there was no way to have a discussion. I was reported for the reverts as a means of retaliation which is particularly childish but I am disturbed that an admin would jump on it so quickly as well.

Decline reason:

After reviewing the four reverts, this was a content dispute, and not vandalism. 3RR exemption thus does not apply. After unblock, please consider dispute resolution to work out editing differences. Thanks. — PeterSymonds (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---

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 the sock puppets get off free. Bah, fine maybe I will just go make me some as well to even things out. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

An admin jumped on it so quickly because it was posted at the 3RR noticeboard. Sorry if that wasn't clear. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I still call foul, of course there is nothing I can do about and have absolutely no mechanism for grievance, but it was reported by an editor who did it purely for harassment purposes not out of a spirit of non-disruptive editing. I think you jumped the gun, 1 revert over 3 reverts when faced with an army of sockpuppets bent on pushing their personal cult doesn't seem block worthy to me. But again, I have no recourse and am at the mercy of the whims of random people armed with probably one of the largest bureaucracies every created by man. The take home lesson from this seems to be single purpose sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts can be a highly effective means of pushing a POV and the wikipedia administration will punish the established editors that try and initiate discussion and protect article content. Cheers to that! Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You do have the option of carefully staying within the WP:3RR rule, which avoids getting blocked. The content dispute at Esther Hicks was quite confusing, and it's not clear who is right. You might have better luck trying to have the issues regarding Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons adjudicated at WP:BLP/N. It is puzzling that the New York Post is not considered a reliable source by several editors. Though your opening up an RfC was sensible, I can't tell if any new editors have come in yet due to the RfC. Patience might be a good thing for this page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All new users are single purpose users that have signed up yesterday or today and immediately went to that page and chimed in saying the same things. Is that behavior indicative of something? Seems obvious to me what is going on. We are still left with my central thesis of course that you were used as a mechanism of harassment against me by a user who is clearly a sockpuppet. If you are happy with that then so be it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have deleted the version of the article in your user space as we don't spin off articles into user space to allow contested BLP violations to be worked on in private. Feel free to seek consensus on the article talk page when your block expires. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

your continued efforts to make wikipedia better

affter being falsely banned for getting suckered into an edit war with sockpuppets, i am impressed that you were able to retain your composure to return and still make righteous and thoughtful edits. i personally think you are doing the right thing, even if no one else says so. good job (p.s. i believe the sockpuppet's ban malfunctioned. if this proves to be the case, i would advocate crossing out all the irrelevant material they submitted that occurred after the point when they were supposed to be officially banned. perhaps this is too extreme of a response, but i don't believe that a banned user has the right to disrupt the talkpage or an article any further regardless of technical errors.) Theserialcomma (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

I don't know if this talk page can be used for simple thanks, but I wanted to thank you for your help with correcting the reference 6 on The Hick's article. I kept poking and proding, but you did what I wanted to do right away.Gordondavid (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit waring Orgone

Can you please stop reversing my edit on this article - 3 times now. If you wish to discuss why or why it should not be included please do so on the talk page there. Thank you The7thdr (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

that's your third edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a threat - I have tried to discuss with you and you have ignored me. Before reporting a third edit I am obliged to inform you of such. I like to think it is good manners.In response, my experience of POV is when an editor repeatedly makes reverts without discussion and on occasion without a comment in the edit box. I am surprised that this has happens with some one who claims to have started their own WIKI based on "rationality.

Sorry Tm, I have left a response and although it appears here - see above - it does not appear when I save it. Most strange

Orgone

don't add a pov tag unless you are willing to discuss the issue on the talk page. I am more than willing to work with you if you communicate, but I'm not going to leave a POV tag on the article just because you think it's pretty.

tapping into infinite intelligence ... ?

i find it interesting that both gordon (it was nice of him to return) and moriah/the IP editor continue to argue the same points, obsess over what's "logical," and that they also both keep forgetting how to indent their responses. Their methods seem eerily similar, but it could be a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 07:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

test

i'm not sure why my previous post did not show up. you can delete this. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Making threats and being incivil after being warned for tendentious editing on the article List of eponymous laws.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

.

Unblock request

{{unblock|I was blocked by an administrator who is in the middle of a content dispute withe me. He has a long history of being involved in, and having an interest in this content issue. He entered the discussion with no mention of playing an administrative role until consensus went against him. At which point he began threatening users who reverted him. When I asked him to retract the threats as it is a violation of Wikipedia policy and, frankly, bullying he came after me personally. Continued discussion with him is no longer possible as I am now blocked.

I attempted to contact him on his talk page to discuss this, but he has now deleted that comment. The block also came after I attempted to contact another user about potentially certifying a RFC.}}

Please provide diffs to support the contention that the blocking administrator is involved in a content dispute with you.  Sandstein  22:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• The article in question is List of eponymous laws, specifically "Poe's law."
• Blocking admin lists Poe's Law on his user page as one of his primary "causes" in AFD User:Hex
• Blocking admin was the primary instigator in an AFD for the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe's law (2nd nomination)
• Blocking admin entered the conversation at the page with no mention of playing and administrative role [1][2].
• First threat of a block occurred well into the conversation, [3] at this point the issue was about what qualified as sources and content, I provided some sources and he said "they don't count" and "stop talking about it or I will take action against you."
• At which point the conversation turned to issuing threats while in a content dispute [4] at which point the threats became more pronounced and the conversation went downhill from there.
• I attempted to bring it off the talk page of the article to his talk page but was deleted [5].
• I contacted a user about certifying an RF [6] and then I was blocked.

What I'm seeing on the talk page is you insisting that "Poe's law" should be included in a list, and rejecting all requests to provide any reliable sources that would confirm its significance. I also see you edit-warring on the article itself, where you appear to be in violation of WP:3RR with no sign of stopping. I'm not seeing any reason to think that, if you were unblocked, you would either stop edit-warring or contribute an appropriate source; is there something I'm missing that would make this block anything other than necessary? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not violate the 3RR rule, I stopped reverting before that happened and clearly said on the talk page I would not revert again. The blocking admin however did violate that rule. I was attempting to have a conversation about the sources when I was threatened and bullied by an admin. At which point the conversation turned to that issue. I stated repeatedly if the admin would retract his threates to block me if I kept pressing the issue I would have no problem discussing the points. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also multiple sources were provided, I was providing them, and being reverted the whole time. Rather than discuss the merits of the sources I was threatened by the admin. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like admin Hex (talk · contribs) was indeed involved in this content dispute. He should not have used admin access here, and he's also past WP:3RR. I've left a note on his talkpage. --Elonka 22:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

By my count, it is Hex who went over 3RR. Tmtoulouse reverted three times, Hex reverted four times, and then blocked the Tmtoulouse. It does look like Hex is bordering on being involved in the content side of things.

Tmtoulouse, could you please augment your unblock request to indicate that you are happy to back off the list page and its talk page for a day or so (the duration of the block). If you are not going to edit war, I see no reason to keep you blocked. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't edit the article for a day or so, but I certainly reserve the right to participate on the talk page. There are two points here, 1) whether the admin was involved, or 2) if I even did anything that deserved blocking for. The closest thing I could see is that the conversation on the talk page got personal. It was at that point I politely moved to the admins talk page. If I haven't even done anything wrong to begin with I am not willing to voluntarily take on sanctions. There is basic principle here, even if it is just an online encyclopedia. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You were edit-warring. That is against the spirit of the Wiki. Of course it takes two to tango, which is why this went as far as 3RR. We will have to wait for Hex to respond before other admins can consider both side and answer the questions you have. The voluntary editing restriction is not as punishment, but to foster prevention. If you have voluntarily committed to stay clear of this content issue for at least a day, then the content issue behind this dispute isnt going to flare up again immediately, and we can unblock you without fear you are going to end up blocked again - provided you keep your word. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What is being left unsaid is that if I don't agree to this "voluntary" restriction, then the "voluntary" restriction will be forced upon me by keeping a block on my account (which at least one admin has overtly disputed, and several others feel uncomfortable about). In the mean time, have you asked Hex to agree to a similar restriction? He is, of course, not under the same coercion I am under. The simple fact that this block is provoking the conversation that it is, would to me, signal that it should be undone and then the underlying issues addressed. Keep in mind I have all ready said my communications would be restricted to the talk page, I find it strange you consider talk page edits "warring" but if you feel comfortable leaving in place the block because I am not "volunteering" for the restrictions you want then fine. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has suggested that Hex backs off too, and urged that as the blocking admin, Hex reverses the block. It is the three reverts that are edit-warring - not the discussion. If he doesnt opine soon, I will unblock with or without you voluntarily agreeing to leave this topic alone for a bit, but ... you would be unblocked already if you had agreed to restrict yourself. We are having this discussion because a) Hex hasnt chimed in yet, and b) you havent agreed to steer clear of this topic for the 24 hr period. So .. the matter is up in the air at present, as we are waiting for Hex to explain the block, or reverse it. Sorry for this delay. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that admin Hex (talk · contribs) is not a particularly frequent editor (or admin), and does not even access the project every day. Since he has not been around for a couple hours, I am leaning towards an unblock, since we have Tmtoulouse's assurance that he is going to avoid the article. I am willing to take him at his word that he'll just stick to the talkpage for awhile, which seems reasonable to me. --Elonka 23:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)

Hi. As Elonka noticed I was away from the site. Here's my take on what happened.

• Six months ago I filed an AfD for something called "Poe's law". The result was delete.
• Stuff that someone made up on the Internet has a nasty habit of being recreated over and over on Wikipedia. For that reason, I occasionally search to see if things I know have been deleted have come back.
• A couple of weeks ago I found an entry for "Poe's law" in List of eponymous laws and removed it as a matter of policy. I made a mental note to check back, as the article's revision history clearly shows it to be a magnet for made-up stuff.
• A few days ago I noticed it had come back and removed it again.
• Tmtoulouse reverted this change as "per talk page consensus". The "consensus" he refers to seems to consist of himself; if you look at this discussion on the talk page you will see Tmtoulouse arguing with a couple of IP users that Google hits and mentions on blogs are sufficient reason to include "Poe's law" in the article. The IP users ask Tmtoulouse for reliable sources, which he/she does not provide. Tagishsimon, the originator of the article, chimes in with the same argument but again does not provide sources.
• Two days later I removed it again. Tagishsimon reverted the change. I reverted him and explained why on the talk page.
• Tmtoulouse reverted my change and added a reference.
• I subsequently reverted that change, having already noted on the talk page that the "source" he was citing is not, in fact, an appropriate source. It doesn't mention "Poe's law" at all, except in a postscript where the author says some of the commenters had mentioned a thing called "Poe's law" that he had never heard of, and links to its "definition" on Urban Dictionary.
• Tmtoulouse restored the false citation and added two more citations - both of which drew their definitions of "Poe's law" from a site called "RationalWiki". Which is a site operated by Tmtoulouse, as he/she admits on his/her own user page!
• While this was happening I was engaging Tmtoulouse and Tagishsimon in discussion on the article talk page. There, they both attempted to convince me that Google hits were a suitable measure for inclusion in Wikipedia while failing to respond to my repeated requests that a non-self-published source be provided for "Poe's law".
• I warned Tmtoulouse that using references to his own website were not just inappropriate, but a matter that would be taken seriously as an abuse of policy. Tmtoulouse responds with all sorts of accusations and tells me to "back off".
• Tmtoulouse began threatening me and ordering me what to do, which I declined, followed by trying to wikilawyer me into submission.
• When I pointed out the appropriate guidelines and advised him to take it easy, Tmtoulouse responded with ranting and invective. At which point I applied a 24-hour block. When making the block I noticed that this is not the first time that Tmtoulouse has been blocked for tendentious editing.
• I subsequently noticed Tmtoulouse's message on my talk page (which came only minutes before the invective) and removed it.
• Tmtoulouse says above "I contacted a user about certifying an RF and then I was blocked." This implication is untrue. The block was issued for tendentious editing and abusive behavior.

I also object strongly to Tmtoulouse's multiple distortions of the facts.

• "Poe's law" is not listed on my user page as a "major cause". I will have to quote it: "Selected AfDs. I believe that discretion is required in the selection of articles used in the compilation of an encyclopedia. Following are some examples of articles I did not feel were appropriate or necessary for this site." "Poe's law" is mentioned, along with almost twenty other AfDs I've filed, not all of which were successful.
• I did not say at any point "stop talking about it or I will take action against you".
• I am not "crusading". As I have now stated many, many times, if reliable sources for this material are produced, I will be happy to see it restored to the article.

— Hex (❝?!❞) 18:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

At this point I think it is obvious to everyone that you are firmly "involved" with the content, and involved in an active dispute with me as a user. The fact that your block was overturned and multiple uninvolved admins came to the same conclusion about that particular aspect seals the deal. That means that any further discussion or actions taken about Poe's Law should be between you and I as editors. I will assume that you will not feel the need to take administrative actions, or to threaten administrative actions in the future when dealing with this issue. As such I am willing to drop the meta issues and focus on the specific content question at hand. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to engage in tendentious editing and inserting references to your own website, I reserve the right to use administrative tools in whatever way I see fit. — Hex (❝?!❞) 04:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you do so I will file an RFC against you and recommend you be stripped of those said tools. Bone up on wikipedia policy. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother. I have already filed one on you. — Hex (❝?!❞) 06:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

May I make a gentle suggestion that we re-focus discussions on the articles?  :) --Elonka 05:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment that conversation is taking place on the appropriate talk page. But I will not just stand by and let a bully run wild on some cause du jour. If the threats and posturing stop, I won't mention it again. If the threats and posturing continue I will call him out on it. If he takes inappropriate action against me I will move forward through the proper chains as well. This whole "meta" issue ends right now if Hex focus on the issue at hand. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Using the word "bully" is unlikely to help de-escalate things. My honest advice here is to stay very civil, to try to wipe the slate clean, and try to find a way to move forward. Best is to focus on our primary purpose of creating and improving articles, rather than dwelling too much on past slights, real or perceived. Remember: Articles, articles, articles.  :) --Elonka 06:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And it appears Hex is going out of his way to de-escalate as well eh? Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Patrick Wanis. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Secret (2006 film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It was pure spam, and I have removed it again. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hex

I've just read some of the weekend's shenanigans and it's clear to me that Hex is acting in such a way as to appear to be a bully, and that his use of admin tools was wholly inappropriate. I'd be happy to support any action you'd like to initiate. I'll (probably) not be able to put much action into this for another 10 hours or so - I'm working from a dodgy internet connection whilst on my way to work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Law of Deservedness and Patrick Wanis

Hi Tmtoulouse,

you cited Patrick Wanis yesterday as spam or for speedy deletion and i immediately responded by spending five hours including external links, sources and citations to improve the article so that it did not appear as blatant advertising. As soon as i finished writing and adding all of the information, DGC deleted the entire page/article before there was any discussion to keep or delete. I did not know where to write "hangon" or how to do this. Can you please assist me? What is required to get the Wanis page back up (restored) and who makes that decision. If you google, "patrick wanis" you will see that he is a notable person. You can even check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States to see that he is cited elsewhere in Wikipedia and that page cites a newspaper article quoting Wanis. Also, Wanis' page has been up since 2006 and now, that i went to update it, add sources and expand upon it, my work and the page have been deleted. He is now a PhD and i did not even have a chance to include that... Please advise.. Thanks, Chris CVBPW (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Wanis -newspaper link and expert

Hi Tmtoulouse,

You deleted another reference to Patrick Wanis when i mentioned a Wikipedia article that mentioned him in a newspaper article. You deleted it saying the newspaper article does not exist and Wanis is not an expert. Here is the link to that article. Please visit it to see that it does exist and Wanis is recognized as an expert. http://www.tampabay.com/features/parenting/article734231.ece Could you then please undo the deletion or correct the old link if that was in fact wrong. And here is a second link to yet another newspaper article mentioning Wanis http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article891449.ece Thanks, Chris CVBPW (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

VandalChange might be desirable

I checked the verson information on RationalWiki and I see the extension "Vandal change" as being designed by you. I would like to request that you openly publish the code for this extension under the GPL so it may be sent to MediaWiki for further refinement and testing so that it may be used an implemented on other wikis. Furthermore I ask you to respect the policies of Wikipedia, below I will place a set of helpful links to important policies:

Welcome...

Hello, Tmtoulouse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

In addition I suggest you see: Neutral Point of View, the tutorial, the three-revert rule, Tendentious Editing, Disruptive Editing, Verifiability, and Notability. Remember, unlike RationalWiki, this is not the place to be sarcastic. Also because of your strong involvement with RationalWiki it is generally not recomended for you to edit Conservapedia. Thank You--Ipatrol (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The vandal extension is definitely not ready for prime time yet, and I haven't been able to work on it much lately. When I feel that it has reached the point of development that it can easily and safely be implemented on other wiki's I will certainly offer the code to anyone that wants it. In fact, I am more than happy to offer up how I currently do it but at the moment it is not simply an "extension" and involves changing some of the core MediaWiki code. Which is one reason I have not opened it up. As per links to policy, I know the policy as good or better than you. For example, COI does not preclude me from editing the CP article except when it deals directly with RW. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is is it possible to edit neutrally due to your strong opinion against to Conservapedia? As for the extension, why not allow it to be part of the block menu rather than using a page? Your welcome to sign up for an account on MediaWiki and develop it there. On MediaWiki, extensions go through stages,from experemental, to beta, to stable. Creating an account and posting it there would allow other developers to work on it with you, speeding up development when you're too busy to work on it, that is the very advantage of the wiki process! The code can be developed to work with LocalSettings.php, allowing individual wikis to do things such as customize the interval and use $wgGroupPermissions to determine who has the authority to use the extension.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You and Esther

got quite a thing going.

Carptrash (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh Esther is an also-ran really, I have many causes that I care much more for, but as part of my larger magnum opus of addressing irrationality, false beliefs, and the people that parasitize on it, sure me and Esther have a few things to work out. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It must be a real relief to be able to spot false beliefs when you encounter them. Carptrash (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all in the math. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Latin, the language of the Roman Catholic Church. Arabic the language of Islam. Hebrew, the langauge of Jewdaism. Math, the language of science, the newest of the world's major religions.

Carptrash (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to define religion in such a way that it encompasses all of those things, you have created a word that describes so much that it is meaningless. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good.
You got my point.
It is all meaningless.
Carptrash (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I checked out your user page and you're pretty cool. --Dark Charles (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki

RationalWiki's broken, can you help mend it? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming to say the same thing. Looks like the withdrawal period for RW is 2 days. Stile4aly (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to subscribe to your thread at some blogspot but couldn't register, I'll try again later. Let me say first of all despite difficulties I’m on your side as RationalWiki and I agree on many issues and I certainly don’t want all the valuable information there to vanish from the Internet. I’ve edited the Main Page of Liberapedia encouraging users to post what they don’t like about Conservapedia there. Liberapedia is far weaker than RationalWiki but someone should be dealing with the religious nuts at CP. Please don’t imagine that I’m trying to get Liberapedia to profit from your difficulties. I’m human and I hope my wiki will gain a little bit but I’ve always put the fight against CP and religious nutcases first with Liberapedia second. here, for example is advice to join RationalWiki. Many Liberapedia articles have links to RationalWiki articles so Liberapedia users come across RationalWiki and I’ve lost at least one good editor to RationalWiki.

When this mess is over we need to ensure that the more important articles exposing what’s wrong with Conservapedia, pseudoscience and the rest are copied somewhere else on the Internet so they are safe against the worst that can happen to RationalWiki. Does Liberapedia need to increase its CP related coverage as a backup against disaster at RationalWiki? Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

PC + S4A, Messr Toulouse is only on WP fairly sparingly so this probably isn't the best place to contact him about it. Anyway, as the server is actually in his house, if something has happened he's more than entirely likely aware of it. I just hope nothing has actually happened to him personally which could have caused it. Certainly LP and RW relations can improve a little, RW's extended downtime might encourage some of the more sensible users to migrate over there for a short period and perhaps contribute more. And as RW is mostly released under Creative Commons, it should be more than easy enough for you to "back up" the more important articles that have been amassed over the last few years. - ArmdV 78.105.195.232 (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "LP and RW relations can improve a little," and I hope this crisis can help us pull together more. When RW comes back perhaps you can tone down criticism of Liberapedia a little as that would certainly help improve relations. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Law of Attraction

Hi Tmtoulouse, I noticed that you re-added a bit of material that I'd removed. I still feel it's misplaced (although, pending your response, I haven't actually removed it again and have tried only to improve it), and I've explained why on article talk. Basically I think that the material, while well-researched and well-written, may be a little off-topic for that particular article, but could be a perfect fit elsewhere, and I'd appreciate your input. And, speaking of off-topic, I have a quick question if you wouldn't mind. I saw on your user page that you take issue with both pseudoscience/paranormal/etc. and "the right-wing political mind set." Apart from Creationism (if you have a moment to reply), do you see connections between those...well, alternative sciences (it's harder to summarize them than I thought) and right-wing ideology? Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is about a year late on the reply, but I seemed to have missed this in the hither and tither of life. To me I think the "right wing political mind set" has a tendency to construct their epistemological and metaphysical view points based on tradition, and authority. It is almost a form a scholasticism. They read and listen to what people in authority, and the traditional view points of the cultural ziegiest have to say about why things are the way they are. They also like to protect the voice of the authority, and conserve cultural traditions and view points. This can sometimes clash with an ideology that is focused on trying to derive understanding from observation, and a frame work that has a tendency to ignore anything in the "ought to be" or moral category. This tendency to ignore ought, and focus on empiricism is often view as trying to supplant the "ought" and remove it completely. Hence the perceived atheism/secularism of science. This often sets it up as a further conflict with "conserving" ideologies.

This is not to say that the left is some how supportive of scientific methodology, and rationalism. Often they can go in the other direction, fearful that anything that makes a specific claim about the nature of reality is absolutist. The left has a tendency to attack science from a social constructionist angle. I think it is just as harmful, but honestly, it is such a "woo" mind set I get a headache trying to follow the twists and turns of how extreme leftist ideology become destructive to science. Which is why I have a tendency to focus on the "right." Not because I think they have a monopoly on anti-science, anti-rationalism, but because I think it is easier to categorize, and I find it more interesting. This, I am sure, is in large part to my own leftist political ideology who finds the anti-science elements of the left political spectrum, merely embarrassing. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Florence Scovel Shinn

The website referenced: http://www.florencescovelshinnsgameoflife.com/Florence_Scovel_Shinn.htm states information that Florence is alive and well in the spirit world and how her work is continuing to affect the lives of the humans living at this time - along with offering the sale of the workbook.

The current information listed on the wikipedia page has two website linked that have books "for sale"

Under Reference: Butler-Bowdon, Tom "The Secret Door To Success" by Florence Scovel Shinn - a commentary in 50 Success Classics: Winning Wisdom for Work and Life from 50 Landmark Books (2004) Nicholas Brealey Publishing, pp. 246-251. ISBN 1857883330 Accessed May 2008.

50 Success Classics is for SALE

Under External Links: Works of Florence Scovel Shinn at the Internet Sacred Text Archive The complete works of Florence Scovel Shinn is for sale.

Given that the website is offering more information about Ms Shinn, I feel it is of great significance to the Wikipedia information.

Klarge (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Those other sites offer something important in addition to a few links to the sale of products. For example, the external link you discuss allows you to read her works in full. Your site is designed merely to sell a product and offers no information that would be of interest to the reader of an encyclopedia. That is the difference. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Three choices are available: (1) private mediation; (2) informal mediation; (3) formal mediation. I would like to discuss issues privately, as I've requested both here and at RationalWiki (unfortunelty I was blocked at RationalWiki for asking). Again, would you be ameniable to private Mediation, perhaps with User: Sid 3050 also? Thank you. nobs (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, zero interest in private mediation. None. I have said this repeatedly, I will say it as emphatically as possible. I have absolutely no interest at all, even a tiny bit in mediating this dispute in private. In addition I would only be interested in using official WP channels of mediation dispute, not off site, not on RW, not on CP.

Finally, and this is a key point Rob, I am only interested in mediation that has to do with content disputes on the conservapedia article. I have no interest in your conspiracy theory about RW or myself. If you have specific content disputes then list them and lets see what we can do. Otherwise, my patients is running really, really thin. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "vague"

Just a FYI: Nobs gave a reason for why he's been so vague on User talk:B Fizz. I couldn't resist leaving a comment myself, I hope you don't mind. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

His reason makes about as much sense as everything else. Probably time to go back to ignoring him till he actually decides he wants to participate in good faith. Or if he keeps harping like has been its time to bump things up to RFC and be done with it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Please do not remove other users talk page comments. Thank you. nobs (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If its germane to the conversation I won't. If it has nothing to do with the content of the article and is merely you spinning accusations and attacks against RW and its editors, I will continue to remove it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bottomline: if RW was created before the time Stephanie Simon (a WP:RS) reported, where did she get the idea it was created after rationalwikians were mass blocked for cyber-vandalism? According to your own statements, we can't believe the WP:RS that's been in the article for three years. nobs (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you are being purposefully obtuse Rob. The first manifestation of RW was after I was blocked, as well as a lot of other editors. We collected e-mails and decided to stay in touch, and Colin created a wiki for informal discussions. We did not vandalize conservapedia, look through my contributions, find me one example of vandalism....go on...I will wait............

Exactly....anyway, eventually I asked to have my block revisited, and I continued editing. We "conspired" to do things like try and talk about how the moon really formed, and other acts of science. For example, I was writing a serious on neuroscience that was accurate and detailed, but wasn't based on dualism.

Eventually, we were all blocked en masse. At that point we started RationalWiki. The LA Time article was about RationalWiki that was not started till after our mass block. Whatever rationalwiki.com was before the masse block and the creation of an open wiki, it was not RationalWiki. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

As a creator of RationalWiki --as stated in your user page-- you should restrain yourself from editing Conservapedia, per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Read these behavioral guidelines, if you have not. Or re-read them; it's never redundant. I will keep an eye on you. --Boutros Boutros Boutros (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)