Dear massive consensus, thank you for your effort! I would have never done it without you, massive consensus! Can I please get an uninvolved party to examine the case (as I am too lazy), because you seem to be far from one. --PlatanusOccidentalis (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Filll, on the Expelled talk page you described how collapsed footnoting was in use there at one time before it damaged with new edits, and I wonder if you could point me to some examples of it. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:[1] - admins are not supposed to undo other admins' actions. It's called wheel-warring. So everyone is obviously reluctant to undo the_undertow's deletion, even though he's obviously in the wrong. Using my super sekrit back channels to the arbcom, I've asked them to take a quick look into the matter and especially the_undertow's behavior. Raul654 (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
How would you feel if someone said to you "Now please stop with all this nonsense" in response to what you considered to be a reasonable and civil response? Would it anger you? What would you do? Would you respond with similar aggression in return? Would you believe that the other editor was acting in bad faith?
I can tell you how it looks like to a third party observer: as soon as you say something like that, you lose the intellectual high ground and give other rational editors pause. My gut reaction on seeing that is what does he have to hide? If he feels confident in his argument, why does he feel the need to resort to aggressive speech? Now you may write me off as just another civility warrior who doesn't understand how things really work, but I'm just telling you how it looks to an uninvolved observer.
I hope you take this message in the spirit it was delivered: constructive criticism. ATren (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact, what if I ignored every response you gave me, and just posted the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over in slightly different words? What would you do?--Filll (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, no offense, but you have minimal experience here, particularly at controversial articles. When I see some evidence of deep extensive experience and demonstration of some advanced specialized techniques and success with these techniques, then I will give your claims more credence. And when I see you handle a very heated discussion in the way you claim it needs to be discussed, over hundreds of edits and over weeks of time with dozens of adversaries attacking you personally and trying to get you to abandon NPOV, NOR, RS, and so on, then I will be more willing to listen. So get to it, and show me an example of you creating an article that satisfies the five pillars in a very controversial area, with a good 5, 10, or 20 other editors who disagree vehemently with you and also all the tenets of Wikipedia, bolstered by a steady stream of interlopers who encourage them or attack you in similar ways. And then, when you can show me a good 6 months or year's worth of editing successfully in such an environment, come talk to me. And in the meantime, why not try the exercises at this place. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Raymond, I do not know if you are talking to me or him. Maybe I should let this person just continue to preach vacuously. Or maybe userfication is in order in this case or summary deletion.
On the other hand, I might just make a comment or two.
How do you know I have not found a strategy that works? Have you read my draft on the subject? By that proven successful strategy, I should summarily delete whatever you write that appears to be of a polemical nature since it is clearly of a certain character that would warrant it.
Actually my strategy is not WP:SPADE. And I would challenge you to find a diff anyplace on Wikipedia where I stated that it was.
Rather than angst, it is brainstorm to try to find more efficient and productive methods for handling certain kinds of disruption. Are you against progress?
And why does it not show up anywhere in your edit history?
And why do you presume you have more experience than I do in these sort of matters? You have no idea who I am or how much experience I have or what kind of experience I have, do you?
For my part, I think I will follow Napoleon's dictum. Have a nice day.--Filll (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Dang, even if he knows more about policy, I still feel unsure about whether it was ok to add that evidence there. I already told Felonius about why I think that it's not ok even if it's according to policy [2]. Ah, well, I'll just sleep on it --Enric Naval (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
diff That's not what you mean I'm sure. Probably "comment" would be a word that won't get people's backs up. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure where it was, but thanks for making me aware of it. I appreciate your effort to bury that into the past. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your logic behind claiming that there is consensus to continually add this material? [4] Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not the right time or the place for this "debate", and approaches WP:BAIT. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this, and thought I'd inform you about a Oxford University Roundtable Discussion on Darwin vs. the Bible I think it's from July 18-22 or something like that. Cheers! Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 01:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Does this look like something you would be interested in re-starting? It seems like it would be a good fit with a lot of what you and others are doing. Guettarda (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I got your invitation to participate in NTWW, and I just downloaded skype, though I still need to get a head-set. That said, I'm a bit confused about several things. I do not find a table of contents for each conversation. How does someone know the subject of a forum, either as they are happening or after the fact? How long are the conversations? Also, you may have noticed that I may soon be banned from wiki for a year. Does this ban mean that I cannot participate in NTWW? I'm still shocked that so many editors have worked, seemingly very effectively, to mute an expert on homeopathy. Your silence has been loud. What is your intentions with the NTWW? DanaUllmanTalk 15:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is very funny, but da jus me. RC-0722 247.5/1 17:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your comment, I posted: # Moderate support. I would like to see more experience, but this editor seems to show promise.--Filll (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC) What kind of experience are we talking about? Two years & 10,000 edits kind of seems like enough. Is there a specific area you at looking at? --mordicai. (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
in case you wanted to respond. Cheers! --mordicai. (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Filll, in regards to a recent challenge you issued in another forum I thought my memory might be of some service. You ask there for diffs to prove or at least exemplify the notion that you are "not interested in NPOV, or RS, or V." The irony of asking others to provide diffs aside, here is a string of diffs that exemplify at least some amount of disdain for the practice of providing reliable sources in order to verify a claim (RS, and V): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. The offer still stands by the way, for you to provide an RS that verifies the statement that "the petition promotes intelligent design." The NPOV question is a much larger issue clearly. Within at least my interaction with you I think the same issue illustrated above does the trick. You fought long and hard to support a POV ("the petition promotes intelligent design") so fringe that you couldn't and can't even find one measly RS to back it up. You know what the dirty rotten shame is Filll? I think ID is a load of horse manure, but your lot is doing a great job making those of us who think that way look like rabid POV pushing bullies. Thanks for that.PelleSmith (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It might be, but it might not serve the purposes you intend it to.
Well let's look at what I actually disagreed with and asked for diffs to support, rather than some informal paraphrase of mine, shall we? After all, we have to be precise here:
I dispute that claim. I do not believe that I have ever claimed or ever supported the notion that "having a consensus - any consensus at all- is more important than a sourced, verifiable and most importantly of all NPOV article". And I resent that blatant accusation and personal attack and slur.
And I issued a challenge, in several different ways, to demonstrate that I did that or ever wrote that. With diffs. That is the challenge.
There is no irony here. Providing sources from outside Wikipedia is a very different proposition than providing diffs inside Wikipedia to back up serious accusations. Very different.
Particularly when there is no rush to provide outside links for a locked article. And as far as I know, no rules or policies that require anyone to provide outside links for a locked article. As I asked before, please provide links to Wikipedia policy that require me to do so. I am still waiting for those links, well over 10 days later, aren't I? I guess those links are not coming? Maybe you should just keep looking.
I am sure they are there since you seem to know Wikipedia policy so well right?
Actually were any links provided with reliable sources? Well yes here is a diff of me providing 5 reliable sources [12]. And a few hours before that, User:FeloniousMonk had provided several WP:RS as well. So where is the disdain? Well over half a dozen reliable sources were provided. And backed up the assertions being made. All while the page was locked anyway. And supported the consensus. So what is the problem?
I hate to tell you, but I do not see that these diffs you provided demonstrate anything at all like what I have requested. Why is that I wonder? In fact, they seem to be closer to WP:POINT violations, by making intentional misrepresentations and violating good faith:
Perhaps you missed the consensus version? The consensus does not state that, does it?
Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.
as found on [19].
Well nothing quite like misrepresenting the situation and taking a few liberties with the truth, is there? After all, we had a few choices of wording and we settled on one as a consensus. I am not required to provide sources with whatever wording you have decided, do I? If I am obligated to do so, please provide a link to policy that states that.
Do you have a problem with digging up sources to support the variety of consensus versions we were considering? What is wrong with WP:CON? Against your principles is it? I guess that is another example of a WP:POINT violation, isn't it?
I am afraid I have seen no evidence that you understand what NPOV is. Quite the contrary, in fact. Perhaps intentionally; I do not know. Sorry.
Well I am afraid you better learn a few new tricks then.
I tried to get us to abide by proper Wikipedia principles, and then come up with a version we could all reach a consensus on. I notice you were not very happy when consensus was reached by a large fraction of those on the talk page. Why is that I wonder?
Who cares what you think about ID? It is irrelevant. Why go advertising your personal beliefs everywhere? Remember they are not supposed to be involved with editing Wikipedia. So no need to brag and brag and brag and brag about them is there? Hmmm I wonder why you are doing that?
By the way, referring to a group of other editors as "your lot" is probably pushing the bounds of civility, isn't it? I would think that "rabid POV pushing bullies" is as well, that many have opined that "POV pusher" is uncivil, after all. Adding bully and rabid as well? You think that is sanctionable or not? What do you think?
Also, I am not making you or anyone else look like anything. You are free to follow the WP policies or not. I am not responsible for how you make yourself look. You are.
Don't thank me yet. The challenge still stands. Provide me diffs. You owe me quite a few at this point. And this has been going on for days and days and days now. --Filll (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Fill I actually try to avoid involving my "personal beliefs" in editing contentious areas like BLPs, and that's exactly the point. You are also being completely disingenuous in how you bring that up since you accused me of having other beliefs, and insinuated that I may be in fact be editing for a blocked user at various points in the afore mentioned discussion. For the record, I'm not “bragging” I’m just providing a personal context to the huge disservice you are doing to the rest of us who also believe in evolution as opposed to fringe theories like ID. Since you have gone on at length in a manner that obfuscates the issue I brought up let me try to clarify it again for you by providing diffs to relevant comments:
What follows are my repeated requests for an RS which are all answered by your repeated claims that there are sources, but that you will provide them when you feel like it. That series of exchanges is what the diffs I initially provided document rather clearly. It should also be rather clear at this point that the above dispute was not in any way about the language presented in the compromise. The compromise language DOES NOT claim the petition promotes ID, period. In fact I already commented on the disgusting feeling of being duped by the pointless argument documented above. In other words sources that support the compromise are completely off base in this discussion. None of the sources you now refer to in any way verify the disputed part of KC’s language. If I’m wrong about that feel free to provide one RS, from those or from others, and quote it appropriately to show that it verifies that the “petition promotes intelligent design.”
In regards to the larger picture here, the fact that a compromise was reached does not absolve you, and the rest of the editors who backed KC’s language, of an egregious failure of respecting RS and V by way of repeated claims that certain content can be verified, when it just simply cannot, and never has been by any of you. You are particularly implicated in that you went above and beyond in taunting me with the retorts about how you can obviously verify it but only when you feel like it. By the way, I have not arbitrarily decided that you need to verify something of my choosing. The above chain of events makes it abundantly clear why we were harping on a certain phrase. Of course, perhaps other unsubstantiated claims you made along the way are even more troubling. At one point you claimed to have “plenty of other evidence that Picard supports the Discovery Institute and intelligent design”. Slander comes to mind as a relevant concept here, but I won’t accuse of things that have a rather specific legal meaning. Instead I’ll address what brought me here. When someone lobbies for or supports a specific piece of content, and claims it can be verified through reliable sources, but never provides any such sources, even upon repeated requests to do so, they show a disregard for RS and V. This should be clear to just about everyone.
I’ll leave you by addressing two other points. I have commented on “your lot” elsewhere. I don’t believe that a number of likeminded editors, who can be readily observed behaving like a group across a swath of related entries, should be afforded the privilege of complaining about being called a group. This type of behavior becomes obvious in many of the various chains of events that sometimes cause others to throw around phrases like “your lot.” Also, the irony I referred to in providing diffs was not actually about providing sources, it was in fact about providing diffs. Plastered all over Talk:Rosalind Picard are your accusations of other editors violating policy without any proof relating specific diffs to the actual content of policy, something editors tried to help you fix to no avail (e.g. [21] and [22]). I hope you take this seriously Filll. I think you could stand some self-critical reflection on all of this instead of defensively masking what happened so that low and behold you don’t have to admit to having at least made a mistake. Maybe you were being disingenuous all along, but I also accept the possibility that you did think there were sources to verify the claim we all wasted hours discussing. I can’t tell for sure, but at this point you clearly know that you supported the claim that you could verify something that you also now clearly know cannot be so verified, so keeping up this charade helps no one, and it certainly does not help observers with the belief that you are respectful of RS or V. With that I will bid you adieu. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid all I see are lots of vacuous assertions and accusations and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--Filll (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Another perspective on Expelled. Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a test.--Filll (talk) Take the WP challenge! 00:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This is another test.--Filll (talk) Take the WP challenge! 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a test.--Filll (talk) WP challenge! 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is another.--Filll talk 00:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is another. --Filll (talk | WPC) 00:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a test.--Filll (talk | WPC) 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is another test.--Filll (talk | WPC) 01:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Trying to make wpc smaller--Filll (talk | WPC) 01:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Lower case wpc--Filll (talk | wpc) 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)