User talk:DHeyward/Archive 2

Saving Prying Ryan attacks

your voted needed

Please go here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). I voted for delete. You may also want to (if that's your preference) Merecat 08:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I already did. Thanks, though.--Tbeatty 14:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

*** Important - Your input requested ASAP ***

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

---

• Please tell me what you think of this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination).
• You can leave your message on this talk page here.

---

Daniel Brandt

I saw your edit here. What's up with that article?

I'm not sure what you mean. Some people are trying to censor any reference to sites associated with DB. I just restored the references.--Tbeatty 16:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I was removing a spammers comments. That is all. Sorry for causing any problems. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries--Tbeatty 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs David Corn John-Paul Clarkin Jerry B. Killian Michelangelo Signorile John-Paul Lavoisier Danny John-Jules Tony Snow JURIST Robert Luskin Advocacy journalism La Repubblica Caroline St John-Brooks Scott McClellan FindLaw John-Paul Langbroek Intelligence Identities Protection Act Norman St John-Stevas, Baron St John of Fawsley Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Matthew Cooper

Cleanup 2004 United States election voting controversies, Florida I am not questioning his patriotism, I'm questioning his judgment G.I. Generation Merge Sprite (soft drink) Schiavo memo Intact dilation and extraction Add Sources Karen Kwiatkowski Port-a-john tipping Victor Davis Hanson Wikify Gotcha journalism New World ROM Michael Retzer Expand Operation Desert Fox Amanda Waller Notre Dame College, Dhaka

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

hey from thewolfstar

Hey Tbeatty, Thanks for standing up for Merecat on his present discussion page and also for standing up for me on my talk page. I really appreciate that a lot. I have a question. How long is Merecat blocked for..a day? or longer? thanks, Maggiethewolfstar 14:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure. I thought I saw that he posted so I think it's over.--Tbeatty 16:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Maggiethewolfstar 16:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

advertising my blog

Please don't stalk my edits. Also, it's bad form to edit someone else's text, and move your edited version to their comment section as if they wrote that there. I'm sure galt will be fine with it, but your edit makes him look even worse since he already posted one irrelevant ad for my blog right above where you added yet another such ad. Anyway, I wasn't trying to censor anyone when I deleted that; but it's irrelevant to the discussion and it does not belong on my comment section. If you think there is vital information in that post, it should be moved to the talk page, with a note that you were the one who edited his words.

If you have a problem with me or my contributions to Wikipedia, let us discourse directly about it on the talk pages of the relevant articles. I'm interested in contributing to wikipedia, not in becoming the mortal enemy of every conservative on this site. If you don't like my blog, take it up there - the blog has a discussion forum where you can comment in any way you like. But let's keep our wikipedia actions focused on improving the articles instead of on advertising my blog.--csloat 23:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My only concern was that you were deleting someone elses post. I am not sure why you claim I am "stalking" your edits. As far as I know I reverted one edit of yours on an RfC where you deleted someone elses text. It is not my job to make galt look better or worse. Removing other people's comments (actually removing any comments) on a "Request for Comment" smacks of censorship. I've never actually read your blog nor do I have an issue with it. Your issue is with galt, not me. --Tbeatty 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is nothing censorious about my actions. The statement should have been moved to the talk page if anywhere. In my opinion there was nothing relevant in that post worth moving anywhere, but if you think there was, you could have moved it to the talk page, unedited; if you are going to edit it, include a note that you have edited it. Otherwise you are making it look like galt is saying things he did not say. Anyway it's not that important; sorry to make an issue out of it.--csloat 01:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You're correct I should have been more obvious that i had deleted it. Regardless, it is galts decision as to whether to move his comments to the talk page.--Tbeatty 01:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

POV screed

What do you think about this:Bush family conspiracy theory? I think it's a WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:OR violation.

sos from thewolfstar

Hey Tbeatty, I just wanted to thank you for what you said under the strong throw out altogether section. I am still pretty new at Wikipedia but am being watched like a hawk. I need all the help I can get at this point. I've been harassed, lied to, insulted, lawyerized in debate and blocked four times since I joined on 3/22/06. And it was done illegally each time, I checked into it carefully. All I want to do is bring neutrality back into Wiki articles. At the bottom of my page is a warning left by SlimVirgin. Can you help me please? Maggiethewolfstar 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Union of Concerned Socialists

I added a "Controversy" section... let's see if we can make it stick :) --FairNBalanced 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

I wanted to say thanks for voting in my RfA! To "blocking war" was over on Wikinews a few hours after it began; just wanted to clarify that. I'm glad you voted your conscience. My RfA failed to gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted the nomination - a good learning experience. - Amgine 16:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat

Thanks for the comment. I will not unblock him. I have placed a request for other administrators to review the block at WP:AN/I, and if another administrator chooses to unblock him or lessen his block duration I won't reverse it. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just an honest question (please don't be insulted) - are you also Rex? Merecat was revealed as a sock when he tried to advocate for his own unblocking, so it wouldn't be unprecedented for Merecat to be using sock accounts to circumvent the policy. Are you Rex? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not an honest question.--Tbeatty 22:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What part do you find dishonest - 'Are', 'You', or 'Rex'? Like Merecat, you seem disinclined to answer a question easily answered in the negative... and far less so in the affirmative. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not participate in your witchhunt. What you are doing is a violation wikipedia policy. --Tbeatty 22:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a witch hunt - it's a single question. Please help me understand how it's a violation - and I'll take that feedback and be sure not to ask users I think could be sockpuppets whether they in fact are sockpuppets. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't recognize your authority to even ask. The insuation, however, is a personal attack. --Tbeatty 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm insinuating nothing. I'm saying that your editing patterns and history, and your unerring defense of a proven, blatant sockpuppet troll (who uses sockpuppets for self defense) gives me a concern. And I asked you an honest question, which you refused to answer. To me, that's due diligence before pursuing Checkuser, as per policy. Please don't falsely and blatantly accuse other editors of personal attacks (BigDaddy/Rex/Merecat did that too). Have a lovely day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you to stop posting accusations to my talk page. Please stop. Use the dispute resolution process if you have issues with my edits. --Tbeatty 23:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave the matter to other venues from now on, if you will stop reverting my talk page with your blatantly false 'NPA' warning. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't false and it is what the NPA policy requires. Calling me a troll in the comment section is also not helpful. --Tbeatty 23:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, your report to 'Personal Attack Noticeboard' has been removed with the comments "rm - clearly wasn't a personal attack", and "does not warrant admin action". I hope you will re-examine the criteria you used to justify your view of my question as a violation of 'WP:NPA', and consider answering the question. Have a good day. [1] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Acutally, your buddy's comment was clearly wasn't a personal attack. The admin said it doesn't warrant action but I am sure you will cross the line again.--Tbeatty 02:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd never met 'my buddy' before. His objective view was clear of favoritism. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat 2

The recommendation by Mindspillage is on Ryan's RfA request that Rex_4 be reopened after 6 months of no disruption. Quote: I'm not actually opposed to banned users coming back in such a way that we can't tell who they are because they're not editing disruptively --Tbeatty 17:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"...but it doesn't look like this is the case.". Selective quoting to change the meaning of the quote is pretty deeceptive. Mindspillage said "If he's already been blocked indef. for disruption, and he is indeed a sock of Rex, the block may as well stick."-- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't alter the meaning at all. There was no indication at all that merecat was rex. Your concern was that an IP address was Merecat but not Rex. It was checkuser that flagged it as likely to be Rex also. If you were smarter and had figured out it was Rex before checkuser, I would agree that this would not apply. But since Merecat came back and there was no disruption to the ArbCom banned article, I think the quote is accurate. Trolling with checkuser is not a valid way to check for disruption. --Tbeatty 05:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You know perfectly well I had nothing to do with the Checkuser request. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually know no such thing. My apologies if you were also ignorant of the checkuser request. --Tbeatty 05:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I had absolutely nothing to do with it. And Rex's ban from editing John Kerry was total, not just for 'disruptive' editing. His violation of ArbCom was clear and deliberate. Mindspillage's comment doesn't absolve Merecat of anything. I still don't understand why you defend Rex so passionately. Is it just because you both seem to be on the Right-wing side of the political spectrum? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I defend and have defended both sides of the political spectrum from being bullied. The object is to have a NPOV encyclopedia. Letting POV pushers bully their opponents through process does not further the objective of Wikipeida. You admit that Merecat's editing of John Kerry was not sidruptive. No one would have cared that he edited it all since it was not disruptive. Rex hasn't edited anything in 6 months. Merecat's disruption was merely vote stacking for which he was banned along with the other side that did the same thing. It is a bully who then uses the process to permanently ban someone for something they admit is not disruptive. --Tbeatty 06:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bullying people is wrong. That's why I don't do it. I have to ask - do you even recognize that to willingly circumvent an ArbCom decision should be a notable offense? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with mindpsillage. If it would have been notable, it would have been an offense.--Tbeatty 18:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mindspillage said Merecat's conduct WAS an offense. He was saying that he doesn't mind users coming back if they don't act disruptively - and that Merecat was acting disruptively.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Was the disruption related to the ArbCom decision on John Kerry? Answer:No. There was nothing related to the arbcom decision. In fact, you stipulate that his John Kerry edits were not disruptive. But you wikilawyered to have him banned for violating an ArbCom decision on John Kerry. It's the classic definition of a bully. You used the results of checkuser to enforce a penalty that wasn't justified by the actions. Rex hasn't disrupted for 6 months and Merecat wasn't disruptive on John Kerry and yet he was banned for editing JK article. --Tbeatty 18:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

For you to object to anyone wikilawyering, on the basis of your parsing of the checkuser, of the arbcom decision, of mindspillage's post, and on and on, seems almost laughably hypocritical. Rex, as Merecat, was disruptive on numerous articles. That does not excuse him from having violated ArbCom. It's in addition to it. And last, from my point of view, I've clearly not bullied anyone. You're welcome to offer specifics so I can improve my editing. Thanks so much. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ryan keps saying "Merecat was disruptive", but that's not how I see it. Merecat won the RfAr filed by Prometheuspan (it was not acccepted), Merecat clearly has community support on his side on the RfC filed by Nescio and Merecat's position regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush got "overwhelming" community support. As I see it, editors like Ryan are fearful and panicky when it comes to dealing with the conservative editors, that's why they like to get them "banned". Perhaps you see why Rex071404 let his acccount go dark, effectively quitting it and also why User:Anon Texan always edited from IP only and never made an account - why bother trying to integrate into a regular accepted editors role, when zealots like Ryan can hound you from edit to edit until you either quit or are "banned"? By the way, both "Rex" and "Merecat" are currently "blocked" from making edits, so how does a complaintant like Ryan think his RfAr's could ever be answered? Also, I see that Ryan currently has a Arb case against himself/herself. Couldn't happen to a nicer person. Finally, since Ryan such a genius, perhaps he/she will list a few of the so-called "disruptive" edits which Mercat made. 216.239.38.136 09:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Rex account should be blocked. The whole point of blocking Merecat was becasue it was a sock puppet. The Rex account should not be blocked at all as far as I can tell. I just figured the Rex account was abandoned. --Tbeatty 20:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD for Left-wing terrorism article - have your say

Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks.Xemoi 01:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Coorect template

Could you please insert the correct sock-template and not revert what is a very valid warning? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe so, but it clearly is used by Merecat. I think that should be made clear too. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What's your opinion?

Seems like Prometheuspan has conveniently "quit" the wiki all of a sudden. That wasn't one of Nescio's sockpuppets, was it? 216.239.38.136 08:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it

Kevin Baas nominated himself for Admin and went down in flames - FAST! Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kevin Baas. PS: Take confidence that you are making good edits. Merecat 03:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I missed the opportunity to vote against. Rats.--Tbeatty 05:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Les Aspin accuser

• 68.14.190.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Diffs are here.--Tbeatty 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Dirkhising

Hey, could you take a look at this article as well as recent debates over content? I think you\'d be a good editor to help clean up this article some. It seems to be heavily stricken by POV problems on both side. I added external links that I found through google although they themselves are quite POV in their origin but at least they\'re not being used as citations. --Strothra 02:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your approach usually is sound

I thought you had looked at this already

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nutburger Patrol

I don't know how to say this without gushing, but YOU THE MAN. I've been battling that guy for months. Thanks for weighing in against the List of Songs cruft. Cheers. Morton devonshire 06:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks

I removed an addendum you made to User:Gau's comments in the AfD in question about his account being a possible "single-user" account. I checked the editor's contribution history, and while he is not a heavy-duty editor here, his edit history is long-standing and varied enough that it's highly unlikely that the username was only established for incidents like this. The warning statement you placed is not one that should be added unless the edit history leaves little to no doubt that this is the case (e.g. newly-established or narrowly-focused edit histories). Of course, the text of your response to his comments remains. -- H·G (^words/_works) 07:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

His edit history closely resembles those of a sock/meat puppet. He has less than 50 edits and that is one of the criteria. An admin/bureacrat can decide whether the vote is valid. Please don't remove my tags. --Tbeatty 07:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Single purpose account, "A single purpose account is a user account which is (or appears to be) used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles." While the user has edited few articles, the range is not small (from Playstation games and manga to Japanese hip hop to this article) and the articles are hardly related. In this case, I encourage you to assume good faith in the editor's actions and, as you stated in the edit summary, let the closing admin sort it out. -- H·G (^words/_works) 08:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

mergers

All set. It really had nothing to do with political leanings, which in my opinion have no and should never be allowed to play a role in deciding content. Your idea to rename it all and redirect back in applicable things was the best one. I'm pretty liberal, and don't particularly care for Bush, but how Wikipedia runs in my mind trumps what I feel and should for everyone else at all times. We can be POV but content NEVER should be. Thanks for being cool about everything. rootology (T) 19:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. I think as long as it allows the other google bombs to live, it will be fine. It's been my experience that people will fight the disambiguation entry about "waffles (john kerry)" (this one hasn't happened yet, but others have). I agree that content should be balanced. Editors of political articles are by definition interested in politics and generally have a side. That doesn't bother so much as not being able to see the other side as a legitimate viewpoint.

There is some rewrite that needs to occur to the article to reflect it's more general nature but I think that can be done pretty easily. Also, I was under the impression that "waffles" (or maybe flipflop) was the first google bomb but it may have been "miserable failure". Also, there are Google Earth bombs. I know there is one for Hillary Clinton and Bush (you search for a term on Google earth and it zooms you to the Whitehouse or Clinton's New York office). --Tbeatty 04:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The List of Songs Article

Okay, now that the Afd has failed, we need to start paring-down the List of Songs article -- I just tried, and the Owner reverted me, and put a vandalism notice on my talk page. So, he's going to be trouble, and not let go of the WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:V problems. I will work on it this weekend with you if you're available. Peace out. Morton devonshire 21:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The first source only lists 130 songs.

Eddie Johnson (basketball)

I've remvoed the revisions that were since reverted regarding the mistaken information on that page. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tbeatty 01:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Zinedine231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks for the update on this user and his socks. I've blocked all the others not already dealt with, as the pattern and style of vandalism was pretty obvious. I think that it's probably not worth pursuing the checkuser request in this case, particularly as they're pretty overworked as things stand. I'll leave that to your judgement however. I'll also put the articles on my watchlist to keep an eye out for future socks. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OhmyOmega

He's not edited in over an hour[2]. If he vandalises again, report him where you did. Bucketsofg✐ 23:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Tools for vandal fighting

There are LOTS of tools out there to help non-admins fight vandals. I don't think any one of them can do exactly what you described but, armed with a variety of tools, you can do a lot of good work without too much effort. Some are stand alone applications, some are javascripts that you need to incorporate into your monobook.js (or equivalent, although some don't work with other skins). Check out the following:

• Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups - THE absolute must-have enhancement to edit here (including vandal fighting)
• WP:TOOLS - 1st stop for handy tools and enhancements
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts - Lots of useful user scripts
• User:Lightdarkness/ARV - Javascript to warn vandals and report on WP:AIV
• User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool - Useful javascript anti-vandal tool
• User:Henna/VF - Standalone app using real time IRC feed of recent changes (my preferred tool). A bit quirky to configure and prone to losing configuration details, but good nonetheless.
• User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof - Standalone app
• User:Crazycomputers/VandalSniper - Standalone app, ported from above to Mono/Gtk#

That's some stuff to get you started :-) If you need help getting things working give me a shout. Good luck. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin, etc.

Hey! We have exactly the same number of edits! Bizarre!

Anyway - re: the Malkin article... The Malkinwatch blog doesn't appear to be a commercial site. We have kept it in the article for more than a year through consensus. My feeling is that it is the only legitimate place to go for consistent, honest, unabashed criticism of Malkin. Remember that she has either the world's most popular political blog or the 2nd or 3rd most popular. There is a great deal of praise written for her in the blogosphere.

If we're interested, and I think we should be, in give Wikipedia readers a glimpse into contemporary criticism of Malkin, the Malkinwatch blog is where we should be sending them.

Keep up your otherwise excellent work! Thanks, --AStanhope 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Underground

Tbeaty, The member counts come from the DU.COM homepage (for the total). Total Active counts is the sum of all the profiles. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=118986 for an example of the active profiles on the left. Just add'm up to get the total actives users. Dman727 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unofrtunately, that is an explicit violation of WP:OR. The data you put on Wikipedia must be published by a WP:RS reliable source. I don't doubt the numbers or the math, but the rule is that data must be sourced. Some other reputable source (or self-published by DU) must come up with the numbers. Sorry, that's the policy.--Tbeatty 02:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case the entire article on du should be deleted, since the existance of DU.com is only evidenced by existance of du.com. WP:OR does not apply to self evident facts, and this is closer to self evident that it is to WP:OR IMHO Dman727

Providing DU as a reference for your numbers is okay. That's a source. But doing the math yourself or 'synthesizing' data is not acceptable. If DU doesn't publish "total active users" then there is no way to verify this information. There is no source taking credit for it. It has to be sourced and DU is an acceptable osource for that data. But you doing math based on your interpretation of presented data is a classic synthesized result. It is explicitly listed in WP:OR as something not to do. Look up synthesized results on WP:OR. Even if it's "self-evident" it needs to published. --Tbeatty 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Providing DU as a reference for your numbers is okay. " So I guess you didnt really mean that statement as evidenced by your last reversion. Dman727 06:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Deriving any data IS NOT okay. Providing a link to a DU page that makes a claim about numbers is okay. Having to derive it IS NOT okay. I haven't changed my mind and it is consistent. Point to a page and quote the numbers. Don't point to a page and say you have derived some number by adding/subtracting/mulitplying/dividing ,etc, etc. It may be true, but Wikipedia is Verfiability, not Truth. You need a notable source to take credit for the math. and derivations. --Tbeatty 06:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Either you changed your mind, or you are being inconsistent. Look at numbers I posted. Now look at the home page. They match exactly. No math needed, just an ability to copy and paste or read. Lets stop splitting hairs. This is not a controversial issue and there is no need to make it one. Dman727 06:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I did neither. I saw the word "derived" and I deleted it the "derived" material. I have since corrected it and the numbers as claimed by DU are in the article with their wording. I also left a comment on the talk page.--Tbeatty 07:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

I could use your help over at State terrorism by United States of America -- the editors over there are blatantly disregarding Wikipedia policy with respect to citing blogs and self-published sources. Thanks. Morton devonshire 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That whole thread is a mess. Even using the term "Terrorism" in the title is POV and a violations. Try to call Hezbollah a terrorist organization and see the reaction from these same people. THis is too infected to worry about their crappy sources.--Tbeatty 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mess, and that's why I supported Afd. Nonetheless, it still exists, now at Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. Happy editing. Morton devonshire 21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I started on some of it. I edited Honduras and some other stuff. For now, bring NPOV to each topic seems to be the best way. A rename will be appropriate. Probably something like "Conflicts other than war supported by the United States". That is how it is described operationaly.--Tbeatty 21:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't assume that just because I may call some of Americas actions "terrorist" that I support Hezbollah. I only see one group of people apologize for terrorist actions, and it isn't me. I think Hezbollah clearly are terrorists. I am not a communist either, (a common accusation) and I saw first hand the devistation of communism. My position is consistent, I argue that your position is clearly not, i.e. it is okay to label Hezbollah and US enemies are terrorists, but when the United States does some of the same actions, they are justified away.Travb (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of anything. In fact, I don't even recognize your user name. As for Hezbollah, I don't know what your views are, however, using the word "terrorist" is considered a POV term on almost every other article, especially when "terrorist" is used to describe agents that oppose the United States. But even if you disregard the POV use of the word, the article fails basic fundamental tests. One example being the lack of identification of leaders of terrorism in power in the U.S. All terrorist organizations have leaders. Hamas, Hezbollahs, Iran, North Korea's leaders have all been named. But the U.S. articles can make no such claim. It's a broad nebulous accusation that has no foundation. Even institutions inside the U.S. that are attacked as supporting terror such as the School of the Americas does not have a leader that has been identified as a terrorist. No one would argue that JFK was a terrorist even though he founded the school and supported the overthrow of Castro. The simple inability of identifying a leader invalidates the whole article. --Tbeatty 04:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I find it really, really revealing how you selectively choose to enforce wikipedia policy in regards to WP:AWW. Moved the title of this page because it was a weasel word: [3] But you kept the word "Allegations" in the subtitle, and deleted everything else.[4] Way to use wikipedia policy as a weapon. Looking forward to sparing with you some more. Of course, in your view this change is as consistent as your view on terrorism. I don't know many people who readily admit their views are inconsistent. Travb (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the comment for the edit. I changed "Allegations made ordered by country" to just "Allegations" because the first was a grammatical nightmare with two consecutive verbs. I didn't change it for POV, but you are correct that I should have. It should be changed to "Conflicts" to avoid the overused weasel word of "Allegation". Titles that have a "alleged" in them are open to any additions that the editor sees fit since anyone can "allege". This wasn't intended as a double standard. I will fix now. --Tbeatty 04:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Users talk pages reveal lots about them and often give other users a chance to understand eachother. That is my Wikipedia tip of the day. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Che Vandal

No, no, put it back. I can play with it. Cheers. Morton devonshire 01:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Too late, I already had him blcoked. Now to see which one of them doesn't show up for 31 hours.

Awesome. Let me know if you figure it out. Morton devonshire 01:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning to tbeatty on vandalism

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will maybe be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

tbeatty's vandalism

NBGPWS 05:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please AGF. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. It is considered a personal attack to accuse editors of vandalism when edits are made in good faith. --Tbeatty 06:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fifth of your mother

I have a feeling Che is not going to be too happy with me today. Morton devonshire 23:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not happy: "Morton's an asshole, but I don't see what TheOnlyChoice's edit has to do with any of this.--Paraphelion 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)"

And this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Fetzer Morton devonshire 02:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Travb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Personal Attacks

Here is an archived attack. Before understanding my posts travb called me a liar and "threatened to report me." I am sure I will need this in the future. --Tbeatty 02:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Permanent Protection of POV

Now they're try to permanently cement the article. See Talk:List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks Morton devonshire 06:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And the WolfStar sends her regards as well. Just kidding. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoWars Morton devonshire 07:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Article you've edited before

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush in case you want to weigh-in. Morton devonshire 05:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You will soon have Gamaliels vote as he watches your edits. --Tbeatty 06:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you were right. See [5]

Yeah, he has an axe to grind ever since I suggested to him that he should create a firewall between articles he edits and ones he admins on. Morton devonshire 06:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what's the color of the sky on your world, Morton? Why would I hold a grudge for your suggestion that I do something that I already do? But then you never responded when I pointed that fact out to you, nor did you respond when I pointed out that I all I had done to oppress that poor troll you were defending was to ask him to be civil. Gasp! If I held a grudge - as opposed to just keeping my eye on a very disruptive and abusive user - it would due to your attacks on me, such as those on your user page. They don't bother me, I find them amusing. And by not removing your attacks on what appears to be everyone else on Wikipedia, people see what kind of person you really are when you try to play the reasonable fellow. Gamaliel 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just tell me why you follow me, and maybe I can address it. I don't want there to be any bad blood between us, yet there seems to be. I am willing to bury the hatchet -- as a sign of good faith, I will delete you from the Mumia discussion. Feel free to take this to my talk page. Morton devonshire 01:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mortons edit's interest you enough that you followed him to my talk page? I would request that you not taunt him on my talk page.--Tbeatty 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning on vandalism

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will possibly be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (deleting 'admitted drug addict' from Protest Warrior page) NBGPWS 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, content disputes are not vandalism. --Tbeatty 06:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

PW

I won't mention any names or specifics, but the user antics at PW over the last 24 hours have been really funny. And no, Gama my shadow, I'm not referring to you. Morton devonshire 01:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, what would you think about filing a Request for Comment about NBGPWS's behavior? Given that he's now reverting typo corrections because the summary wasn't used, I think he's out of control and has gone too far. --Neverborn 04:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support an RFC or ArbCom. But we shouldn't need it. He should be banned for "exhausting the communities patience" and this can be done by any admin for an indefinite amount of time. It happens quite frequently but usually only when an admin has been pised off.--Tbeatty 04:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You, Ruthfulbarbarity, Lawyer2b, and I would support an RFC - if we all start gathering diffs/citations/what have you.... we can do it. It seems like from what I read on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users it's serious and requires a bit of reserarch/time. Lawyer2b mentioned he would start on it tomorrow. --Neverborn 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also asked for Admin intervention for "exhausting the communities patience." See the PW talk page or NBGPWS's talk page. --Tbeatty 06:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Should others comment or is that n ot necessary? I'm still somewhat new to Wiki. --Neverborn 06:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a consensus thing so a short concurrence or objection is probably all that's needed.--Tbeatty 06:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Friendly warning to Tbeatty

I believe your unfounded accusation of me using a sock puppet and you use of warnings and warning symbols on my page might be considered personal attacks, and violations of WP. I will be issuing an official complaint if I can determine that you have violated WP.

NBGPWS 06:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your sockpuppet was confirmed here. It was not meant as an accusation but as a statement of fact. If you think there is an error, you should take it up with the blocking admin who made the determination. As for warnings, I use them when I believe you have violated WP policy. I also report them so an admin can make a determination. Leaving warnings are not personal attacks but are part of an escalating process that culminates in adminstrative action. --Tbeatty 07:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)