User talk:DHeyward/Archive 8

Hi Tbeatty,

It may get lost in Stones' lengthy comments, but would like you to consider and answer my question here [1].

Thanks, ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I already answered it. A notable source would have to explicitly make the case preferably in a peer reviewed journal that such action constituted terrorism. It would have to be an explicit and direct statement. It would have to be in the larger definition of terrorism and not a narrowly constructed "personal definition". Not meeting these would warrant deletion even if sourced as it is synthesis. I then gave an example that is unacceptable. --Tbeatty 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My dear, what edit summary is this link? --Andersmusician VOTE 22:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

que es la pregunta? No entiendo lo que usted está preguntando. --Tbeatty 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

haha, I'm just commenting not asking for anything. greetings--Andersmusician VOTE 04:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

for your support in the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in trying to keep the wording as npov as possible. Gtadoc 20:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a very good article and I hate to see it ruined by agenda editors. Let me know if I can help anymore. --Tbeatty 20:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Really? I thought they were giving money to "End the Occupation" and there were calls in England "Bring the Troops Home" and that the British troops were actually responsible for the 200,000 civilian deaths caused by IRA bombings. After all, the IRA wasn't in Ireland until the British invaded. And that policing, intelligence and diplomacy really worked out in Bosnia. When are those troops coming home? And those damn Chechens not respecting their "occupation" either for their own good. And when is the EU going to admit the state of Basque? Can't really have diplomacy with a group that doesn't have it's own state. But I guess it's only really Iraq that's a problem because... well... Bush. --Tbeatty 08:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)"

I don't understand what you're getting at here - my question was actually serious - why do you disagree that terrorism is a law enforcement issue? Cheers Pexise 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That comment was in response to an editor insisting that Americans in Boston were giving money to IRA terrorists. Considering that person also criticized the fight against terrorism in Iraq, I was pointing out his hypocrisy. I don't disagree that terrorism is a law enforcement issue and in fact it would be treated as a crime if it occured on U.S. soil as the military is not allowed to act in that capacity due to Posse Comitatus. It is also a diplomatic issue, an economic issue, an intelligence issue and a military issue. Claiming that Europe is successful against terrorism with only "policing, intelligence and diplomacy" is somewhat laughable. Especially international terrorism. From the Lockerbie Pan Am, London Underground, Scotland airport, Mucnich 1972, German Discotheque, Spain ETA bombings, Greece airport bombings, Ethnic cleansing in former yugoslaivia, Chechnaya, etc, etc. Europe isn't particularly successful at dealing with terrorism. In 1986, the U.S. bombed Libya for a european terorrist attack. They stopped after that. Bosnia was occupied in the 1990's to stop the terrorism but before that it was a disaster. Military solutions aren't the only solutions but they are part of a larger strategy that includes all methods. Europe with the exception of the U.K. has all but ruled out military options either due to political reasons or lack of ability. --Tbeatty 16:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Um - well I would argue that there is no military solution to the terrorist problems you mention and the reasons for failures have been failures in policing, intelligence and negotiation. Yugoslavia wasn't a terrorist issue, it was a civil war. What's more, events such as the London Underground bombings are widely believed to have been exacerbated by UK military action in Iraq. Pexise 23:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that Ethnic Cleansing wasn't a form of terrorism? If so, Guatemala was a civil war. Iraq is a civil war. Would you justify terrorist attacks in U.K by Croat extremists because of British peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and "it's a civil war"? I hope not. The reality is that force is sometime required to stop these attacks. That force is sometimes police actions and shooting at the terrorists. And sometimes that force is military when the terrorists are harbored in other countries and hosted by their client states. The Middle East is one big civil war on low boil with various factions and tribes. Religious, economic and tribal wars. It's Shia muslim vs. Sunni muslim, Muslim vs. Jew, Fundamentalist Muslim vs. Secular muslim, Saudia Arabi vs. Al Qaeda, Persian vs. Arab, Palestinian vs. Israeli, Palestinian vs. Jordanian, Ba'ath vs. Lebanese Christian, Saudi Arabian vs. Egyptian, Hamas vs. PLO, etc ,etc. In 1967, Israel crushed Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian forces, not because Israel was fighting an organized coalition, but because each of three rivals were afraid the other rival would grab too much israeil terroritory in victory. Each, in turn, were drawn in because of their rivalry, not their alliance. Depending on which country is lending support to which faction invites terrorist attack. Peace is elusive because alliances that form for one reason dissolve for others. Today's ally is tomorrows enemy. There is no foreign policy today that will eliminate countries from terrorist attack from countries in this region because the alliances are so complex. Even withdrawing support from Israel which is largely regarded as the number one reason for making the U.S. a target will simply shift it to whatever alliances we have. Supporting Saudia Arabia makes us a target. Supporting Egypt makes us a target. Supporting Lebanon, supporting Jordan, supporting the PLO, supporting Iran, supporting pakistan, supporting indonesia, all makes us a target by somebody. "neutral" is not an option because of the amount of money that is involved and the level of exports these countries have. Today's enemy is Al Qaeda and they are the most powerful today. But they weren't the terrorists of yesterday and they won't be the terrorists of tomorrow. They didn't do Munich 1972 or PAn Am over Lockerbie. Abu Nidal wasn't in Al Qaeda. Leon Klinghofer wasn't killed by Al Qaeda. You can rest assured that there will be a new crop of terrorist organizations in the future and undoubtedly it will be tied to some policy the U.S. has today, but it really doesn't matter what the policy is, there will be terrorists. It could be Jordanian terrorists upset that we support Palestinians or it could be palestinian terrorists upse tthat we opposed them.

Second, I am not sure what there is to negotiate. Al Qaeda wants to overthrow the government of Saudi Arabia. They want the U.S. military out of Saudia Arabia. Complying with that would have been extremely problematic for our ties with the other nations in the region especially with an inteact Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein. There simply is no easy answers. But when the other side negotiates with violence (as Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iraq, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran do), violence may be required to stop it.

But back to State Sponsored Terrorism by the United States, I hope that if you stick to your convictions about Civil Wars not being terrorism, I am sureyou will support removing Guatemala and Nicaragua events from the article. --Tbeatty 00:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - regarding Al Qaeda, I would say that to an extent you're right that you can't directly negotiate because the aims of the organisation are too extreme and unacceptable, however, I would argue that a negotiated resolution to the Israel/Palestine situation would definitely help to decrease support for Al Qaeda and reduce their global influence.

I would say that Al Qaeda is a policing and intelligence issue, as it seems to be headed by a few charismatic and powerful individuals. Al Qaeda is the result of an ideology and organisation propogated by a few individuals, combined with sympathy for these ideals brought about by the international context in which they preach. Negotiation and sensible policies can help to resolve the problems of the international context, good intelligence, undercover policing, infiltration, international policing etc. is the only way to capture and defeat the leaders. I see no military solution to Al Qaeda, military actions have just stregthened them so far.

Meeting violence with violence is certainly not the solution. Pexise 12:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Except for one big problem. Hamas just attacked the PLO. Neither faction will tolerate a negotiated settlement. As for Al Qaeda, it is a large and complex organization. As you've seen in Iraq, killing the leader does not end the violence or the organization. But as I've said, AlQaeda will be replaced just as Al Qaeda replaced other terrorists. --Tbeatty 14:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is peace for our time...Neville Chamberlain. Next time, we should just send bin laden a letter, telling him we are very angry I guess.--MONGO 14:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, as we've seen in Iraq, prosecuting and disposing of the leadership of the Ba'ath party has indeed ended that organisation.

And you're analogy is completely erroneous as there was no open open conflict in Iraq before the government was removed, so saying 'the violence continues' is also incorrect.

As for strange intervention by MONGO: is prosecuting and bringing someone to justice, which is what I'm advocating, equivalent to sending them an angry letter? Well, obviously not, please don't mis-characterise my arguments. Pexise 14:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

First, you have to find and then capture bin laden before you can prosecute him. Sorry if you find my intervention strange. Peace is not always possible, sadly. I strongly doubt that the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds and persecuted Shia's would concur that there were no open conflicts in Iraq before the government was removed. It wasn't exactly like the garden of Eden you know.--MONGO 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my point was that the current situation of widespread terrorism and anarchic sectarian violence is radically different from the government oppression that characterised the Saddam Hussein regime.

Of course you have to find and capture Bin Laden - this was implicit in my comment. Pexise 15:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way Tbeatty - responding to your earlier point - what do you propose as a military solution to the London Underground bombings, ETA etc? Bomb Leeds? Bomb the Basque country? These are policing and intelligence issues - as evidenced today by the successful capture and prosecution of 21/7 London bombers. Pexise 17:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

More importantly look at the missing countries.

Since you said you didn't see any consensus on talk, I'll point out the section for you: [[6]] As you can see, ALL editors on both sides of the fence agreed for its inclusion, except yourself--the lone editor Tbetty, who I might add provide any good reasons, or convince anyone (even those who share your POV that you were right). This section was the end product of all these editors working together, tailored to the various conditions they requested for me to abide by. In addition to this clear talk page consensus, various other editors have supported it in edit summaries, restoring it, once it started to be taken out by the likes of yourself, Mongo, and now Dan. Since this section is well sourced, a product of a majority of editors from different POV's, and supported by a majority of editors working on the article, your removing it is unacceptable edit warring, and will be opposed, and reported. I will give you a chance to self revert, first, though (as I alaways do with any editor before making a report). If you have specific objections to the content, please discuss this on the talk page instead. I'll be happy to discuss any objections you have here or on talk, and if there is a new consensus to remove or making any changes, then we can do so. Until then, you are advised to stop being disruptive to this article.

Also, I will say this qualifies as distruptive editing since you are editing against consensus, blanking sourced material that a majority of editors support, and agreed to add in the talk page: a total of 16 editors supporting this section and reverting its blanking, with only ONE editor who stated his disagreement. In fairness, Mongo changed his mind later--after it was added and all the work was done-- but was part of the consensus to add the material discussed on the talk page (which is exactly what I added). For you to blank this, is distruptive given this action is against consensus and will just be reverted by others. Again, self revert and I invite him to discuss your problems with it on the talk page and get a new consensus among editors about changes he wants to see in it. I'll respect consensus on the matter, and I insist on the same from others. Your current actions are unacceptable and a violation of policy that I will seek to have enforced.

Consensus to add was clearly established. I even held off after consensus was reached (and editors asked me to now start the section) for a few more days to allow more time just to make sure. To review, we have Bmedley Sutler, SevenOfDiamonds, Mongo, Merzbow, BMF81, BernardL, Strothra,Seabhcan, Lifarn, Pexise, StoneinTheSky vs. You (and you did not provide any valid reasons that were accepted). Now, while you, Dan, and Mongo, have now decided to blank the section, be clear that it is against the consensus that was reached on talk. This disruptive esp. since its being done by you without discussion on talk for any objections you might have, which can be then addressed. Also, consensus for this is even more clear when we consider that even more editors have shown their support for the section by reverting the blanking, inclding the admin John, Lifarn, Jack Merridew, East718, Pexise,SevenOfDiamonds, and myself. This is not even including the additional editors who showed they accepted it by simply making other edits after it was restored. Do we need a Rfc, about this section, and the best practices for your small handful of editors are now blanking it, and refuse to use the talk page to try to achieve a new consensus? I think this is a very basic issue and you can figure out what it the best way to go aboug addressing any issues you have moving forward. AGain, I give you a chance to self revert now before I report you. Its up to you.Giovanni33 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

YOu are the only one who thinks there was a consensus for this material. There wasn't. You don't seem to understand the tongue-in-cheek repsonses by MONGO were not supporting your view. Please keep the non-consensus and undue weight theories off the article. It should be clear that across two articles, that material has been removed by numerous editors. That is not consensus by any stretch of your imagination. --Tbeatty 03:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If I am the only one who thinks its consensus, then why are various other editors saying the same things in their edit summaries restoring it? Are you saying you can read minds? So that comment is absurd. Also, you say Mongo was only joking when he agreed to include the material as a new section as was discussed on talk? Again, reading minds? Then explain why Mongo later explained that he "changed his mind?" How could he do that if he never agreed, as you claim? In fact, Mongo makes at least three comments along these lines. So, again, your claims are proven false. You are blaking soured material that was added with consensus, and you should not remove it until there is consensus to do so.Giovanni33 16:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so necessary to always post such long diatribes, Giovanni? For the record...the reason I have reverted your efforts to add the a-bombs info in the articles is because I disagree that it constitutes state terrorism. None of the persons you and the others have cited are particularily notable and their opinions on this matter isn't either...I almost laugh when I see Chavez quoted in support of this viewpoint...this guy not long ago said about the U.S....."Go to hell, gringos!" and he has referred to Saddam as a "gentleman"[7]...your source material is so far askew of mainstream it is ridiculous. That is why we have an undue weight clause to the NPOV policy....to keep radical poorly supported POV (either far left or right or just plain stupid) out of our articles.--MONGO 04:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO - that's fine if you disagree that it's state terrorism, but that has no bearing on this discussion or the article. That is your opinion. If you have sources that say that it wasn't state terrorism, then add them to the article. As it is, the section is well referenced with good sources. And suggesting that Hugo Chavez is not a notable source is just plain ridiculous. He is an elected head of state and these comments - however much you agree or disagree with them - belong in the article. You're just going to have to accept that you aren't going to agree with most of the content in the article. What's the problem with that - if you're right, you can assume that other people will realise what the truth is. What are you worried about? Pexise 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say "elected". Nor are his views on the U.S. objectively credible or relevant. Maybe in a venezuela article or his bio. But not in an article that is ostensibly about the U.S. --Tbeatty 14:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

He has been elected in several elections and a referendum, all of which were declared free and fair by international observers. All heads of state have a certain position when discussing other nations - that is the nature of international politics. Whenever Bush makes a pronouncement about another country or government, it is based on his bias. All of these comments are notable and deserve to be included (after all, we're not going to discount any comments that the US administration makes about Iran just because they are aggressors towards Iran, we know that, the comments can still be included). Pexise 14:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't read even Wikipedia's article which shows only Chavez' latest election as being "transparent" and a long history of abuses. --Tbeatty 15:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the article that says: "In 2005 and 2006 he [Chavez] was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people."? - I think that qualifies him as noteworthy in mainstream America. Also the article about 1998 elections that says: "Chávez won the Carter Center-endorsed election on December 6, 1998 with 56.2% of the vote." and the article which states of the 2004 recall referendum: 'Carter commented that, "I might project results that will be much more satisfactory than they were in 2000 in Florida".' Pexise 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We can put Chavez in the Carter articles and the Time Magazine articles. But he is not notable for his views on U.S. state terrorism. Enough of this on my talk page too. Take it to the article talk page. --Tbeatty 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You are continually removing the guardian reporter hoax - you say there are no sources. Please let me point them out to you

• SOURCE ONE - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55753 Morgan attacks British news outlets
• SOURCE TWO - http://forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?t=62064&start=10&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=704d89ed71f9335fcf316f64f34575da
• SOURCE THREE - http://www.ksfo.com/viewentry.asp?ID=361103&PT=hosts "Benson's" comments from KSFO.

How did you possibly miss those? --77.98.177.54 14:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ones a blog and none say it was hoax or. It's Original Research to claim the person doesn't exist or whatever the claim is without a reliable source (i.e. no blogs) making it. --Tbeatty 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the claim was the it was rumoured that the person doesn't exist. A blog shows that rumours exist does it not? --77.98.177.54 20:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

nope. Not a reliable source per WP:RS. --Tbeatty 21:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask if it was a reliable source. If a blogger suggests "this person is not real" and another blogger replies "oh I can't find a trace of him either" - then obviously there is a rumour. --77.98.177.54 21:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't print rumors on Wikipedia, unless they are notable rumors that are sourced by reliable secondaries. Blogs are not allowed except as primary sources in articles about themselves, per WP:V, so without an allowable source to cite, the rumor becomes original research. So to include those rumors, you have to violate one of two core policies of Wikipedia. - Crockspot 21:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that - but what I'm saying is that if it's been discussed then by definition a rumour does exist.

Verifiability by reliable sources, not truth, is the object of Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 19:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the meatpuppet-fest over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie. I've seen meat attacks before, but this one seems to be the mother-of-all-meat-sock-puppet-aloosas. It's so bad it's funny.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

--

T, would you mind asking your bud here to show some quality? Derex2 06:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I assume you mean Morton? I've only followed the Gamaliel thing. Is there something specific? --Tbeatty 21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That article and all of its forks need as much attention from administrators as they can get. Edit warring and bad faith reverting have ruled those articles thus far. I think your presence will help keep a lid on things. Consensus is a good thing irregardless of the outcome . Albion moonlight 08:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:HUPPENTHAL.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 11:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I think we're OK now with that - notability evidenced. A good noticeboard to post on is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Tyrenius 19:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping remove ridiculouis crap from "Covert regime change". 65.28.247.16 00:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:BobDornan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You recently removed the "replaceable fair use" tag from the image Image:BobDornan.jpg and replaced the tag with one indicating that there had been discussion with the result of Keep. The correct way to dispute the "replaceable fair use" tag is to add the template {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|Your reason why a free replacement can not be found or created}} to the image description page. Furthermore, there actually had been no discussion warranting the placement of the Rk template you placed, only a single comment by you. If you have questions about the use of the Rk template, feel free to ask. Sancho 16:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Will you please stop switching around supposedly established colors because they aren't garish enough for you? --Golbez 03:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? This is like how someone removed the map of the US from United States because it was shaded in red. Pink is not remotely offensive, and you offend my intelligence with your horrific interpretation of it. --Golbez 03:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The swap matters because for at least two years here, Republican has been identified by pink, and Populist, for whatever reason, was green. Now you change that. Just because you think pink is offensive in this context doesn't make it true. It's a shade of red, and Republicans nowadays are identified by red. Your changing it to green was simply nonsense. If color matters so much, then why wasn't Democrat permanently red (or non-red, if red is so offensive)? It wasn't until the 2000 election cycle that the colors were set in stone. And anyway, how is being red (better dead than red, right?) less offensive in your head than pink? None of what you've done with the colors makes any sense. --Golbez 03:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that to some, red can mean communist. I'm not acknowledging that Wikipedia should kowtow to people who have this irrational fear or hatred of a certain color in a certain context. No one has complained in at least two years that I can see, so you aren't acting on other peoples' behalf, only your own. --Golbez 04:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"I was contacted by a person who would have a COI if he edited." One can have a COI over a color? Anyway, in the future, before you make a template change that makes hundreds of articles unreadable, please bring it up with the community. --Golbez 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to quote me where I said I don't care. And perhaps you should read the sentence above this one, about going to the community before you attempt to alter a standard accepted for more than two years. --Golbez 04:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit (along with several others) back to a much more neutral, and should be agreeable phone number entry. This new entry does not include the phone number, but does include the general opinion/criticism that the phone number is hard to locate. The common location for a phone number (on most business websites) are located in much easier and perhaps logical links off the main page, such as "Contact Us" or "Customer Support" or even simply listing the number on the main page. There is little need to cite the number since it is on their website, and the number itself is hardly an item which would be disputable. I believe the edit I recently made to include the opinion (which is shared by many) that it is difficult to find, it a valid synopsis without becoming a directory or other things WP is not. Tiggerjay 09:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A short while back you commented on the reliability of PRESS TV. The same user, Vitalmove, is again trying to add in the same nonsense about it being independent and reliable. See [8]. Perspicacite 19:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgan and the group DO advocate military actions and DO support the so called "war on terror". Morgan admits in several of her articles including the KSFO one used as a reference that the Guardian deemed her comments offensive. If you google reporter damien benson, you'll find that he does not exist - with similar results on the Guardian website. I will edit the article adding these sources. --Lancastria 20:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Googling is not a reliable source. Proving to yourself with a Guardian website search is Original Reseach. Using terms like "so called" is POV weasel words. None are acceptable.

In that case lets get the guardian link as a reference. Why would that be unacceptable? --Lancastria 15:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A guardian link of what? --Tbeatty 15:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant the Guardian web search that there is no article but never mind! As per your advice I have listed the karl marx pic with the red X for deletion. Can you check if I did it right --Lancastria 16:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, how do I make a page redirect to another one. I want NWAS to point to North West Ambulance Service but don't know how. --Lancastria 21:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. You put #REDIRECT [[North West Ambulance Service]] as the only thing on the page. You can edit a page by clicking the redirect link at the top of the page after being redirected. --Tbeatty 04:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! No doubt I'll be bothering you with further questions at some point. --Lancastria 13:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. What is the BLP violation in my posts about Crockspots <refactor> that "Pretty much any dude with "bear" in his handle you can assume takes it up the ass."? I think you are wrong, and just protecting your friend. I will post on the BLP board to ask them. Thanks any way. Bmedley Sutler 08:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the BLP reference was inappropriate. Digwuren 09:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think BLP applies to users/editors/admins, though the personal info privacy stuff does, NPA, etc.

The questions posed are grossly distasteful but raise the specter of disturbing conduct outside WP, if it's the same person.

This is an ugly corner case, but it's not BLP. Georgewilliamherbert 10:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - Crockspots links to that forum himself - the questions are not problematic (from a policy perspective). He's responded, so I doubt you'll continue - but you won't be allowed to if you try. Cheers, WilyD 15:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not come here to make an idle threat.--MONGO 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing him as homophobic is a BLP violation without a reliable source. --Tbeatty 16:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling him homophobic would be a personal attack, calling his comments homophobic is most certainly not. ←Ben^B4 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a distinction without a difference. Such acrimonious language without a reliable source is a BLP violation and using it in the ocntext of Wikipedia editors is a personal attack. Words are never "homophobic". Only people. I doubt you would condone a comment such as "That was a gay thing to say" and claim it wasn't a personal attack. Well, it's a similiar construct to say "that comment was homophobic". --Tbeatty 01:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Statements can be homophobic just like they can be sexist, biased, etc. It is very important that we do not forbid people from calling comments as they see them -- where would we be if we were not allowed characterize edits? If someone makes statements anywhere approving of encouraging gays to "off themselves," I retain the right to call those comments homophobic and no arguments for censorship will change my mind. ←Ben^B4 01:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not important at all to let people say anything they want. This is wikipedia, not your own personal blog space. You may not personally attack other editors and that includes characterizing them as homophobes or racists or whatever. You can call those editors anything you want off of Wikpedia. Those statements you mention would not be allowed on Wikipedia either so why you feel the need to disparage and silence editors for off-wiki comments is not rational and creates a poisonous atmosphere. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not bring off-wiki statements and attacks to Wikipedia. That's why personal attacks are forbidden. No one here wants to hear you call anyone a homophobe/gay/racist/honky/<whatever> no matter how self-righteous it makes you feel or how bad their off-wiki comments are. --Tbeatty 03:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA. Characterizing a statement is not an attack against the person who wrote it. There is nothing in WP:GRFA suggesting the harsh scrutiny it describes is limited to on-wiki edits. Off-wiki behavior is frequently cited in evaluating user conduct. ←Ben^B4 03:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read it. WP:NPA clearly says "epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor" and "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is expressly forbidden. If I said "your comment is gay" you would rightly believe it was a personal attack. Saying "your comment is homophobic" is just as bad. It matters not which which one offends your personal tastes more. Both are personal attacks. A better phrase is "your comments offend me." But characterizing another editor with disparaging terms based on your own impression is a personal attack. Trying to couch it as a "comment on content, not contributors" rings hollow. Again, if I said "your comment is gay" you would be offended (or should be) because it truly is a personal attack. --Tbeatty 04:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"against another contributor" is not the same as against the statement. And how exactly is characterizing a comment using someone's affiliations? Under your perverted line of reasoning calling edits biased would be forbidden. It seems to me your "rings hollow" means "true but contradicting the position I took when trying to censor a RfA question." ←Ben^B4 19:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should be calling another editor biased. 'rings hollow' means it's not true but tries to sound true. --Tbeatty 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that you think saying an edit is biased is the same thing as saying the editor is biased? ←Ben^B4 18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you cast an opinion on this farce! The guy has harrased me since I got here and now this appears... the user he's having me checked for is a blatant vandal who attacks userpages. Me and him/her have edited two articles the same. That can't be valid evidence. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Specialservice HELP ME OUT --Lancastria 12:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a small point, you forgot to add the case to the main checkuser page - simply filing a report isn't enough. Please be more careful next time. John Smith's 13:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry, I thought a clerk did that. I thought the category alerted the clerks to put it in the appropriate list. --Tbeatty 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there has been quite a bit of off-wiki canvassing: four distinct sites, and up to three distinct people. If you do not mind, I have undone your link—if Deskana wants to update his own comment, he may certainly do so. You could add all four links under Deskana's comment, but I would honestly prefer if this did not happen, since the RfA is already "dirty" enough as it is without giving people links at the very top of the page that could possibly cloud their judgment. Thanks, Gracenotes^T § 17:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This diff implies that User:81.169.170.70 is User:Eleemosynary. Then User:81.169.170.70 went and vandalized Crockspot's RfA. I started to file a report at Checkuser, but this seemed pretty obvious to me. Tell me if I am doing the wrong thing. Ursasapien (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This is overdue I believe. MONGO 06:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks! I haven't been doing many article edits lately though. Mostly rewriting crap that annoys me or commenting on process stuff. --Tbeatty 06

56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As you have expressed an interest I'm letting you know that I've put a request for arbitration on the sockpuppet accusations here Theresa Knott | The otter sank Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I rarely give these things out, but you deserve one for putting yourself in harm's way in my defense during my RfA. Crockspot 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you got a bum rap. I was defending the process. That aside, I think your comments on the other site were not exemplary but also irrelevant to what happens here. --Tbeatty 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Search results for: 69.4.133.124

OrgName: Surewest Internet OrgID: SURWAddress: P.O. Box 969City: RosevilleStateProv: CAPostalCode: 95678Country: US

NetRange: 69.4.128.0 - 69.4.159.255 CIDR: 69.4.128.0/19 NetName: SUREWEST-INTERNETNetHandle: NET-69-4-128-0-1Parent: NET-69-0-0-0-0NetType: Direct AllocationNameServer: RDNS1.SUREWEST.NETNameServer: RDNS2.SUREWEST.NETComment: RegDate: 2002-11-11Updated: 2007-06-08

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE57-ARINOrgAbuseName: Abuse Department OrgAbusePhone: +1-916-772-5000OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@surewest.net

OrgNOCHandle: ZR32-ARINOrgNOCName: DNS Admin OrgNOCPhone: +1-916-772-5000OrgNOCEmail: dnsadmin@surewest.net

OrgTechHandle: ZR32-ARINOrgTechName: DNS Admin OrgTechPhone: +1-916-772-5000OrgTechEmail: dnsadmin@surewest.net --MONGO 06:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would avoid looking at them if you do not know how to read them. cpe-72-225-141-250.hvc.res.rr.com is not NYC. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I said NYC. I said NY. West Point is 60 miles from Brooklyn. --Tbeatty 20:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So I drive to West Point on the weekends to edit wikipedia? Do you really believe this, or is it more on the party line of throwing everything to see what sticks? I think you should present this to Arbcom if you are so sure, you may have cracked the case! However if you wish to apologize, you know my talk page. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out Saratoga Springs is 130 miles north of West point, 190 miles away from Brooklyn. If you do not know how to find out where they resolve, you should not make accusations based on them. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I made an accusation either. Just an observation of a number of IP's that are related to the Rex sockpuppet case. If you can link Rex to NuclearUmpf that would be helpful. --Tbeatty 21:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Its good to know you do not even believe MONGO. I will be sure to note it. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Note away. --Tbeatty 22:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I started my first political article. And thought maybe you and some of your RW friends could help write it with me, so we can learn to get along. It is the very important new RW group Freedom's Watch. They justed debuted today. Let us join hands and work in harmony. Will you tell your friends, or should I? ΞSMEDLEYΔBUTLERΞ 00:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not right wing and I don't have friends here. But you are more than welcome to contact other editors if you think they can contribute. I have never heard of this group before so I don't think I can add much. --Tbeatty 01:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't revert it again, of course, but I still don't quite follow your logic on this one. If I understood it correctly, the whole paragraph is about things she said in that interview. A recording of that interview should therefore be the best reference possible. I don't quite see how whether the medium she gave that interview is reliable or not makes any difference. The reference are her own words, in her own voice, not whatever PrisonPlanet said.—Graf Bobby 00:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, prisonplanet is not a reliable source for that information. If her quotes were notable, another source would have picked them up. As a side note, primary sources such as recordings are actually the worst of the acceptable sources (Prison PLanet is not reliable in any sense so it is moot). Wikipedia prefers secondary sources that report on events, not the event themselves. If it cannot be sourced from a reliable source, then it should be deleted. --Tbeatty 02:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tbeatty, I found a bunch of new sources discussing the film The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie and listed them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie. Obviously some of this needs to be incorporated into the article, but I think this is more than sufficient to make this one a keeper. Was hoping you could take a look and reconsider you delete vote, or if you still think it should be deleted perhaps you can elaborate on your rationale.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you delete your old User and talk pages, people who click on any of your old signatures will have no way to contact you. If that is what you intended, please disregard this message. ←Ben^B4 08:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

that's what I want. --DHeyward 08:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How come when I click on the link in the Tbeatty signature it doesn't redirect here? It makes it confusing for those who want to view your past contriubtions. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is some real wierdness w.r.t. that account. It's down in the long as having been created today. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I came here, too, due to confusion about the user name. A redirect would be helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A troll recreated the account. It's not me. --DHeyward 18:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's makes the problem even worse.... it appears now as if your previous incarnation were a vandal with very few edits. Better to redirect your old name here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 10:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't fix that. --DHeyward 17:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Katie Barge, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. B. Wolterding 18:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Katie Barge, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Barge. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You, too, are welcome to join the discussion already in progress. Pairadox 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your pursuit of a personal vendetta with Bmedley after the fact that I indefinitely blocked him is becoming disruptive on certain articles. If the disruptive behavior continues you may have your editing privileges temporarily removed.--Jersey Devil 06:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal vendetta with Bmedley. Please stop characterizing my edits, which happened before he was banned, as being disruptive. he may have taken issue with me, but you will find that I didn't particularly have a personal interest in him. Please restore my edits and comment on the appropriate section on the talk page. Bmedley was trolling, please don't help him. --DHeyward 07:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, DHeyward. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)