User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All

Archives

---

1. Oct. 06 – Jan. 07

They huffed, and puffed, . . .

Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My response to Morty

File:Bushreadingthepetgoat.jpg

Ahoy there, unflagging Bush-junta supporter!

The spamalicious graphic notification you left on my (and 25+ other) talk page[s] was in violation of WP:SPAM, specifically "promotion of ...Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes." How would you like it if I left you a similar message promoting 911 Truth: Bush read about a pet goat while America burned? Wait... I just did! :-) Good cheer, returned - F.A.A.F.A. 23:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to those who may have come here to provoke and/or bait me

I may consider any and all contentious posts from certain individuals an unwelcome attempt to harass and/or bait me. Any such comments may be removed at my discretion in accordance with WP. "Users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments (on their own talk page) at their discretion." -F.A.A.F.A. 06:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

	CABAL-FREE ZONE
	This user space is guaranteed to be 100% Cabal Free, and 'sanitized for your protection'. "Certified Grade A, 100% Cabal Free" - U.S. DIvision of Cabal Inspectors - D.H.S. Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Inspected by number 23

Barnstar Award

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your work in dealing with sockpuppet, specifically User:ClemsonTiger, I award you this barnstar as a measure of thanks. Chris 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You were a big help with the directory too. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets try this again

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Please be civil

Your comments to Tbeatty are not appreciated. Since you are clearly mischaracterizing his edit summary, and he has asked you to quit readding the comment, would you please do so?

Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

for 24 hours for this [1] edit summary among other things. Comparisons with Stalin are pretty much 100% unhelpful. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK - probably deserved it -- But having my comments deleted three times by Tbeatty was pretty damn annoying. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe next time don't readd them twice, then it will only be one third as annoying. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

True dat! LOL! - Fairness & Accuracy For All

(joke) In the words of one nearly-famous Wikipedian....:"My entire purpose here is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for libel bring more humor to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia administrators understand that." Fairness & Accuracy For All

• Well done for taking it in good part. Please do try WP:DR, it may help to resolve these disputes. Also perhaps read some of TBeatty's work on articles less politically charged, it may help you to respect him more as an editor. I have tried this several times with people I've been in dispute with. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a friendly, easy-going guy in most cases - but its pretty frustrating dealing with editors who know WP well enough to argue entirely contradictory understandings and application of the same WP depending on if they're trying to include something, or exclude something. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Fairness & Accuracy For All

Oh the irony! :o) Guy (Help!) 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to Tbeatty

Note to Tbeatty : Sorry my tongue-in-cheek attempts at humor fell flat with you. Seriously though --your repeated actions of raising the spectre of Willy Horton when talking about the Peter Roskam article is an example something that political operatives advise against. (unless you are trying to bias others against Roskam, that is). You see -- these actions have planted the mental image of, and thoughts about a convicted rapist and murderer in the same 'mental frame' as Peter Roskam - in my mind -- and possibly the minds of others reading your comments -- probably not what you intended. Politics 101, Mr. Beatty. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page

Usually when someone archives their talk page, the removed edits are put in an archive. Otherwise, it would be more accurate to leave an edit summary that simply said "deleting". —Doug Bell ^talk 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps like me, you didn't know that a blocked editor can't even edit their own archive pages. I saved the edits in a text file for when my 24 hr is up. Apologies will be graciously accepted. - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Perhaps you should ave waited... Guy (Help!) 16:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I did know that, which is why when the "Archiving" comment went by not once, but twice, in my watchlist I came and looked into it. Since I archive my talk page by including links into the page history instead of maintaining a separate archive, I figured that maybe you used the same approach.

Perhaps you should have reverted the changes back once you found you couldn't archive them.

And had I said something requiring an apology, I would offer one. I was merely commenting on your action, not assuming bad faith. It had occurred to me that you might be planning what you said, but the fact that you made two passes removing comments from this file did not quite fit with that scenario since it would be logical that you had tried to start or edit the archive file after cutting the first chunk of comments from the talk page and would have discovered your problem before cutting the second chunk out. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't considered the scenario that after I discovered that I couldn't access my archive page, and created a text file, I went ahead and archived more comments to this text file because I didn't think it was any big deal, or that anyone would actually care, as I planned on adding to them to the actual archive page as soon as the 24hr is up. I admit that 'apologies' was a smart-ass remark. That's probably cause I'm a smart-ass. (with little respect for authority as well!) Sorry if it upset you. I consider this matter closed. I hope you do as well. Peace. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I considered your option, just considered it unlikely enough to make my comment. No worries, I'm much harder to upset than that...matter closed. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not understand that relying on the history is recognized as one of the acceptable archiving methods. It is better for those editing on controversial subjects to be completely scrupulous about all procedure & technicalities, letting any possible breeches by their opponents contrast with their own good faith and openness. (removing true attacks is of course permissible--though some clever editors move them to an archive page of their own). Just friendly advice.DGG 00:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please remove the threat

Would someone please remove the threat from my user page and maybe if so inclined run a checkuser on what IP or user posted it? Thanks - Fairness & Accuracy For All 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I alerted on it Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Death_threat_posted_to_user.27s_page. --BenBurch 03:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ben! I don't believe its a legit death threat or even a legit threat though, only some pathetic loser's attempt to harrass me. They say you're a 'nobody' on Wiki until you've been threatened. I guess I have arrvived. LOL ! I wish the troll would have used The Godfather allusion with the horsehead in the bed though! Much 'more better'! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 03:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I take all such threats seriously, and where the perps can be found out I always hand them over to the authorities. --BenBurch 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's probably good advice. I just read a disturbing account on a Wiki-critical site about one Wiki editor's inappropriate actions towards another editor - who was a 16 year old girl! There are some sicko-psychos out there in cyberland! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 05:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If that kind of crap continues to happen on your userpage, put in a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP.--MONGO 06:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bogus warning removed - FAAFA (The Chosen Vessel of the Remaining Bride) 20:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread

Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

FR talk page

I misread the timing on the post there. My apologies. What Dean does and gets away or doesn't get away with on ANI is not currently up to me, but he's been pushing across the line of the proposed community sanction in my opinion. We'll see what happens, whether he backs off or whether it gets enforced or what. Georgewilliamherbert 23:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have filed an arbitration request over the current situation at Free Republic, as well as other articles. You are an involved party in the request, and may make your response there. Thank you, Prodego ^talk 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This has gone beyond WP:ANI. This situation is harmful, it has stopped being a contained article dispute. It is now turned into an all out brawl, on many pages. It would be very difficult for me to withdraw arbitration now that I have informed everyone, and an outside user has commented. In fact, I am not sure I can do it at all. Also, under the current situation, I think this arbitration is necessary. You only need to make one comment (not even that if you chose not to) and the rest is up to arbcom. Also, what ban are you talking about? Only arbcom can ban, and none of you are blocked? Prodego ^talk 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This ban. Proposed_community_ban Your RfA was well-meaning, but I believe out-of-order when other remedies had already been proposed, and were in active discussion. - FAAFA 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I can't really do anything about it now. We will have to wait to see if arbcom decides to accept or decline the case. Had I known about it, I would not have made the request now, but since I have, I really have no choice. I do believe this is necessary though. Prodego ^talk 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I will suggest that they decline pending the outcome of this proposed community ban. I hope you won't disagree. - FAAFA 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with that. In fact, I recommend it. Prodego ^talk 00:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting your response

You are the only hold out:

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company2.0 Please accept or reject. Travb (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic RfAr

Your statement is meant to mount a persuasive case why the case should be accepted by ArbCom, meaning that you should say that a party of the case has been disruptive, has not listened to consensus, has continued to edit war, etc. (these are not accusations against anyone, but just examples). What you seem to be doing is listing all the evidence against DeanHinnen out to the open prematurely and clogging up the page (so is DeanHinnen's long, winding statement that I can condense into seven words). All you need are a few select and convincing qutoes. The rest can be presented later. Feel free to contact me for more clarification. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, basically this is just a request to accept the case, and unless they chose to do so(1/0/1/0), evidence is not presented. Prodego ^talk 01:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company2.0. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Warning

With regards to your comments on User talk:EVula: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I can understand your frustration, but there's no reason to actually insult me over a mistake on my part. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to add to the evidence page. It is where the arbcom gets its info from. You should create a section and put any and all evidence you have that would support the remedies you want the arbcom to give. Remember they get a lot of their info from that page, be sure to present you case. Prodego ^talk 02:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a confirmation that she was a foundation employee, and then he said that my block was an appropriate action. [2] and [3]. Prodego ^talk 01:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop

File:Yellow warning.png

Warning: If you do this, or anything remotely like it, again, I will block you. Whether the arbitrators hear Tbeatty's evidence unrelated to Free Republic is up to them, but such actions will pretty much guarantee that they will. Thatcher131 14:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You have made an error

Here you attribute a quote to me, and an endorsement, when in actuality, all I did was add spaces to User:Lovelight's section so that everyone's name was readable. User:Lovelight made the quotes and it's obvious from logs that it is not me. I presume you are just misreading the logs as I certainly did not endorse User:Lovelight's claims or quotes. Original Lovelightspace1space2. Please change your evidence section accordingly. --Tbeatty 15:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)