User talk:DHeyward

• /Archive1 Created May 1. 2006
• /Archive2 Created August 24, 2006
• /Archive3 Created September 30, 2006

Please add comments to the bottom.

User talk:Morton Devonshire

Thanks for refactoring my comment; please remember to note that you have done so next time, so it doesn't just look as if I ran out of steam half way through a. Thanks. --Guinnog 04:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Lin Zexu

I saw that you inserted a passage in the article on Lin Zexu, claiming that his letter to Quen Victoria found its way to some London newspapers. Do you have a source on that?--Niohe 03:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It was pretty common knowledge. I will add the source though.--Tbeatty 03:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Carcharoth's comments

See his comment re The War on Freedom Afd at [1]. Morton devonshire 00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Category:Session wrestlers

Your recent edit to Category:Session wrestlers (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 04:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Category had one erroneous entry and the bot treated it as "blanking" when it was removed. --Tbeatty 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange Close & Re-List

The Afd that you voted on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter has been closed and relisted by an Admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination). Before re-listing, the vote was 19 delete, 5 keep. Morton devonshire 22:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Bogus 3RR report

Combining two edits twelve hours apart and trying to pass that off as one revert? [refactored personal attack] Gamaliel 03:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the mistake of the 4th edit. It was 5 reverts in a little less than 2 days. Wikilawyer it down all you like. Deleting warnings from your talk page is also a violation. --Tbeatty 03:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, but you really need to let it go. There is no "violation" in deleting bogus warnings posted in a lame attempt to claim the moral high ground, if there is such a thing in such a sad edit war. It's also sad to lecture me about edit warring when you've been reverting just as much as I have. What's the point of that? I think you need to step back a bit. Are you really so blinded by partisanship or dislike of me to imagine that I'm trying to smear poor Jeff Gannon with a parent category? Seriously, think about this. Do you really believe I think that I'm going to convince someone that Gannon was a prostitute with clever category placement? Or are you just looking for some reason to attack me? The last bit isn't a dig at you, I'm just trying to figure out what the hell is going on. Gamaliel 03:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Switch it around. Do you really think I give a shit about Jeff Gannon? Do you really think it's worth it to risk the foundation with potential libel and defamation suits so you can inlude an insignificant person in a silly category? Do you really believe it when you say the integrity of Wikipedia's category system hinges on whether or not Jeff Gannon can be called a sex worker? Why not let it go? I have concerns with your editing pattern (and you have said as much about mine). My only goal is to create a better encyclopedia and part of that means opposing NPOV and BLP violations. I will continue to challenge your attempts to add negative material about certain individuals covered as WP biographies as well as your attempts to add politically critical material to organizations and/or candidates in a way that violates NPOV. I applaud your work on non-political topics and your overall contribution to Wikipedia but you should let go of the parthisanship and dislike of me. The percentage of my edits that you have a problem with is a lot higher than the percentage of your edits that I find objectionable so it seems rather far-fetched for you to think I am attacking you. --Tbeatty 04:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Andy Stephenson

Someone removed your prod from the Andy Stephenson article. You'll have to do an AfD. Crockspot 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Tbeatty 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Andy Stephenson deletion discussion is here.--Tbeatty 04:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Check out the diff I posted on the AfD for a good snort. Crockspot 05:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Cult CfD

To help with reaching consensus on this CfD, I added categories to sort votes into reasons for Keep or Delete. You can confirm that I sorted you into the right group hereAntonrojo 19:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: NBGPWS

I'm leaving him a warning, but what is DU and SPA? Thanks. —Xyrael / 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

DU is short for www.democraticunderground.com , and SPA means Single Purpose Account. Crockspot 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

Probably a good move refactoring the comments on Talk:Daniel Brandt. I shouldn't have said that, but I got the impression an anon had been vandalizing articles I'd written because I've edited the Brandt page. I usually don't let vandals bother me, and anyway there's no reason to give them a reason to do it, so thanks.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for not taking it personally :). --Tbeatty 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Awards

A Barnstar!

I Hereby Award You The Tin-Foil Hat of Comeuppance For service in the endless war to rid Wikipedia of Conspiracy Theory Vanispamcruftisement Morton DevonshireYo

Your repeated deletions in the Andy Stephenson article

Rather than participating in editing the section, you just deleted a section which other editors had worked to make NPOV, such as the sentence I just added, before you did wholesale deletion of material which was documented, saying:" "It's simply unsourced. Scurrilous too." Please avoid hurling accusations like "scurrilous," which is defined as: "given to the use of vulgar or low abusive language; foul mouthed" directed at other editors' work. There was no such language in the section you deleted. Assume good faith. Collaborate rather than engaging in revert war tactics and deleting. Saying "BLP" is not a magic wand which allows you to delete sourced statements you disagree with. Which living person do you feel was hurt by the section you removed? Thanks.Edison 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't directed at other editors. Scurrilous was used to describe the accusation of those that blamed Stephenson critics for hastening his death. Please AGF. Since the statements weren't sourced, it is ncumbent to delete them. Simply repeating libelous statements because someone else said them is not acceptable. The living people are hte owners and contributors of the website critical of Stephenson. --Tbeatty 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi aluminum tubes order

New name for the article. Hopefully descriptive enough to be meaningful. Already did the fixes to avoid redirects. Might be a little bold, but nobody had moved on the rename for several months.--Rosicrucian 00:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. More descriptive. --Tbeatty 01:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You should be made aware of this

User_talk:Derex#Friends to keep in touch with. --Aaron 06:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a friendly guy. Will you invite me along to your AFD's? I loved the yellowcake one Aaron. Derex 06:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Had to file this. You may have a dog in this one.--Scribner 06:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Had to? Whatever. Because I'm not a dick, I won't report you for your actually serious attacks about actual editing integrity. I think that T is not actually a dick though, he seems to have a sense of humor. I was just having fun with him. You might be though. I like dogs by the way; got two. Derex 06:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reconsidered

And come to the same conclusion as before. If you feel strongly about the notes on my talk page, you're welcome to pursue other avenues - but I don't see any reason to delete them. Have a good day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Tbeatty, your welcome. :-) FloNight 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Another FoxNews RfC

Apparantly another edit has started an RfC on a topic that most thought was ostensibly over. If you feel this is a separate RfC that need's additional comment feel free. I'm trying to see WP:AGF but it is difficult to not look at this as sour grapes. Ramsquire 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreement re: MONGO

Perhaps the fact that we both agree with MONGO's recent decision indicates that we might overcome whatever other differences we have between us, and agree to disagree civilly. I, for one, am hopeful that we can come to a place of mutual respect. In any case, and whatever your opinion, I wish you well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope so. --Tbeatty 14:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I post this here since I know others have this page watchlisted....I have been meaning for several days now to approach one or more of you to try and work out your differences. I know that Tbeatty, Ryan, Derex, Morton devonshire and others here all do an excellent job of helping with articles related to politics and the events of 9/11/2001. I also know that there are strong opinions on these matters that, when argued by those that have great capacity to demostrate their points and to back it up with policy and evidence, that these issues can become very heated. When I started Wiki, Ryan and I were at odds with each other on the George W Bush article, when I spent something like 1,000 edits on the article and discussion page arguing with JamesMLane and others over whether or not evidence that he is or is not a unreformed drunk should be in the article...I know Ryan wanted to smack me, and JamesMLane probably wanted me to simply go away...in the end, we all ended up settling for about half what we wanted. The lesson from that is the key to the whole collaborative editing process because in reality, most great "truths" lie somewhere in the middle of where our own biases lay. The other thing that happened is that I came to greatly respect Ryan and others who I had originally argued against (such as Tony Sidaway). I don't know if this speech makes a difference, but I hope so. Thanks to all for the support.--MONGO 15:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:JimboPimp.gif

Good call on the BLP issue, considering the source. When I removed tthe {{hangon}} template a while back, it was mostly a procedural removal, since the image wasn't marked for speedy deletion yet. — TKD::Talk 20:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And apparently it's on Commons. *sigh* — TKD::Talk 20:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 21:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Quit deleting and editing my comments

• Comment :Comments (refactored):

• 04:22, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (noting no more AfDs)
• 04:21, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (all gone! now what will we do for fun?)

(refactor) What an outrageous misuse of the AfD process! Deleting articles 'for fun'. NBGPWS 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS 06:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

calling editors a 'Hit Squad' is a personal attack..--Tbeatty 06:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning for third revert in Larry Craig article

Warning You deleted, in the Larry Craig article, the documented mention of the press coverage of the Rogers outing the following three times within the last 24 hours. The section appears to comply with WP:BLP as it lists mainstream media coverage of the accusation and denial, rather than the unconfirmed claim itself. Further reverts may result in a block. The section has been called by other names, so if that is your only objection, you could discuss changing to the earlier name of the section, or removing the section name, since yeaterday the info was just included under the “Personal” section rather than "Unconfirmed rumor." Please improve the article by negotiating NPOV wording in the Talk section rather than by serial reverting. If the material violates WP:BLP or is libelous, so that the #RR does not apply, then reverts made to enforce this provision are generally not considered contentious. However, it can be easy to confuse removing potentially libellous material with an edit war over neutrality issues, which are contentious edits. Err on the side of caution: do not repeatedly remove material you consider defamatory unless it is blatant, and seek intervention from others early at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.: Revision as of 06:24, 24 October 2006 (edit) Tbeatty (Talk | contribs) (WP:BLP deleted improperly added "unverified rumors") Revision as of 05:34, 24 October 2006 (edit) Tbeatty (Talk | contribs) (→Unconfirmed rumors - BLP - no place in wikipeida for unconfirmed rumors) Revision as of 00:21, 24 October 2006 (edit) Tbeatty (Talk | contribs) (→Unconfirmed rumors - Does anybody really think a section called "Unconfirmed Rumors" belongs in a BLP (or anywhere else) in Wikipedia?) Edison 16:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is a bogus 3RR warning. Tbeatty is a member of the Living People Patrol, and is acting on the consensus of the patrol members that this information violates WP:BLP, his reverts are therefore exempt from 3RR, per WP:BLP. - Crockspot 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Where is this consensus developed; is there some sort of discussion off the article talk page? Or, is that simply listing your name on that project gives your voice special authority to make these judgements without any external discussion? Derex 18:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ask and ye shall receive: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Larry Craig - Crockspot 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• You are absolutely incorrect. We should err on the side of removing material that may in any way be defamatory. THis is not a race. I have extensively posted about this on the talk page abd the BLP board. Also, the coninued lack of mainstream coverage indicates that corroboration after almost 1 week has not happened. --Tbeatty 17:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute in Fox News

I'm still having a dispute with some of the editors over in the Fox News talk pages over the wording of the introduction. Since you were previously involved in the RfC, I wanted to ask you to take a look and comment if you disagree with my position. My position, specifically, is that a prominent critic should be cited specifically in the introductory sentence, instead of just saying "Many critics..." - I believe the change would more clearly adhere to the WP:NPOV policy. Cbuhl79 18:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain

You argued that the Andy Stevenson article violated BLP against PayPal, and the unnamed bloggers at Scamday. You argued that the Larry Craig Article should not repeat 'uncomfirmed' rumors. "All rumours have a source. It doesn't mean WP needs to repeat them. When Wikipedia's standards are less than the Washington Posts or the New York times, we have a problem" You are deleting names from the Joe Scarbourough article. You argued that the entire Protest Warrior article should be treated as a BLP of the two co-founders.

In researching the Clinton Chronicles I just discovered that YOU, Tbeatty, are the editor who introduced into the article the "List of People the Chronicles Listed as "Suspicious Deaths Associated with Clinton", and continued to add to that list. You are responsible for adding and perpetuating (on Wiki) the disproven rumors that President Clinton had certain people KILLED!

Please explain your contradictory actions. NBGPWS 18:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think Tbeatty is part of a massive conspiracy to frame Clinton through disinformation campaigns spread on Wikipedia, ending in global domination ... not that you actually accused them of that ... yet. --NuclearZer0 18:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not ask YOU to delve into Beatty's head as to why he would VIGOROUSLY use BLP to protect the reputations of organizations and even entire classes of people (conservative bloggers) from being maligned, and yet repeat and INTRODUCE into an article the DISPROVEN rumors that a president had people MURDERED! NBGPWS 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You should calm down and drink some tea. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like tea. Please restore the cruft page to my original version where I noted the addition of the Clinton Chronicles. NBGPWS 20:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why you need me to make edits for you. In any manner, I do not make edits unless I feel they are warranted, and I do not feel as they are in this case, it may look like an edit war, you have your comment no the page clarifying, not sure what the drama is about. Good day. --NuclearZer0 20:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered you were Zer0Faults too! Zer0faults has abandoned that account and opened a new account NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs) [2]

I had NO idea that Nuclear was ZerO till just now! Zero's Past Behavior ! NBGPWS 23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It says so on my userpage lol, just found out eh? --NuclearZer0 23:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Could you give a link to that article? Sounds like it's almost surely a candidate for User:GabrielF/911TMCruft. Shall you list it T, or shall I? Derex 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I already AfD it and salute my fellow cruft board members who put principles before partisanship! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clinton_Chronicles NBGPWS 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

8 or 9 months ago I was committing a WP:POINT violation in retaliation for Klausutis. In the same time period I started an article on Lauren B. Weiner. An article on the clinton chronicles is notable yet the accusations are not worthy to be repeated. BTW, I was the one who put Clinton Chronicles on the noticeboard but I see you changed the signature. --Tbeatty 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are BEING bombarded with UPPER case LETTERS. --NuclearZer0 23:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You're the editor who ADDED and EXPANDED the list of names of 'murder victims' to the article.(a DISPROVEN CONSPIRACY and a BLATANT VIOLATION OF BLP) How can you claim "the accusations are not worthy to be repeated"? YOU repeated them! Aren't you some kind of BLP guru, or claim to be? How do you justify claiming BLP for an UNNAMED group (conservative bloggers on Scamdy) and the ORGANIZATION Protest Warrior and yet FLAGRENTLY violated Clinton's BLP rights with YOUR edits? You need to step away from ANY BLP related tasks, and I will try make sure that happens, pal. --NBGPWS 23:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Can everyone just simmer down and discuss rationally. If you were unaware upper case words are understood online to be seen as screaming. --NuclearZer0 23:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If I desire your feedback, I'll post to YOUR user page! (which I did - but you removed my well deserved warnings for incivility and personal attacks!) [>>> NuclearUmpfs's Past Behavior <<<] Keep it up NuclearUmpf! NBGPWS 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If only you knew how much your behavior was helping me and hurting you. --NuclearZer0 23:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As much as your OWN behavior and justification for it helped you LAST TIME, huh? LOL! NBGPWS 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it was a WP:POINT violation that I committed many moons ago when Klausutis was being expanded and other BLP violations were being committed. I'm not sure what else you are looking for. Tbeatty 23:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? Like when YOU changed:

The Clinton Chronicles is a "documentary" film and investigation into alleged suspicious deaths surrounding Bill Clinton and his administration.

to

The Clinton Chronicles is a documentary film that investigated deaths surrounding Bill Clinton and his administration.

That's YOUR edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clinton_Chronicles&diff=prev&oldid=49411197}

You'll be hearing a LOT more about what some feel is your intentional misuse of BLP. A LOT more. NBGPWS

Per their edit summary, allegedly = weasel words. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Examples. Hope that answers your question/allegation. --NuclearZer0 00:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That was a very good good edit actually. It took out authoritarian quotes, removed allegedely and took out suspicious. They weren't suspicious deaths at all. They weren't allegedly suspicious either. They were simply deaths. Not sure what your point is. --Tbeatty 00:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

His point is to harass you. That's all. Morton devonshire 00:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep digging that hole, Beatty. That wasn't a very good example, I must admit. Your participation in violating the BLP of President Clinton - the BLP policies you claim to hold dear - and your attempt to misuse to BLP to protect whole unnamed classes of people like 'conservative bloggers' - when YOU added and repeated disproven conspiracies that Clinton had people murdered - wasn't anywhere NEAR the time frame of Lauri Klaustis. You'll be hearing a LOT more about what some feel is your intentional misuse of BLP, beatty. A LOT more. Cheers NBGPWS 00:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)