Waterboarding

Thanks for the help on Waterboarding! Good job.24.7.91.244 08:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on the contributions. Dogru144 13:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bellowed is moving and interfering with your talk on talk waterboarding - I reverted twice and told him to ask you to move it. This issue has become way to hot and real-time for editors to move each others talk even if appropiate. Also - he keeps trying to move it to the WRONG cat - if anything it would go in the cat above RfC, and be replaced in RfC with a statement. 24.7.91.244 00:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Shopping

In regards to your recent post to WP:AN, it's considered terribly poor form to forum shop when you don't like the answer you're getting. What are your intentions for your future on Wikipedia? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To help write an encyclopedia. You are unwelcome here. Bmedley Sutler 05:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When participating on Wikipedia, you need to be willing to speak with people who have concerns on your talk page, 'you are unwelcome here' is a sentiment that, while no doubt heartfelt, is untenable. I see now that you've osted again, this time on Jimbos page. How many more places will you try this before acknowledging community consensus that those fake notices, while terrible, are not worth all the drama you're creating? Or do you intend to make this your Line In The Sand? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What ever. Bmedley Sutler 17:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC comment on waterboarding talk

Thanks for your participation on the waterboarding page! Just to let you know, I moved your question (which was a question of something I had written in the section titled 'Criticism of Bellowed's...') to that section since it was in response to something I had written there and since it wasn't a statement by an editor involved in the dispute.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why...

they call them barnstars. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful

Don't promote that disinformation about aluminum foil. Why do you suppose the top of the Washington Monument is aluminum? It strengthens the signal. You have to use real tin foil, which is not easy to get. Go to a specialty metals shop. Pay cash, and don't use a bill bigger than a one. The higher denominations have RFID tracking strips built in. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually very pleased to see my name in userlink5 format on your user page. Take advantage of the opportunity to study my edit history carefully and often. You may learn enough about being a good editor to keep yourself out of trouble. - Crockspot 03:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the conclusion about my motives that you posted on my talk page, did you check my edits to Chelsea Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Jerrold Nadler, and Tammy Duckworth before you drew that conclusion? These are just the articles I quickly pulled from my watchlist. I am certain I have made neutral improvements to other Dem politician articles as well. In fact, I challenge you to show me one elected official to whose article I added inappropriate negative information. I try to get along with editors who I disagree with, but if you are going to take cheap shots at me without providing any evidence to back it up, you and I are going to have a problem. - Crockspot 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only checked anout your last 500 edits and they prove what I say. I don't care about proving it to you, and I won't. There is no need for me to 'show my hands'. Bmedley Sutler 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've made about eleven times that many edits in the last year. I would bet that most of my last 500 edits have been RC and BLP patrol. You do what you feel you have to, but I think you could spend your wiki time better. To each his own. Have fun. - Crockspot 02:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist the movie

Hello, I curious about the charges you brought against the user User_talk:crockspot. What have you found? I have similarly found that he/she may be adding bias while editing articles. --Trekerboy 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't bring any charges, and he hasn't found any evidence. He's just poking at me with a stick, while hanging on by his fingernails, trying not to get banned. - Crockspot 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't brought any yet. I am compiling them off Wiki so as to not give the Spooks any warning. Crockspot already found one private page of mine that I was using for compiling research. I will not get banned, I haven't even gotten a warning yet, and Crockspot is melting down like Chernobyl in many fights like the one on Matt Drudge where is is arguing against the Wikipedia Policy of verifiability. Read the essay 'policy shopping'. No wonder all the Spooks want it deleted. They all do it. You will have to fight your own fights on 9/11 articles. I think al Qaeda did it, and there were no bombs in the buildings or fake airplanes or anything else fishy except that the BUSHGOV welcomed it as a 'God send'. Did you see where an important Republican said that the GOP 'need' another terrorist attack? Bmedley Sutler 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit 911 articles, never have. If you're really investigating me, you should already know that. :) - Crockspot 23:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your BUSHGOV copied phony denials are too easy to disprove. You had a whole private page on the Zeitgeist movie and are very concerned with it. Zeitgeist is about 9/11. Now you will say you never edited the 'article', right? You're another Al Gonzales. You are unwelcome on my page too. I know that's OKay to say because you Spooks tell it to non-Spooks all the time. Stay away. Bmedley Sutler 00:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will make one more remark, and then leave you alone here. I compiled that list of Zeitgeist-related links, because, as a recent changes patroler, I was having to go find all of those links repeatedly, because the page kept being recreated under different names, and I needed to be able to document previous deletions for the CSD process. If you complain about me upholding policy in an efficient manner, you won't be taken seriously. I am starting to see that you actually believe this stuff you are saying, so I'm going to tiptoe away from here very carefully. - Crockspot 02:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and WP:Civil

I've noticed that you have been quite liberal throwing insults (Spooks, Bushistas etc) around while talking to other editors. Please try and keep it civil and remember to talk about the edit and not the editor. Raising the rhetorical temperature like that will never do anyone any good, and long time editors in good standing should not have to put up with the insulting language you are prone to use. I'm sure you understand that while lively debate is common here, insulting other editors is most definitely frowned upon and can certainly lead to a temporary block if it continues. I'd also ask that you remove the list of editors on your user page, the implication of the list (spooks) is insulting and anti-WP:AGF. Thanks. RxS 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, they attacked me too. Adminstrator Harrison and the others are making fun of me and insulting me telling me to get a foil helmet. If he who is an adminstrator and knows all the rules is allowed to do that I should be too. Lots of people have lists. I got the idea here Link I've seen many more too. I will label it friends to make everybody happy. Bmedley Sutler 05:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, There's an on-going quantitative difference. One-off slips are one thing, but a pattern (as in your case) of insulting behaviour and attacking motives is disruptive. RxS 13:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is ongoing patterns of administrator Harrison and the others making fun of me and insulting me. Look at the histories. I will be more careful though and hope that they will too. Bmedley Sutler 19:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I figured we were joking back and forth about wearing tin foil hats and being a spooks. I thought your remarks were meant as humor, and took them as an invitation to share a joke. I aimed for some broad humor of my own, missed the mark, and gave offense. But I was just kidding; there's not really any qualitative difference between tin and aluminum foil. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we both used humor, and some others too, but if RXS thinks my comments were mean and attacks, he must think yours and the others are too. PS. There's no such thing as 'tin' foil as consumer goods. It is all made from aluminum. Do you have a 'special' source for 'tin' foil? A 'secret' source? Does it work better than aluminum for you?:-) Bmedley Sutler 19:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and has been (correctly) pointed out to me, Morton's list is a list of actual friends. Yours is a thinly disguised enemies list. In this new found spirit of cooperation would you remove it? Thanks! RxS 19:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have 'enemies' on Wikipedia. You stating that I do is wrong and not 'AGF'. These people are my friends who I might disagree with. I especially like administrator Harrison who has been quite helpful and is funny. Lists like this are wide spread. If I take down my list will you ask every person I find with the similar list to take theirs down when I bring it to your attention? What are your politics by the way? Bmedley Sutler 20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what my politics have to do with this, but I think I've made my point about your behavior and it's possible consequences. Any onlookers can see the issue for themselves in your contribs. Thanks. RxS 02:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'll keep an eye on it, and you are not the only one who has gotten frustrated with that editors endless arguing on talk pages with little productive result. You might want to take a look at this [1]. I agree we shoudl always be civil, no matter what, and I realize that sometimes it can be challenging, but those who provoke frustration, need to see the role they play (or perhaps that was its purpose?). Lets not fall into that trap.Giovanni33 02:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but no thanks

I'd love to help but I'm going on holiday in a day or two and I'm pretty much committed until then. You might approach Awadewit: she's very good at copy-editing and extremely thorough. She'll also tell what other information she thinks the article needs. Good luck! --ROGER ^TALK 09:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, added it to the wrong article. Now gone. --ROGER ^TALK 09:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OKay. No problems. Bmedley Sutler 09:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained moves

Please discuss the moving on the talk page. I had carefully explain the reasons for changing the name.Ultramarine 12:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bmedley Sutler (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What I am accused for NPOV page moves is wrong. Look: 'CIA Torture Manuals' gets the most hits on Goggle. As I argued my moves matched Wikipedian naming rules too. Read this rule as I posted on the talk page: "For instance, what do we call the controversy over Qur'an handling at Guantanamo Bay? The article is located at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Note that the title makes no statement about who is the (more) guilty party" Read it. It uses 'descration'. It does not say 'Qua'ran handling incident'. It says desecration. Read also the Wikipedia naming rules: "A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage)". Over 1,000,00 hits for 'CIA Torture Manuals' and less than 500,000 for 'CIA Interrogation Manuals'! My name is the more popular one on Google, so it is more correct. Plus I argued my moves on the talk page. And I am right. Look what ultramarine did too. He started it all. He changed the name after it was long time stable name (why can't I see it in the 'history'?) to "Army and CIA training manuals declassified 1996-97" No one would ever look for it with that name! Link To add the years too is a POV act. If you are going to add the years and be fair you would add the years the torture manuals were in use not the years they were declassified! I should be unblocked, and Ultramarine should be maybe blocked for starting this problem.

Decline reason:

The thing is, Google does not have an NPOV policy -- but we do. Google indexes personal writings and media editorials and other pages that do not have an NPOV policy. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy that without exception applies to all encyclopedia article pages, all article names, all article-related editorial work. Please read WP:NPOV (there is a section there on page naming issues which might help), and also note that the concern is not "what is done on other articles", but what happened in this case.

In this case, there were concerns over neutrality, and evidently the blocking admin felt that the approach taken in the face of those concerns was disruptive. If you disagree on naming, then check policy, and follow dispute resolution... if you are met with unreasonable opposition, escalate it... but do not try simply to win a debate by repeatedly editing in your viewpoint, which is what seems to be the concern. That's why unfortunately, I am declining the request to remove the block. Four moves in a short time frame is a bit disruptive (you knew there was disagreement), and page moves are usually considered more disruptive than ordinary edits.

However, as a first instance, I am prepared to accept you were less familiar with policy, and didn't realize how better to handle it via communally acceptable means, and therefore will reduce it from a week to 4 days in the hope this kind of situation will be handled better if it comes up again. (Do not expect this to repeat in future, if it were accidentally to happen again though.) — FT2 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bmedley Sutler (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know I should be totally unblocked. I did not start this! Look what Ultramarine did. He changed the name after it was long time stable name to "Army and CIA training manuals declassified 1996-97" No one would ever look for it with that name! To add the years too is a POV act. If you are going to add the years and be fair you would add the years the torture manuals were in use not the years they were declassified. He was trying to hide the article and 'sweep it under the rug' with that move and naming. I should be totally unblocked, and Ultramarine should be maybe blocked for starting this problem if I am not unblocked.

Decline reason:

I'm going to go with FT2's comments above and below, this block is fully justified. — ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment as reviewing admin for 1st unblock request:

It doesn't matter what was started by whom, or if it had been stable before. The above block was placed based on your actions, not theirs. If they mis-edited and you disagree, seek dispute resolution - that's why it exists. Do not disrupt to make your point. The title "Torture manuals" can be linked (see WP:REDIRECT) to any other title, but for the preferred actual article title we try to find and use a neutral one where we're able. It is dubious that the CIA would consider these "torture manuals" internally, for example. So this title implies favoring one party's view. And google, as I have noted, is specifically not a source of neutral titles -- only of popular ones. NPOV trumps popularity. Hope this explains. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bmedley Sutler (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That is what I did. I accepted Ultra's name and made a 'redirect' using my name. I stopped any 'warring'. Look here Link

Decline reason:

Already declined by 2 admins, please stop abusing this template. Try dispute resolution if you feel this is wrong, thanks. — RxS 01:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Proof of unfair block

Ultramarine changed the name from 'Torture Manuals' to a name no one would ever look for it under : "Army and CIA training manuals declassified 1996-97" This was a POV act. Look above for my expert reasons.
My name gets many more hits on Google and follows Wikipedia rules. Look above at the "Qu'ran Desecration Controversy" discussions.
I actually stopped the 'move warring' and made a 're-direct' to his article name and was ready for more discussions.

All this equals an unfair block Bmedley Sutler 23:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was an unfair block, esp. since the title moves were protected, and there were several editors involved in this content dipute. To single this editor with a week block, and ignore everyone else doing the same, is not fair. But, who ever said all admin actions were always fair? I also will point out that the admin who protected the page from title moves did so only after moving it to his perferred title, which is a violation of using admin powers in a content dispute to get an upper hand, when he himself is involved in the moving war. But, then he blocked only one side--his pov opponent for a week. That is another violation of proper admin conduct. I left him a message on this talk page which he ignored and reverted, which I repoduce below:

Improper use of admin powers, as an involved party to the dispute?

I refer to this.[[2]] The blocking admins participated in this title move war between the parties, favoring one version and changing it, but then used your admin power to protect the page in your version, right after changing it--and then blocked his opponent for one week? From what I know of use of admin actions, this is not allowed as one is not allowed to use administrator tools to gain an upper hand in the content dispute. I agree it should have been protected, but 1. he can't protect it right after moving it to his version as he became a party to the dispute, and 2. he can't block the editor he is in a the content dispute with.

(cur) (last) 23:39, 29 July 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) m (Protected U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals: stop the edit war via page move [move=sysop]) (undo)

(cur) (last) 23:38, 29 July 2007 Alkivar (Talk | contribs) m (moved U.S. Army and CIA torture manuals to U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals over redirect: move to npov title) (undo) Giovanni33 02:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this to ANI and asked that your unfair block be overturned. [[3]]Giovanni33 03:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was completely unfair and just look at RXS edits. He has the same far right POV as Ultramarine who started the move war. These administrators know less rules than I with only weeks old on Wiki. 'Torture' matches 'desecration' used in the Wiki rules. They are both words with hard meanings. Did you read about the agents and Israeli spies editing Wiki? I knew it. Thanks for sticking up with me. Bmedley Sutler 06:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect your assumptions about my politics couldn't be further from the truth. I don't know anything about Israeli spies, but I do know that you've been incivil, engaged in personal attacks and edit warring. I turned your unblock request down because you had posted it 3 times, when directed specifically not to. Just a reminder that my warning above still stands, please keep it civi stop the personal attacks. RxS 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think someone should apologize to User:Alkivar for dragging his good name through the muck. He had nothing to do with this dispute, and the accusations against him are fabricated. He was just doing what admins are supposed to do. - Crockspot 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only one who should apologize is yourself since you are the only one I can see making any fabrications, which you did on ANI in regards to a supposed ongoing attempt to disrupt WP, as part of a "small clique?" It sounds like you have turned into a conspiracy theorists, Crockspot? Those are the fabrications. The above show diff's and thus are proved to be real, not fabricated.Giovanni33 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know how to read an edit history, do you?. Show me where that admin was "involved in the dispute". Show me the diffs. I see one page move by that admin, right before he protected it. This is a normal and common action before a page is protected. Admin's don't protect POV pages, they revert or in this case move them to an NPOV state before protection. Do you really think that everyone on ANI just took my word for it? They know how to read edit histories, and they know that you are simply trying to disrupt. Bmedley, I mentioned that I hope you are smart enough to shun these two editors. They are not helping you. They are using you. Do you wonder why you've been blocked, and they haven't? Because they know they can get you to do the blockable shit for them, keeping their own asses safe. Don't let them lead you around by the nose. You may not believe it, but I'm a better friend to you than they are, by a long shot. - Crockspot 21:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not normal admin actions. An admin normally just protects the page at whatever happens to be the case when they arrive to protected the article from edit waring. That is why its not an endorsement of the page it was protected on. What this admin did was first move it to the version he approves (the new title), and thus it IS an endorsement (his favored view), which he protected right after moving it to that version. You say that is normal but that doenst make sense, and I've never seen this done before. If this were allowed an admin can go around to all the edit wars going on in articles, change it to whatever he wants, and then protect it with that version (as long as he only moves it once?!). Such is your flawed logic. And, no, I don't think anyone on ANI took your word for it. They can see the diff's I provided with show this. Given your fabrications its clear how valid your word is by the evidence. As far as your advise for Bmedley, I'm sure he is smart enough to figure for himself not to follow your bad advice (shunning? I'm sure you would like that. The old divide and conqure?). No one got anyone to do anything. Bmedley has valid points, and he should never have been blocked, period.Giovanni33 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RXS, I studied your comments, I do that to all people who suddenly start taking intrest in my edits. Don't deny your POV. Your comments in support of adminstrator MONGO and 9/11 stances are still fresh. You told me to try dispute resolution when I could not even post outside this page too. That was so helpful. Bmedley Sutler 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO is not an administrator, and your block expires in a few hours, so you can follow dispute resolution this evening. - Crockspot 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep bringing up politics, I'm only talking about your editing style. I won't repeat them, you can see them above. Since you have studied my edits (which is a weird thing to do, but whatever) you will have seen I have an ongoing concern about how we talk to each other, regardless of the topic. RxS 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 administrators who commented to me and made and agreed to the blocks are right wing. They swooped in to make actions. That's just a big lucky chance I'm sure. What ever. I will be nice to them and you too. :-) Bmedley Sutler 02:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are true. Ultramarine made the POV action. The name was Tortue Manuals for weeks or maybe months. That's the most common name. Wikipedia rules even use 'desecration' as an example or proper naming. That's a hard word like 'torture'. His move warring to one name that no one would ever use (96-97) required approval, not mine. I even stopped the move warring and made a 'redirect' even more to stop the move warring. This block was a wrong decision. Bmedley Sutler 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your stay

And best of luck with your unblock requests. You show those bastards whos boss!

Thank you. Their lies and propoganda are being proven more every day. Bmedley Sutler 06:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Ultramarine

I will be involved in the School of the Americas article.

Your version starts out with misleading POV:

"The School of the Americas had a controversial history of teaching torture technniques between 1987 and 1991"

The truth:

"According to excerpts released by the Pentagon, School of the Americas students were advised to handle intelligence sources by imprisoning them or jailing their parents. The manuals instructed students in the use of "motivation by fear," paying bounties for enemy dead, executing opponents, subverting the press and using torture, blackmail and even injections of truth serum to obtain information."

Your version even in the first paragraph is a 'white wash'. Bmedley Sutler 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I AM FREE!

I AM FREE! I will be more careful not to be insulting people. I will copy Giovanni33 who is nice to every body and is the best writer on Wikipedia! Bmedley Sutler 01:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still dont get it

You still dont seem to understand that the article title you were moving it to was POV. Let me give you another article example:

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States you'll note its not at United States terrorist acts which is according to google a more frequent wording. One alleges, the other proclaims it as fact. One maintains a neutral position, one does not. Hope you can see the difference more clearly with this example.

The fact that the article stayed at "Torture manuals" and then time at "The Torture Manuals" does not mean that those titles were ever in accordance with wikipedia's policy on NPOV. Do I think the manuals contain instructions on torture? Yep! Do I think the US Govt engages in torture? Yep! Still doesnt make the title of the article NPOV.

As for allegations that I'm an involved party, I have not ever edited the article in question, as such I do not have a vested interest in any content of said article, merely its title. That does not make me an involved party. I just happened to be the admin awake when the request for move protection came up on IRC. I sincerely hope this will be the last time we cross paths in this manner. Have fun editing! ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get it perfectly fine. There are many who would change Allegations of state terrorism by the U.S. to Allegations of US foreign affairs and CIA events in other countries if they could. The rules quote the title 'Qu'ran desecration controversy'. The article is not named 'Qu'ran handling controversy'. It uses a hard word like torture. Your block when Ultramarine changed the name from the long time stable version was a bad choice. It was called Torture Manuals for weeks and maybe months. If to be changed from that name that needs to be discussed. Not me changing back to the long time name. Bmedley Sutler 05:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so wrong too! The article was named either The Torture Manuals or Torture Manuals from April 2006 to July 24 2007 when Ultramarine changed it by himself. That was what needed discussions first. Bmedley Sutler 05:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking ALKIVAR?

You write:

"Politically i'm a conservative libertarian (I'm categorized as a Paleolibertarian but i'm not entirely sure I agree with that). I usually tend to vote for the U.S. Republican Party (so according to most of you I'm probably going to Hell). Unfortunately George W. Bush is an idiot, but the thought of John Kerry as President was even worse. I think my cat has a higher IQ than either of them."

Do you really think Kerry is stupid like Bush, or are you joking? Maybe you don't like what Kerry believes, but stupid? A good judge of how smart someone is is how they speech without notes. I don't like (maybe I even hate) Cheney and Rumsfeld, but I saw them both speech on TV just in the last days, and I would never call them either stupid. Maybe evil but never stupid. Have you studied Bush's speech without notes? He's not only stupid but mental like when he said that the Iraq war was like the rug in his oval office not so long ago or "ask me about the pig" and choking Merkel and all his mistakes. You really don't think your cat is smarter than Kerry do you? Just Bush right? Bmedley Sutler 05:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the new rules No one is banned fron this page right now, but busy bodies who run around all over Wiki answering questions not asked to them will have their posts erased. They do it all the times on their pages too, so I know its Okay. This is a clue. If I want your thoughts I will ask you. This of course doesn't apply to real questions about articles and Wikipedia policies, just personal questions like the one above. I am shock too that Crockspot would try and argue using phony statistics from a racist site. This is what Wikipedia says about VDARE "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), called VDARE a "hate group," [3] that was "once a relatively mainstream anti-immigration page," but by 2003 became "a meeting place for many on the radical right."[4] The group also criticized VDARE for publishing articles by Jared Taylor and Sam Francis, along with other authors who deal with race and intelligence. If you want to answer the charges of why you quote from a site that says Blacks and Latins are inferior, you can do it on your page, not here Crockspot. If you think Bush is smarter than Kerry, and some ones speech is a perfect sign of how smart they are, then I feel sorry that you could believe such a thing. Maybe he was a little smart in college and all the alcohol and drugs killed 90% of his brain neurons because he is a bubbling idiot now by his speeching. Bmedley Sutler 18:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deetjen's

Don't know if you noticed, but I dropped a couple of Sunset articles on the talk page. One of them is primarily about Deetjen's, and could be very useful sourcing that article. - Crockspot 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will work on it more tonight. Should I put some quotes from the reviews and articles into the article? Also a problem of styling. There are about 5 or more different Haight articles on Wiki. There is Henry Haight the 10th Governor who I linked to. There is his uncle who the street is named for but the article is very small because he lived so long ago. There are articles on Haight Ashbury, Lower Haight, Upper Haight and even a tiny article on Haight Street. I shouldn't link to all of these right? Should I just make one link, and take out some of the other use of Haight? I am thinking so. The article is not all about Helen Haight's family right? Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just link to one or two of them, I assume that the links to the others can be followed from there. I think the Fish article in Sunset can be used to source some of the info already in the article. I wouldn't go too overboard with quotes, you don't want it to look like an advertisement for the inn. But it does pin down some of the details a little more closely. - Crockspot 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Sanchez

Wow! The hypocrisy of Sanchez with regards to the Beauchamp witch hunt is astonishing. Sanchez' credibility would appear to be non-existent yet The Weekly Standard and the other usual suspects (including Malkin, I noticed today) are eating out of his hand. The depravity of modern online movement conservatives is a spectacle to behold. Thank god my folks raised me to be an honest liberal. --AStanhope 08:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Birkett

Hi. I saw your comments at User talk:Eleemosynary and wondered if you would be interested in looking at this. — goethean ॐ 22:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. Why? Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 23:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (Crockspot RFA)

I thought that answering you on Crockspot's RfA would take the discussion afield from the matter at hand, so I'm responding here.

My username is a reference to wargaming. History boardgamers especially like to call themselves "grognards." Also, my name is meant to evoke images of gaming sessions lasting late into the night. Another meaning is that I put the hobby on hiatus for a few years, and when I came back, I was stunned that stalwarts of the hobby like Avalon Hill, GDW, FASA, XTR, The Gamers, even TSR, had gone out of business or been bought out... the changes made me feel like "Rip Van Winkle" waking up.

As for the Salvadoran Civil War article. The FMLN consisted of four "leftist" and just one communist parties? You have to know that plenty of people would disagree with that political analysis. As for Romero and El Mozote, of course they are important. So was the execution of Roque Dalton and the murder of Ana Maria (which led to the suicide of Cayetano Carpio), but somehow the editors who have piled on paragraph after paragraph about the Maryknollers, the Jesuits, Anaya, etc. have neglected to mention those episodes, or the kidnapping of Duarte's daughter. The fighting itself is virtually neglected aside from briefly noting that there were FMLN offensives in 1981 and 1989, which is strange in an article that is supposed to be about a civil war. Adding Romero and El Mozote to the lead with a POV-pushing tone just reinforces the article's undue weight problems. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. 1) 4 + 1. Yes that's what the Wiki article says too. 2) You have some good points, but not for the lead intro. Most people have never heard of the inicidents you mention. Everyone has of Romero and the nuns. There should be more about the fighting. Maybe you can add it. In the truth commission findings what % of murder was charged to the right and what % charged to the left? Bmedley Sutler 04:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism

A good decision, to ask for input or other eyeballs rather than diving into possible headaches. I'll comment on that page when I have looked for myself a bit. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

You accused me of violating WP:NPA, but, re-reading this policy, I did not. My statement was not an attack; it certainly doesn't lie in the criteria listed in WP:NPA#What_is_considered_a_personal_attack.3F. You claimed you believed TNR over the Army, and I explained that's why Wikipedia used the language it did. If you took it personally, that likely says more about your discomfort with your own words than with mine. If you just didn't like the point I made, deleting it for this reason is a violation of talk page rules. Anyway, I rephrased and hopefully the wording will be more to your liking. I do want to be civil, but your action stretches if not breaks the limits of the rather liberal WP:ATTACK#Removal_of_text and WP:Talk#Others.27_comments, and I am not the only user who is bothered by your text manipulation behavior. I will try to refrain from being uncivil or against ad hominem attacks (although such attacks would be rather difficult to make of a user I know nothing about anyway). However, I do have points to make and will make them. If you doubt military spokesmen, that's fine and even understandable given that, in the past, the mission of war often trumped full disclosure, and there have been historical cover-ups. Nevertheless, the judgment of whether to believe the version related by TNR or the story related by the Army is up to the reader, not you or me. As "fun" as it may be to throw about names like Pat Tillman and Stephen Glass, ultimately Wikipedia presents known facts, without the assumption that government sources are lies and (formerly) anonymous sources tell the truth. Calbaer 18:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Association fallacy of Osama bin Laden quotes

FYI, regarding your Osama quotes, bin Laden enjoys parroting standard lines of anyone in the West in order to justify himself. I'm sure if you'd Google for a few seconds, you could readily find bin Laden quotes that sound like they could come from Nader, Edwards, or (especially) Michael Moore. The fact that he imitates the West in order to fight the West — be it in using their arguments or their technologies — reveals very little indeed about any supposed ideological commonalities. It is not very useful to cast your domestic rivals as allies to what should be a common enemy, merely due to phrases the enemy picks up from said rivals. I am discomforted when right-wingers do it and when left-wingers do it. Surely we are all too intelligent to fall for such an association fallacy. Calbaer 18:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Please do not add unreferenced controversial information to Wikipedia articles on living persons. Thank you. Your question is a BLP violation. Stop reposting it. --Tbeatty 08:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in no violation of BLP by posting the questions you did on Crockspot'ss RfA page. Crockspot's off-site statements re: Wikipedia are extremely relevant, especially the ones that pertain to edit wars he has conducted here. Tbeatty's twice reverting your edits is an attempt to intimidate you; his "BLP" excuse is nonsense. Should he, or anyone, revert your questions again, make sure to let the admins know.

Thank you. I posted on the 'BLP' board since Tbeatty had a 'BLP" concern when he erased my questions. Bmedley Sutler 09:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation by characterizing Crockspot as homphobic and racist. You are also violating NPA. Bringing those vile charges and posts to Wikipedia is reprehensible and disgusting. --Tbeatty 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

I removed my name from you userpage...do not put it back up. I strongly recommend you remove the other names of those you have had disputes with as well.--MONGO 08:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the idea from Morton Devoshire and when an administrator made some comment about my list and I pointed to Mortons list he then said nothing, so its 110% OK. I read that you got your administratorial powers taken away for being rude. I advice that you don't be rude to me. I will have no intimidation from you and your RW friends if that is your goal. 'Have a nice day' Bmedley Sutler 09:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear's story

Hi, your 15th question for Crockspot's RFA appears to be mistaken. Specifically, while of the two links you give, the first is relevant, the second is apparently not, and is instead a copy of the first one. You might want to fix the second link to ease other editors' assessment of the issue. Digwuren the Godless Killing Machine Dude 09:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

Thanks, I fixed the link. It is not a story about a bear. Crockspot made the homophobic (and non-sense) claim that anybody whos handle (user-name) has the name 'bear' in it 'takes it up the ass'. What a stupid and hateful homophobic thing to say. Bmedley Sutler 10:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not a story about a bear. I'm just trying to get the Bad Jokes Barnstar ... Digwuren 10:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goff Article

Noticed you were going to clean Goff's article. I did a few brevity changes, want to know what you think, or if you're still thinking about doing this. Nitcomb 12:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitracker

Hi there. Saw your post and thought I'd point out that as you say, there's a lot to come and yet to be discussed in the wake of the Wired article, including DOD's edits to abortion and other religious and political article topics in 2004-2005, notably a 3RR on the Karl Rove article. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/214.13.4.151, [4] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your increasingly accusatory edits toward other editors

Please stop your increasingly accusatory edits toward other editors. While lively debate is common here, insulting other editors is most definitely frowned upon and can certainly lead to a temporary block if it continues. Thanks, RxS 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this - please don't attack the other contributors, focus on content. MONGO, for whatever faults you may ascribe to him, is a person just as worthy of respect as anyone else... and in my case, he's earned it many times over. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notes and directions. I re-wrote my one mean comment to Mongo to make it nicer. I don't want to act like him and get 3 (?), 4 (?) 'RFC' investigations for poor behavior, right? Bmedley Sutler 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, acting disrespectfully towards others is plainly self-destructive on WP. Trying for thoughtfulness, logical consistency and dispassion are an online editor's only reliable tactic! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am trying to be even nicer. 'Turn the other cheek' is what I will do! Someone emailed me with that list link. It is this Link Thank you again for your commentary and RXS too. It is very much appreciated. Bmedley Sutler 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Bmedley will try to be nicer, because I agree with the others here. I mean, even in the above non-apology apology, Bmedley insults the very user he's told not to insult! I was especially taken by his accusations of homophobia and personal attacks, all made while making personal attacks involving the sexual orientation of anyone he took to be against him, from Matt Sanchez to Drudge to — I felt — me ([5], in which the comment about "handles" comes immediately after and hierarchically under my discussion). By the way, if you were curious, I'm "calbaer" due to my alma mater, not due to any sexual orientation. Calbaer 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That commentary has nothing to do with you, but I apologise if you thought it did! I didn't know your spelling of 'baer' even meant 'bear'! Are there two spellings? I can't understand your other charges, but I am sorry if you were hurt. My idea about homophobia and articles on Matt Drudge and Matt Sanchez (Two Matts!) (and probably others) are well proven. I am sorry if some here on Wikipedia think homosexuality is so bad that they must fight always to keep it out of certain articles.

I am through discussing this homophobia issue, because I feel some are maybe trying to get me mad by challenging me. I will be archiving this page, and add any more homophobia topics to the archive! (where can I find how to make the archive?) Thank you! Bmedley Sutler 00:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup

I wanted to follow up on the warning I gave you earlier, I was disappointed to see you continuing the harassment of other editors. Please stop or I will strongly consider giving you a temporary block to stop your agressive editing. Thanks, RxS 02:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Links on Morton Devoshires page

I'm personally not a big fan of friends-lists, but I don't know what the actual rules are regarding them. MessedRocker (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bmedley, please remove my name from your "friends" list. You and I are certainly not friends. My presence on that list does not bolster your argument that it is truly a "friends" list. I have a few more choice words for you, but CIV, NPA, and AGF prevent me from expressing them. Thank you. - Crockspot 13:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for including me on your "Friends List." I am glad you have extended your hand, as it were, in friendship. I hope you are having a better time. Sincerely, Ursasapien (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage

I'm done with your baiting and harassment. Never post to my talkpage again. ever.--MONGO 15:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no static link; that's why I used a screenshot instead. You have to search through the postings here. Of course, that screenshot has now been deleted by User:Rogerd, a partisan Republican abusive administrator. — goethean ॐ 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it there anymore! Bmedley Sutler 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say, since goethean has posted this attack on me on your talk page also, that I have asked him repeatedly to substantiate these charges and to present them to the arbitration committee. He has, so far, not done so. If I am truly "abusive", then sanctions should be taken against me. I feel that I have the right to defend myself from these attacks and to see the evidence that he has to back them up. I believe that he disagrees with my deletion of the above mentioned image, which was a clear copyright violation and is covered by wikipedia policy WP:CSD (General criteria #12). I am not sure how that makes me a "partisan Republican abusive administrator". Thank you for your time. --rogerd 18:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Editors make NPAs all the time. Why are you making it such a big deal? If every time someone made a NPA on me I wrote as much as you did on that one I would be too tired. Move on. ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 05:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Eleemosynary, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Do not make personal attacks at Crockspot as you did here. It's unacceptable and it will not be tolerated. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your discussion and answered on your page. I don't know why I am being picked on when others I am conflicting with are much more insulting than me. I will be extra more careful to not write anything that might be an insult, so there is no need for any block or thoughts of it. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 05:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment you made about warning editors 1 -4 times on Swatjester page. In addition to his warning, I've given you several over the last week. Also, it's pretty much up to admin discretion how many warnings to give before a block. I'd say that at this point you're out of second chances. But I'm happy to see the NPA pledge you made above. RxS 14:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some one told me a new American saying; 'You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" I like that! ΞBmedleySutlerΞ 06:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the bear photo

Link to Bear Photo

Here's the bear photo Crockspots described. He wrote "posted a picture of himself in leather ass chaps, cap and vest, you know the whole Polk Street Faire getup." ΞBmedleySutlerΞ 06:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I don't have a photographic memory, I looked at that photo one time a long time ago. But his shirt says "Bear", and he is dressed in the "bear" style. To anyone who is familiar at all with the gay community, it is obvious what statement he is making about his lifestyle. So what's your point? Actually, I don't want to know what your point is. Good bye. - Crockspot 12:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem is you specified what exactly he was wearing. In detail. And made it sound as Gay as possible with 'leather ass chaps'. You didn't write "He was dressed sort of Gay'. You named three items that he didn't even wear. IMHO, only homophobia or dishonesty (or both) caused that. Combined with your totally 100% unbelievable "Porch Monkey" denial and the homophobic and racists posts you made on Conservative Underground it all ads up. Wikipdia is lucky that someone cares enough about the integrity of it to tip someone else so that a 'POV pusher' with these serious moral issues doesn't get administrator powers. And I read that Truthout article about Andy Stephenson and what you pople did to him. For shame! I would advice that you retire your name and start fresh also. Those anti-Gay and racist posts of yours on the www aren't going anywhere. "We're here, We're Queer, Get used to it!" ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you did after being banned from editing? You were User:Fairness And Accuracy For All, weren't cha?--PBAJ 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Especially with the modification of the comments above. Dman727 17:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you harrassing him about minor details of a post he made 2 years ago on a non-wiki site? The RFA is over. This is irrelevant now and is harrassment, despite your denial. Dman727 17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He said he was 'taking questions' after the election was closed. Only friendly questions of support I guess. I am not FAFA. He did send me a few very nice messages though. ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 17:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I.C. I guess he asked you to help him out on sparsely edited Chacala as well? Dman727 17:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His edit summary implies he is doing it for FAAFA, but isn't editing on behalf of a banned user a no no? - Crockspot 17:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. I also notice that Sutler shares an interest in editing the same series of parks articles that Faafa does as well. I'm sure its just a coincidence though. Dman727 18:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified an arbitrator and a clerk of this probable arbitration ruling violation. (Editing as a proxy for a banned user, ie., meatpuppetry). I told you not to let these guys use you Bmedley. You've made a [remove]l mistake here. - Crockspot 18:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for enforcement has been filed against you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Bmedley Sutler/FAAFA. - Crockspot 19:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked: 24 hours for making edits on behalf of a banned user and 24 hours for taunting. This will be your only warning. Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All (talk · contribs) is banned for one year. Further edits on his behalf will result in the same ban being applied to you. Thatcher131 19:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea. I'm sorry. I won't do it again. FAFA is a bad, bad man! How does every one like my new signature?ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 20:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not fooling anyone. I just received a chart of your editing patterns overlayed over FAAFA's editing patterns, and the are a perfect match in all the peaks and valleys of your day. As soon as I have permission from the author to upload, you're leggy toast. - Crockspot 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the 'witch hunts'. It makes you look small. I am FAAFA is the most paranoid thing I have ever heard! I was already accused of being somone else? Nuclear? Rootman? I'm not sure who. This harassment by a small RW group with endless Checks and accusings must end. ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 20:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dman I am now confused. I looked through FAAFAs edits (just about 6-7) pages and see no parks, just places in Mexico and a lot of hearing posts. I edit Big Sur and Monterey places. FAAFA edited Mexico places. They are not the same at all, unless you feel California and most of the South-west USA is part of Mexico because the Imperialist Yanquis stolen it from them. ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 20:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what you see on TV, when accused, the guilty talk alot and the innocent are speechless. In wikipedia this has a translation. I've noticed that when folks are accused of being a sock, if they are later proven guilty, its only after they have presented a fairly detailed defense, defend the other account, feign indignation, act confused and then toss a few, usually political jabs. The innocent generally ignore the accusation. BTW, your act of pretending to be unfamiliar with America rang hollow with your first performance and with each edit becomes hollower. Nonetheless, NBGPWS/FAAFA/BS, you don't need to convince me, I don't administer blocks. When you were accused of being a sock for BenBurch, I defended you (appropriately I'm convinced). This time is different. Best of luck. I'll leave you to your own devices now.Dman727 02:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite what you see on TV, when accused, the guilty talk alot and the innocent are speechless." Really? Do you have any proof of that wild claim? Maybe here. Link Turn off your TV. Maybe youre watching Fox to have made that wild claim. ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 04:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can hide the pattern of articles that you edit, but it is much harder to hide the pattern of what times of day you are available to edit. Anyone can run this analysis and see for themselves. - Crockspot 21:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that sort of 'proofs' holds no water at all. It is nothing any bit more than a 'conspircy theory'. These 'witch hunts' are a shame to Wikipedia. It is like the Salem witch hunt trials when the proof was a neighbour with a rumor. This is a harassment. I said I'll never post anything for that trouble-maker FAAFA again. Stop your false Inquisition. It makes you look small. Thank you. ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 21:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice life. I'm done playing here. - Crockspot 21:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are leaving Wikipedia? ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 21:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For tomorrow

(Merv) Griffin died a closeted homosexual

Same article also was in Hollywood Reporter and Reueters web sites, erased from both today Aug. 17 to be polite because funeral was today in Beverly Hills. Now back in the Hollywood Reporter. Griffin was also a closeted RW economic conservative.

Griffin never revealed man behind the curtain

Dear Mister Fantasy

ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 00:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case for SevenOfDiamonds

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 17:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned

After I blocked you for posting information on behalf of Fairness and Accuracy for All and for taunting Crockspot, it came to my attention that FAAFA apparently fed you the negative information on Crockspot that you posted to his RfA. Crockspot thinks you might actually be FAAFA, but I think probably not. However, you are in contact with him at the very least. He was banned for a year for disruptive behavior and editors who post things on behalf of banned users may also be banned for the same period. What is curious is that when I blocked you, I expected you to be upset, maybe complaining that no one told you that you should not post for a banned user. Instead you wrote "I had no idea. I'm sorry. I won't do it again. FAFA is a bad, bad man! How does every one like my new signature?" which sounds more like you are having a laugh about it.

Your first ever edits to Requests for Adminship were to oppose Crockspot, to ask him about an AfD on an article (Mike Stark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) that you had only edited twice but that Crockspot and FAAFA had fought over in the past, and then to post some links to CU which FAAFA has implied on Wikipedia Review that he gave you. At this point I can only wonder if you are interested in editing an encyclopedia or if you are interested in provoking conflict. I'm not sure there is sufficient cause to ban you now (there might be) but you are definitely on a very short leash, and I would try to focus more on national parks and less on battles fought between far right nutters and far left nutters. You do not need to reply to this but I will be interested in your thoughts if you do. Thatcher131 00:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not laughing. I thought someone told me that my black and red signature name was a distraction but they meant my words was a distraction. He removed what I wrote 3 (?) times, so I changed my signature. Crockspots is the one who wrote those words and the homophobic slur was only three months ago. Crockspots is the one who put a link on his home user page to that site and bragged that he was a member there. I did not know I was breaking a rule by following a tip from FAAFA who is blockaded for a year, but people should be thanking him for supplying the proofs of Crockspots homophobic and racist posts on that forum, even though he did something not allowed and tricked me into it to do it. Wikipedia does not need administrators who feel that way about Gays and Blacks. I will avoid conflicts with him. He ordered me from his user home page anyway. I plan on writing a lot about Monterey and Big Sur and Gay issues and some articles I was working on before. I will not especially look for new conflicting articles even thougfh there are too many. Thank you for your note Administrator Thatcher131. ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 03:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please try to maintain a reasonable level of civility toward other editors and to abide by our policy of no personal attacks. This is important in all locations on the project, but is particularly important in edit summaries because these remain a permanent part of the page history. Thank you for your cooperation. Newyorkbrad 04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full texts of false charges

Hi Tbeatty. While I do agree with you that chasing up people's identities (per the WP:AN/I discussion) is inappropriate, and have said as much, it was probably a little too much on your part to link asking this question to "are you a Jew?". An apology for that might defuse the situation some, and would be appreciated. Best, Neil ム 11:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I struck it. I was illustrating a point, not trying to offend. --Tbeatty 20:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, sticking to just "Are you gay?" would have been more appropriate in this user's case, since User:Bmedley Sutler has a history of accusations of someone being gay if his opinions disagree with the user's. From subtle digs as users.such as myself [6] to more prominent people he calls "right-wing" and "gay" (Matt Drudge, Matt Sanchez, Merv Griffin), the implication being that that combination makes them bad, bad men, this bigoted notion borders on homophobia. Bigotry, ad hominem attacks, excuses that attacks are really misunderstood satire or unfortunate placement of words, meatpuppetry, continued and relentless taunts, false contrition in which include claims of self-improvement alongside further insults, willful disobedience of Wikipedia guidelines — all this makes it impossible for anyone's assumption of good faith to hold for long observing this user's actions, and makes it seem as though Wikipedia is not to be the proper forum for this user's expressions. Calbaer 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are too funny! I am Gay (are you blind to the pink triangle in my name?) and active to make sure that Gay conservatives (especially homophobic ones) are outed because theres nothing wrong with being Gay except to some conservatives who want to supress that information because of their Homophobia and the Gay conservatives who are homophobic themselves! I have never accused you of being Gay, or even made a hint, or a joke, and didn't even know that your mis-spelling of baer meant 'bear'. Crockspots is the one who wrote that anyone with the name bear is Gay, not me! You should retract that false charge, or I might have to make a complaint. Thank you for reminding me about my focus on outing Gay conservatives. It is time to get to work on the Merv Griffin article. ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 02:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I would rather write about Big Sur, and if there wasnt a organized campaign to hide the sexuality of some of the RW heros on Wikipedia because some people are homophobic and think that Gay is shameful, and are ashamed that their RW heros are Gay or Bi, or had Gay affairs in their past, I would be able to. ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 06:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source for this "organized campaign to hide the sexuality of some of the RW heroes" (and how that relates to Griffin, whom you claim hid his RW identity). You admit to be waging an organized campaign to "out" people. However, "outing" people in not relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipediais not the place for original research. It is the place for reliably sourced information being given due weight. I honestly think you are confused as to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a place to get in your personal jabs and put in your opinions of the topics of the day. There are plenty of sites for that — blogs, user discussion boards, USENET. Wikipedia is not one of them.

By the way, my saying you made a "subtle dig" at me is hardly a "personal attack" that you need make a "complaint" about, but, then again, you've been eager to make personal attacks while accusing many others of "personal attacks" that don't fall under WP:NPA, just as you've been eager to claim that you being gay makes you not homophobic, while claiming that many "RW" gays are homophobic. The rules of logic, much like the rules of Wikipedia, do not make an exception for you. Calbaer 16:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that you think making a untruthful false claim about me is no big deal, and not important enough for a complaint. Im not surprised at all. Do you admit now that Crockspots is the one who said that anyone with 'Bear' in their name 'takes it up the ass' and that there was no 'dig' from me? None at all, and your claim was false? Are you tall enough to admit that? I know 'OR' is not allowed. The cases I speak of are all well proofed examples. Just look at the long long fight over Matt Drudge who it is well proofed by many sources as Gay and in the closet. You need to read the article Outing since it seems that you have no concept of why its done. ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care why it is done. Wikipedia is not the place for it. As for the "dig," you quoted another user's comments about "bear"s directly after and hierarchically under my post. Stating that fact, no matter what you claim about your motivation, is not a personal attack. While you would direct me to Wikipedia articles, I would direct you to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, since, again, you seem to be using Wikipedia in place of a personal website, blog, or discussion board, not for its intended use as a source of reliable, impartial information — and also because WP:NPA gives a different definition of "personal attack" than yours. I am not interested in pursuing this dialog further, but I do hope you take what I say not as an attack or insult, but as a suggestion. There are forums that are far better suited to your attitude, style, and methods than Wikipedia. If, in spite of this, you still want to use this as your soapbox, please familiarize yourself with and adhere to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Calbaer 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked: 24 hours for edit warring and violating the 3 revert rule on User talk:Tbeatty. You can not force someone to post your comments on their user talk page. You have also carried this disruptive edit warring to other users' talk pages. In the future you should seek someone else with a cooler head to mediate for you. Thatcher131 11:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I asked NYBrad, but he didn't do anything. I see a clause in thr 3rr rules that lets someone remove attacks and falsehoods. If I felt like it, I could fight this, but knowing that I stand tall for the truth and the others actions speak for themselves and its only 24 hours I will not. You are an 'involved' administrator with that group of people anyway so anyone can see that aspect. I stand tall. ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC) New Signature: ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get to do that on other users talk pages. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you asked me at 0529 UTC, which is 1:29 in the morning my time (EDT), which I hope is a sufficient excuse for my not having done anything right then and there. (I actually see I had an edit a few minutes later than that, but I didn't see your request for "mediation" before I signed off, about three hours after I should have. Sorry.) Newyorkbrad 21:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean you didnt do anything because youre lazy or didnt care about me. I even figured that you might be sleeping so thats why I posted it on the notice board. Sorry if you thought I was blaming you! ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 21:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I removed the link to CU on my user page an hour before you posted the personal attack against me above, which I have now removed. Put it to rest, NOW. - Crockspot 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a 'threat'? I will let your eraseing on my post stay because what you say about the link to Conservatives Underground being removed from your page before I did make my post is true, and I respect that. You can erase your posts all you want but that doesnt erase them from the truth or from the memory of those people who know you made them and made some just a few days ago (08/08/2007). It doesnt really erase them either. Have you not heard of Google Cache? I suggest you apologize to the LBGT community here on Wikipedia and take some sensitivity training to change the aspect of you that thinks its okay to make the kind of statements you made. By the way, youre the one who resumed this conflict by erasing my proper reply to the false charges on Tbeattys page not me. I will drop this issue now, as long as you leave me be, but please think about 'coming clean' like actor Isiah Washington. If you admitted to your alleged homophobia and racism and took actions to overcome them I think you could win the trust of Wikipedia again. I wish you well. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 22:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

The Wikipedia Signpost


Volume 3, Issue 34	20 August 2007	About the Signpost

Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case	WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations
WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat"	News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View

Shortcut : WP:POST

. . . . ΞSMEDLEYΔBUTLERΞ 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your sig

Like this? --lucid 01:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ΞsmedlyΔbutlerΞ

Yes - Thanks! ΞSMEDLEYΔBUTLERΞ 01:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

np, took three seconds =p you could also put <big> tags around the triangle if you want --lucid 01:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test ΞsmedlyΔbutlerΞ 01:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (Thanks!) I have to find something else for the start and the end now. They don't look too good bigger. test •smedleyΔbutler• 01:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC) •smedleyΔbutler• 01:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beauchamp Talk page

You may want to weigh in over there. --Eleemosynary 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved

FYI: [7] Just trying to keep everything together. Regards.--Chaser - T 05:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journalistic scandals

Hiya,

Thanks for the message. I'm not really an expert on journalism; I dont really know what criteria might be good for that list. Probably worth RFC'ing it, to get wider views how that list should be delineated, what should/shouldn't be in it.

I'd focus on the main article also. Those stub sections need filling, even if just by a sentence or 2 each. Empty sections often get deleted after a while.

Let me know if help's needed or comments, of course!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

If you have a personal question for me, ask it on my talk page, rather than on an AFD page per WP:NOT#CHAT. But I already discussed all of this at WP:VPP#THF. THF 20:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bigotry

Implying that many established aditors are bigots, as you did at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Make personal attacks at requests for adminship, is unacceptable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]