User talk:DHeyward/Archive 6

This is an archive created 15:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions Copyed From Science Desk

So, please explain WHY 'We just don't perceive them.'? Why is it our limitation? Thanks.199.126.28.71 05:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's known. We may perceive them in ways that we don't understand yet. For example, mass warps space into a fourth physical dimension. We perceive this as the earth orbiting the sun in a circle. But we are really moving in a straight line in four dimensions. we didn't realize this until the General Theory of relativity was published. --Tbeatty 06:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know there's new development in this specific section on the Science Desk.142.244.52.207 17:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::Well, were talking about spatial dimensions, not einsteinian dimensions. Could aliens see, per se, in 4 dimensions? If we had bigger brains would we or even, could we see in 4 dimensions?142.244.52.207 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

70.74.35.252 22:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"we are really moving in a straight line in four dimensions" - That... hurts my brain... Ouch. Oddly, though, I think I do comprehend it. It's like those cone-shaped diagrams they use to illustrate gravity curving space. The problem with those diagrams is that they show it in only three dimensions - height, length, depth - thus resulting in a unidirectional cone-shape. In four dimensions, the "cone" would be omnidirectional. Jinxmchue 06:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by being a POV pusher of facts.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. --MONGO 06:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they hate those pesky facts. They're probably running to get Jimbo to endorse this block. :)--Tbeatty 13:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a pun to make sure you got a block template on your usertalk...as I saw your comments in regards to such at AN.--MONGO 16:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're no fun

re: my comment on Derex's talk page, Mr. Poopyhead. THBPT!!! Jinxmchue 15:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no fun beats no class any day, jinxy. thanks, T. -D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Derex (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK, do we have any GNU-licensed PWN3D pics I can post here? - Crockspot 21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And no class trumps no brains, Derex. Jinxmchue 06:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The MONGO complaint board Barnstar
		Good complaint! Having all capital letters in my username is...dumb! You have hereby now been officially awarded the MONGO complaint board Inflated Eagle Barnstar™! You lucky devil.--MONGO 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A caution on categorical exclusion of "blogs"

A caution on removing blogs willy nilly from the various Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy articles. These may come back to the article if you don't bring them up for discussion, and you cannot categorically exclude all blogs. The one you took out is by a law professor. So the quote is correct "legal scholar." It also is among the weakest cites on the article, that I haven't had time to support with other cites.

The Washington Post has columnists write non-paper blogs:

Here's a recent column: Bench Conference

Time Magazine / CNN has one as well: Swampland
New York Times: The Caucus

All of these have editorial review. Not just opinionated speculation. Check it out.

To my astonishment, there are so-called blogs that are really newspapers without the paper, going concerns that are responsible, reliable and building their audience because they know they have to do what a newspaper does, have real credibility, backed up by citations, sources and documents. One of these was a month ahead of any other newspaper on some of the US attorney issue. I'm now considering it a reliable source, even if it is partisan.

-- Yellowdesk 04:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable opinions and facts will be covered by reliable secondary sources. Blogs should not be relied on in any article accept for factual information about the blogger (i.e. Blogger "John Doe" writes that that his birthday is Jan1, 1950.) Being earlier than newspapers and other journalism outlets should be a red flag, not a banner of credibility. Credible journalism outlets have standards. Journals are reviewed by peers. Blogs by law professors are not reviewed. If htey have a particular legal theory they should submit it to law review. Or better yet, take it to court. But some guy's musings on his blog is not notable or scholarly and shouldn't be treated as such. --Tbeatty 05:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the other blogs I cite above? -- Yellowdesk 05:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not notable or reliable or they would be in the papers that host them. For example, Kate Phillips blog would be very relevant for kate Phillips questions, but any notable, relevant and reliable information in the blog suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia would be repeated in the newspaper. Information that is only contained in the blog must be lacking to not have been included in the main journalism sections. More importantly, even if some of the information is indeed reliable, it is impossible for us to discern the different standard being applied. Therefore it does not meet the reliability standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as a tertiary encyclopedic reference, has a higher standard for sources than blogs. --Tbeatty 05:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct that your judgment is categorical and without gradation? And that there is no such thing as a journal that calls itself a blog? -- Yellowdesk 05:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three blogs you mentioned are considered opinion pieces by their respective news organizations. I think it's categorical that blogs that exist within mainstream news organizations have no place in wikipedia as their notable, relevant and reliable information would be published in their news section in addition to their blogs. The NY Times writes stories about the attorney firings as well as blog about it. Cite the hard news. read the blog for background on where to get reliable sources. But don't cite the blog as a reliable source in Wikipeida. We generally don't cite editorial and opinion pieces as fact. And reputbale news outlets publish their notable, relevant and reliable information in their news sections. --Tbeatty 05:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if someone wishes to note that there is particular kind of editorial criticism of politicians, one does not cite 10 editorial pages as support to a view that major influences have stated some view either? -- Yellowdesk 06:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That would be original research. --Tbeatty 06:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under that regime, it is original research to look up ten local newspapers to determine the local town's budget trend, and report on that.
If say the ten papers with the highest circulation in a nation have a uniform editorial view, that is a reportable fact. If ten towns taxes are going up, that too is a reportable fact.
Distinguish.
-- Yellowdesk 06:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the point of wikipedia. It is not acceptable to synthesize the budget trend of a local town by canvassing ten different newspapers and synthesizing that position. Fact or not. If the budget trend is notable and reliable, it needs to be published in reliable source as a trend before it is included in wikipedia. Only one reliable paper needs to publish it. But publishing a trend in Wikipedia when no other source has reported it as a trend is not allowed. This is fundamental precept of wikipedia and you should familiarize yourself with it before adding material to articles. Canvassing editorial pages in order to establish a "view" is original research and is not allowed. If the view is notable and reliable, a reliable source would have published it. --Tbeatty 07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand your argument, if ten towns that make up a hypothetical county have reported upon budget procedings in each of their local papers, I cannot rely upon the ten newspapers that report on those ten town to indicate the status of their budgets in a particular year, for an article "Municipal budgets in County X, year Y." -- Yellowdesk 13:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't understand it. You can report whatever the paper has reported. If you want to say the budget increased for 10 years straight, though, you need to find a source that said the budget increased 10 years straight. You cannot synthesize that from raw data no matter how obvious you think it is. --Tbeatty 13:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the policy you need to read. --Tbeatty 13:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You presume that all synthesis is contrary to the No Original Research policy. The title of the cited guide is: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. In the section immediately above the cited section, is the following statement, which basically specifically encourages the following:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Similarly at the companion Wikipedia:Attribution#What is not original research?:

Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions. For example, if a published source gives the numbers of votes cast in an election by candidate, it is not original research to include percentages alongside the numbers, so long as it is a simple calculation and the vote counts all come from the same source. Deductions of this nature should not be made if they serve to advance a position, or if they are based on source material published about a topic other than the one at hand.

By these measures, it is specifically encouraged to compile 10 newspaper accounts, with citations, of a County A's 10 towns budgets, and add them up and report such in an article. and similarly a statment like the following is specifically encouraged:

"The ten top circulation newspapers of the nation all editorialized X during the month of Z in Y year.(with 10 cites to 10 different journal's editorials) and (cite to article on circulation of top 10 newspapers). -- Yellowdesk 16:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making a leap from simple mathematics to political judgement is not clear. Also, making claims about the town budgets would still not be allowed. Whether they increased or were flat with inlfation, etc, would need a specific source. There is no logic or mathematics orlogic in the argument you are making about the attorney firing so none of this is particularly relevant. --Tbeatty 17:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the simple point here is that any conclusions drawn must be directly attributable to a reliable source. - Crockspot 18:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point on the "ten towns" budget compilation for year X, is that it is just fine and encouraged to add up the numbers for a cited, hypothetical article ""Municipal budgets in County X, year Y." That would not be original research, as you claim, and is encouraged.
- Simple math. Anything that would be open for interpretation is not allowed. Claiming that the entire budget is the sum of what was reported would not be allowed.

How is your statement different than saying 10+10 is OK, but 50 million plus 50 million is not? -- Yellowdesk

My further point is that it would be significant if major media had expressed a particular opinion, in unanimous form, and it could be cited as to what or whom major media is. That also is not original researach, as you claim.
- It's only significant if a source says it is significant. You cannot infer this. That is Original Research.

That would be why I would have cited as much. -- Yellowdesk

My point on blogs on newspapers is, that because they are on the site of the newspaper, they go under editorial review, and corporately the journals are responsible for the commentary that they publish on the web. These blogs can be the reliable source of information--and it is true that these are often opinon items, but that they are not always such, and this must be taken into consideration when looking at them.
- Significant factual information should be in the article section, not the blog. A ssuch, Blogs are opinion and are not citable as factual content.

"Should" is an unenforceable commandment upon independant entities. -- Yellowdesk

My point on web sites that call themselves "blogs" is that some of these are newspapers without the paper, have paid staff and a functioning editorial policy and body, and need to be examined in the light of their reliability, or lack of reliability. Hiding under the name "blog," in some instances is a living jourrnal, with all of the positive and negative attributes of a journal.
- Important blogged information will make mainstream reliable sources if it is factual and relevant. Therefore there is no reason to ever cite it. Wikipeida does not strive to be first so citing blogs is not necessary.

Where is the policy that says that only mainstream sources may be used? -- Yellowdesk

My last point is that in some spheres, opinion is a particular kind of reportable and citable fact. The fact of the existence of the opinion. The opinion itself may have zero fact value, but there can be fact value as to who carries the opinion and why they carry that opinion. Say X Senator, or Z President, or B former Senator or D columnist.
- Of course. Citing it as fact, however is not allowed. Those opinions are attributable and should be done in active voice. Saying "Legal scholars believe" when it's really "Professor Joe's opinion is" is not acceptable. The relevance of the opinion holder becomes much more apparent when it is done this way.

Agreed. -- Yellowdesk

And, yes, I agree, a blog by Jim-Bob-humble-citizen has nearly no reliability.

Yellowdesk 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tbeatty is right here, of course. Our rules permit collecting and organizing information from reliable sources, but synthesizing opinions and formulating a conclusion is prohibited under WP:SYNTH as original research. Opinion is citable as opinion, but nothing else -- you can't take an opinion piece and turn it into a factual reference on Wikipedia. This is further aggravated by taking those opinions from sources that are not subject to objective editorial oversight (i.e. blogs and other self-published sources), which are, by their very nature, unreliable. See WP:SPS. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not proposed above any opinion generation. Cited compilation of figures, or cited reference to the existence of opinion. -- Yellowdesk 02:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Hasselbeck

I was messaged by people asking me to revert the edits you created on the site. I'm curious what is your reasoning for deleting those factual information...especially since they all are very relevant. For one, Elisabeth being invited to the President's event was very eventufl because they devoted an entire session of "The View" to discuss it. Also Sherri and Joy's input on the day she debated with Rosie O'Donnell is important to establish how out of control the debate was, as it affected the baby's health. All the entries you deleted were cited and facts. People messaged me because they were upset because what you deleted seems to display the article towards a biased way towards Elisabeth. Please respond ASAP. Small5th 18:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not biased toward her at all. Negative information of such undue weight in her biography is not relevant. As you've noted, that material is negative. It was not treated in a neutral way in the article and doing so would create such an undue weight that it should simply be removed. Mentioning it briefly is sufficient. Mentioning in such a way in order to have it reflect negatively on her, as you state above, is false light characterization and is a BLP violation. --Tbeatty 18:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered the question why the white tie event was deleted. That did not portray her in a negative light. In fact the statement was unbiased, and if anything a POSITVE event, because it was a great honor that few people attended. You also have deleted Alicia Silverstone's section, which was cited. If you choose to delete her section, you must delete Donald Trump's as well. Alicia did ignore Elisabeth in the following portion of "The View," and many news outlets reported the controversy. None of the sections you have deleted were negative. If anything, by deleting them you casted a negative light on Elisabeth. The overall tone of the article now biased towards a negative light, and I am not the only user to think so. I have also received complaints of you adding "[sperm penetrates the egg]"...it has been reported to me it's pending for edit as well. Small5th 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I removed those sections. Also, the "life begins at penetration" was out of context. I added the context. Her use of the word "penetration" was related to sperm pentrating the egg. The fact that people believe from the Wikipedia article that she meant penetration related to coitus shows it was out of context. --Tbeatty 19:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well...I will return those sections that you said were not deleted. Thank you for the time. Small5th 20:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray McGovern AfD

Hi, you just voted for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray McGovern, arguing that he is not a notable figure. I'm wondering if you can explain your reasoning on this a bit further on the AfD page? Several other editors have offered multiple reasons as to why McGovern easily passes the notability test, and as the only person who has voted delete so far I'm wondering if you can explain why, specifically, you think he is not notable. I really am quite flabbergasted that his article is even being considered for deletion and/or his notability questioned. Thanks!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His only claim to notability is founding VIPS which is arguably non-notable. His notability is being exaggerated by fringe groups with a conspiracy agenda. That doesn't meet the wikipedia test of notability. --Tbeatty 05:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:HUPPENTHAL.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:HUPPENTHAL.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU≈talk 17:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Tbeatty 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack?

I was a bit perplexed by this deletion. In what way would you say it was a personal attack? --John 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Monty" namecalling issue was a spark for the later Seahcan arbcom case. Morton Devonshire made it clear he was tired of Seabhcan's little nicknames and other namecalling.--MONGO 17:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone "slightly less than honest" is a personal attack. Please comment on content, not contributors. --Tbeatty 17:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I can see the nickname being annoying. Perhaps Seabhcan could ask the question in a less impolite way; it seems a valid one. --John 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which question did you think was valid? --Tbeatty 17:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether MD had in fact read the reference he was criticising. If it is true he previously admitted he had not, that would seem to call the validity of his criticism into doubt. Of course he may well have read it since. It would be interesting to know. --John 17:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guinnog/John -- what you may be unaware of is that I settled this issue a long time ago, and Seabhcan knows it. See the page User:Morton devonshire/Egadio, which I haven't edited since December '06. Seabhcan is well aware of that page, as he cited to it in his Rfc. MortonDevonshire Yo · 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what Seabhcan wrote? Now that I've illustrated the question as a rhetorical device, I hope you see that the question is not, in fact, legitimate. --Tbeatty 17:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. I wish you guys could put your bickering behind you and make some progress in improving the articles. Asking someone if they have read a reference they are criticising is not a personal attack. Asking it like he did does seem unnecessarily inflammatory. --John 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish they would quit bickering too and that is why I reverted his personal attack. --Tbeatty 17:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) I wondered too about the appropriateness of the edit summary you used, "NPA Thanks for playing." There is a way to cool these things down and I wonder if this is really it. --John 17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cooling off period of about 24 hours for Seabhcan would be the appropriate response. My edit comment was admittedley snarky. Not nearly as bad as Seabhcan's edit summary "comment on Monty's honesty". I find it perplexing that you don't really see a problem with seabhcan's personal attack (else why would you question a revert) but snarkiness raises your ire. --Tbeatty 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Can you explain why you think HHO gas and Brown's gas should be deleted? — Omegatron 00:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are hoaxes as a new chemical (actually more like marketing gimmick). There is nothing different about them than regular hydrogen extracted through electrolysis. Reading the patent proves this. --Tbeatty 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already well aware that they're hoaxes. I'm asking why you think they should be deleted. — Omegatron 02:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would wikipedia be an advertisement for a hoax? --Tbeatty 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a notable topic?

Do you think that everything in category:hoaxes and category:pseudoscience should be deleted?

These are promotional hoaxes trying to profit at the expense of Wikipedia's credibility.

No they aren't. Only one editor involved in these articles is a proponent, to my knowledge, and the latest versions of the articles were largely written without his input. Have you read the articles or their talk pages?

Article was deleted in process and with consensus

Can you please explain how a majority of votes against deletion constitutes a rough consensus for deletion? This defies all logic. — Omegatron 13:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:HHO gas

I'm not fully aware of the situation - I did a normal G8 deletion on that page, but was asked to undelete it here. So I guess Omegatron can tell you why s/he wants the page to stay up. Cheers, Riana (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen Nescio misattribution

Per editing your "comment": at the time I edited it, it appeared to be more a voting option than a comment. As that voting option misrepresented Nomen Nescio's comment, I thought it was appropriate to correct the voting option. If I had known you intended it to only be a comment, I would not have edited it. I realize that things get heated in that forum, but you should realize that I'm not really that passionate about the issue. If you take a look at the balance of my comment, you'll note that I call them as I see them. (Also, I'm new here, so bear with me as I learn the rules.) Benhocking 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever edit other peoples votes or comments unless they violate policy regardless of your perception of the truth or context. --Tbeatty 01:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Eagle

Since you appear to be a reputable editor, I'm surprise by your edit to Bald Eagle. Jimfbleak 07:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know. A bit of daft humor. Sorry about that. --Tbeatty 07:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting my !vote

I'm going to assume good faith and assume you meant well here. As I clearly indicated, I would prefer to !vote for myself as I think voting is stupid (and I think subsequent events have proven me right), but I also indicated that the !vote should stand and not be removed. I'll therefore merely ask you nicely, please do not ever do such a thing again. Thank you. --John 18:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove any comment that you made so I don't understand what you are complaining about. I'll ask you nicely not to vote by proxy. Nor is it expected that I follow conversations about article votes on other people's talk pages. Please clearly indicate your votes on the article talk pages. --Tbeatty 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never touch any words I have written in article talk again, please, if you are not prepared to do me the minimal courtesy of investigating the situation and the minimal courtesy of informing me what you are doing. I can't make it any simpler than that. --John 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't touch anything you wrote. I did you a courtesy by deleting comments that someone else had placed in your name. See diff and diff. As you can clearly see, another user posted a vote using your name. You can vote or not vote but someone else proxying your vote is disengenuous. --Tbeatty 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, with a little independent research, you could have found where John himself wrote those exact same words. It's interesting to compare this to my post a couple "subsections" up. Ben Hocking ^(talk) 19:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have my permission to remove any comments I make if I place another users sig on them. It is against policy to do this which is what Iclearly outlined above. --Tbeatty 19:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what if you merely make comments you make that appear to be attributed to someone else? (E.g., the aforementioned example.) You seem to be defining yourself into a pretty narrow box. Also, you did not acknowledge that John himself was the original poster of the comment you removed. Just because someone else inappropriately moved it does not make it right for you to then completely remove it. Would it be OK if I removed a comment you made after someone else moved it? Just trying to iron out the details of WP:Tbeatty. ;) Ben Hocking ^(talk) 19:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you left the real offender a warning, you seem to inherently understand that what they did was wrong. Considering that, why don't you go fix the problem yourself by voting instead of politely wankering about it on peoples talk pages? --Tbeatty 19:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find it so hard to understand what you have done wrong here, even after it has been explained thoroughly by two users. I'm also sorry that you seem to think being polite makes one a wanker. (I would nevertheless remind you that WP:CIVIL would definitely apply here.) Anyway, enough of the pleasantries. The next time you mess with my comments you will be looking at an enforced wikibreak. I am sure that won't be necessary. Happy editing. --John 19:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I've never messed with your comments. You have said the same thing by warning another editor not to make comments in your name. I would remind you that you are an involved admin with a history of recklessness and I would hope you would refrain from being reckless in the future. --Tbeatty 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A good idea, Tbeatty, would be for you to drop this issue. Stone did not put another user's sig on a comment, he simply moved a signed comment by John to another section (i.e. the vote section). John told Stone he did not want to vote, but he said he thought Stone was acting from "good intentions" and that he did not want his comment moved out of the vote section again--if he did he would have done it himself. He also did not ask you or anyone else to put an inaccurate tag at the end of his comment which said Stone made the comment when that was clearly not the case. He did just ask you to "never touch any words I have written in article talk again." So why don't you do that. If John wants to remove or otherwise alter his comment in the vote section he can certainly do that himself. You are crossing some serious boundaries here with your actions, so I suggest you stop it and move on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other way around. If John wants to vote, he is certainly welcome to. Voting by proxy however, is not allowed. It's simple realy. Bring the talk page up. Edit the section. Add your vote. Don't add votes for other people. --Tbeatty 19:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone copies a comment John made into a vote section, and John tells that user to go ahead and leave it there, that is not "voting by proxy." He obviously wants the comment to stay in the vote section, otherwise he would have removed it. Though he objects to voting, he is apparently okay with voting in this instance. This is boring and ridiculous, and perhaps you should step back and realize that you are arguing that you know better what a user wants to do with their comments than they do themselves, and that you are editing their comments when they have explicitly asked you not to. I'm not wasting any more time on this--the comment/vote stays were it is unless the user who wrote it wants to move or get rid of it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think they would have had that conversation in the article space talk page then. You'd also think that he would endorse the action with his own edit. Why is that so hard? --Tbeatty 19:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]