User talk:DHeyward/Archive 4

This is an archive. Edits to this page will be reverted.

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

Your edit to Lin Zexu
I saw that you inserted a passage in the article on Lin Zexu, claiming that his letter to Quen Victoria found its way to some London newspapers. Do you have a source on that?--Niohe 03:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was pretty common knowledge.  I will add the source though.--Tbeatty 03:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Carcharoth's comments
See his comment re The War on Freedom Afd at. Morton devonshire 00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Category:Session wrestlers
Your recent edit to Category:Session wrestlers (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 04:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Category had one erroneous entry and the bot treated it as "blanking" when it was removed. --Tbeatty 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Bogus 3RR report
Combining two edits twelve hours apart and trying to pass that off as one revert? [refactored personal attack] Gamaliel 03:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the mistake of the 4th edit. It was 5 reverts in a little less than 2 days.  Wikilawyer it down all you like.  Deleting warnings from your talk page is also a violation.  --Tbeatty 03:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your apology, but you really need to let it go. There is no "violation" in deleting bogus warnings posted in a lame attempt to claim the moral high ground, if there is such a thing in such a sad edit war.  It's also sad to lecture me about edit warring when you've been reverting just as much as I have.  What's the point of that?   I think you need to step back a bit. Are you really so blinded by partisanship or dislike of me to imagine that I'm trying to smear poor Jeff Gannon with a parent category?  Seriously, think about this. Do you really believe I think that I'm going to convince someone that Gannon was a prostitute with clever category placement?  Or are you just looking for some reason to attack me?  The last bit isn't a dig at you, I'm just trying to figure out what the hell is going on. Gamaliel 03:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Switch it around. Do you really think I give a shit about Jeff Gannon?  Do you really think it's worth it to risk the foundation with potential libel and defamation suits so you can inlude an insignificant person in a silly category?  Do you really believe it when you say the integrity of Wikipedia's category system hinges on whether or not Jeff Gannon can be called a sex worker?  Why not let it go?  I have concerns with your editing pattern (and you have said as much about mine).  My only goal is to create a better encyclopedia and part of that means opposing  NPOV and BLP violations.  I will continue to challenge your attempts to add negative material about certain individuals covered as WP biographies as well as your attempts to add politically critical material to organizations and/or candidates in a way that violates NPOV.  I applaud your work on non-political topics and your overall contribution to Wikipedia but you should let go of the parthisanship and dislike of me.  The percentage of my edits that you have a problem with is a lot higher than the percentage of your edits that I find objectionable so it seems rather far-fetched for you to think I am attacking you.  --Tbeatty 04:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Andy Stephenson
Someone removed your prod from the Andy Stephenson article. You'll have to do an AfD. Crockspot 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Tbeatty 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

RE: NBGPWS
I'm leaving him a warning, but what is DU and SPA? Thanks. &mdash;Xyrael / 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * DU is short for www.democraticunderground.com, and SPA means Single Purpose Account. Crockspot 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt
Probably a good move refactoring the comments on Talk:Daniel Brandt. I shouldn't have said that, but I got the impression an anon had been vandalizing articles I'd written because I've edited the Brandt page. I usually don't let vandals bother me, and anyway there's no reason to give them a reason to do it, so thanks.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for not taking it personally :).  --Tbeatty 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

You should be made aware of this
User_talk:Derex. --Aaron 06:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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

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

Agreement re: MONGO
Perhaps the fact that we both agree with MONGO's recent decision indicates that we might overcome whatever other differences we have between us, and agree to disagree civilly. I, for one, am hopeful that we can come to a place of mutual respect. In any case, and whatever your opinion, I wish you well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope so. --Tbeatty 14:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Image:JimboPimp.gif
Good call on the BLP issue, considering the source. When I removed tthe hangon template a while back, it was mostly a procedural removal, since the image wasn't marked for speedy deletion yet. — TKD::Talk 20:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And apparently it's on Commons. *sigh* — TKD::Talk 20:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! M a  rtinp23  21:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Quit deleting and editing my comments

 * Comment  :Comments (refactored):
 * 04:22, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (noting no more AfDs)


 * 04:21, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (all gone! now what will we do for fun?)
 * (refactor) What an outrageous misuse of the AfD process! Deleting articles 'for fun'. NBGPWS 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS 06:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


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

3RR warning for third revert in Larry Craig article
Warning You deleted, in the Larry Craig article, the documented mention of the press coverage of the Rogers outing the following three times within the last 24 hours. The section appears to comply with WP:BLP as it lists mainstream media coverage of the accusation and denial, rather than the unconfirmed claim itself. Further reverts may result in a block. The section has been called by other names, so if that is your only objection, you could discuss changing to the earlier name of the section, or removing the section name, since yeaterday the info was just included under the “Personal” section rather than "Unconfirmed rumor." Please improve the article by negotiating NPOV wording in the Talk section rather than by serial reverting. If the material violates WP:BLP or is libelous, so that the #RR does not apply, then reverts made to enforce this provision are generally not considered contentious. However, it can be easy to confuse removing potentially libellous material with an edit war over neutrality issues, which are contentious edits. Err on the side of caution: do not repeatedly remove material you consider defamatory unless it is blatant, and seek intervention from others early at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.: Revision as of 06:24, 24 October 2006 (edit) Tbeatty (Talk | contribs) (WP:BLP deleted improperly added "unverified rumors") Revision as of 05:34, 24 October 2006 (edit) Tbeatty (Talk | contribs) (→Unconfirmed rumors - BLP - no place in wikipeida for unconfirmed rumors) Revision as of 00:21, 24 October 2006 (edit) Tbeatty (Talk | contribs) (→Unconfirmed rumors - Does anybody really think a section called "Unconfirmed Rumors" belongs in a BLP (or anywhere else) in Wikipedia?) Edison 16:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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

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


 * I do not think Tbeatty is part of a massive conspiracy to frame Clinton through disinformation campaigns spread on Wikipedia, ending in global dom

ination ... not that you actually accused them of that ... yet. --NuclearZer0 18:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * I just discovered you were Zer0Faults too! Zer0faults has abandoned that account and opened a new account
 * I had NO idea that Nuclear was ZerO till just now! Zero's Past Behavior ! NBGPWS 23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It says so on my userpage lol, just found out eh? --NuclearZer0 23:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


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

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

8 or 9 months ago I was committing a WP:POINT violation in retaliation for Klausutis. In the same time period I started an article on Lauren B. Weiner. An article on the clinton chronicles is notable yet the accusations are not worthy to be repeated. BTW, I was the one who put Clinton Chronicles on the noticeboard but I see you changed the signature. --Tbeatty 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are BEING bombarded with UPPER case LETTERS. --NuclearZer0 23:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're the editor who ADDED and EXPANDED the list of names of 'murder victims' to the article.(a DISPROVEN CONSPIRACY and a BLATANT VIOLATION OF BLP) How can you claim "the accusations are not worthy to be repeated"? YOU repeated them! Aren't you some kind of BLP guru, or claim to be? How do you justify claiming BLP for an UNNAMED group (conservative bloggers on Scamdy) and the ORGANIZATION Protest Warrior and yet FLAGRENTLY violated Clinton's BLP rights with YOUR edits? You need to step away from ANY BLP related tasks, and I will try make sure that happens, pal. --NBGPWS 23:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can everyone just simmer down and discuss rationally. If you were unaware upper case words are understood online to be seen as screaming. --NuclearZer0 23:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I desire your feedback, I'll post to YOUR user page! (which I did - but you removed my well deserved warnings for incivility and personal attacks!)  [>>> NuclearUmpfs's Past Behavior <<<] Keep it up NuclearUmpf! NBGPWS 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If only you knew how much your behavior was helping me and hurting you. --NuclearZer0 23:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As much as your OWN behavior and justification for it helped you LAST TIME, huh? LOL! NBGPWS 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Really? Like when YOU changed:


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


 * to


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Do you edit articles here too, or just harass people? Morton devonshire 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I was blocked for 24 hours for a BLP violation only 1 month ago.  People make mistakes.  I think if you look at my edits to Clinton chronicles you will find they are more than fair.  --Tbeatty 02:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's quite enough that T has admitted he made a mistake, and presumably rectified it (since the list doesn't seem to exist now). It's as important to credit people for doing the right thing as to protest the wrong thing. Derex 01:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? You think someone who must know BLP well enough to be on the BLP patrol should be using a 'BLP defense' to fend off criticism of unnamed 'conservative bloggers' and entire organizations? He slapped a BIO template on an article about an organization not long ago! There's a dispute about his BLP activities on the BLP notice board right NOW. NBGPWS 04:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any dispute regarding 'my activities' Tbeatty 04:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You certainly are unaware. Its right on this very page. You seem to think being a volunteer on the BLP patrol gives you 'special rights'. DISPUTE NBGPWS 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * N, I would agree with you if the List had been created more recently. As best I can tell, it's an old mistake and T has learned better since. If he were to do something similar _now_ I would be very disturbed. I'm not the least bit shy about disagreeing with T, but that's with an eye to reforming the old reprobate. So credit where it's due for being man enough to admit it and move on. Many of his ideological brethren, from the very top, down to bottom would never admit a mistake. Derex 05:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * T, not that you care, but I don't think much of that one month block. I really don't. I've seen far, far, far worse from some of your friends and I wouldn't have approved of that lengthy a block there either. I generally think very highly of MONGO, but it might have been more prudent if he had let another admin handle this one. Derex 05:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Checking back to his page, I will say that he has pretty much ensured that the block is going to stick with his response. Derex 05:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't ask for a block time. I just wanted it to stop. I didn't contact MONGO in any way so I AGF and presume he is working for the good of the project. Unlike you and other editors that simply oppose certain POV and simply offer opinion and productive edits, NBGPWS is disruptive. He's been blocked a number of times previsoulsy and skated a number of times as well. --Tbeatty 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To be crystal clear, I also assume believe MONGO's good faith. Sometimes though it's better to steer clear on issues with someone you know. N is already making a stink about it for instance. 'Nuff said. Derex 05:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:NBGPWS
Please don't post to his talkpage as anything to you have to say to him will generally be seen as potentially disruptive.--MONGO 05:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. I offered to file his arbcom case.  I can easily desist though if you think it will help.  I purposely don't attack or antagonize him.  --Tbeatty 05:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No good can come out of you posting to his page. If he wishes to file an RFc or go to arbcom I will unblock him so he can edit pages related solely for that purpose.--MONGO 05:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Works for me.  --Tbeatty 05:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reduced his block to end in about 48 hours from my post here...if the situations continues, then an Rfc is the way to go.--MONGO 06:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll keep you informed. --Tbeatty 06:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Scarborough
Stop blindly reverting changes. You've just violated 3RR, and you've also, once again, removed material that isn't relevant to the "intern name revert war". Check your diff, and please fix the 'other' section you've reverted. *Sparkhead 03:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a BLP issue and your undiscussed deletion of very relevant information is unwarranted.--Tbeatty 03:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as you're stating the name of the intern is not relevant to JS, neither is the claim by Arnold's assistant about democrats relevant. Try to be consistent in your editing.  I'll ask again that you revert yourself concerning that section.  Thanks.  *Sparkhead  03:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is very relevant since Schwarzenegger was involved in the issue and dispute. That is the complete opposite of Klausutis whose death had nothing to do with Scarborough.  But bring it to the article talk page, not here.--Tbeatty 03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Schwarzenegger was. How others reacted to the incident is not relevant to Scarborough.  I see you've aware of the 3RR violation. Note you haven't reverted your edits completely.  *Sparkhead
 * The statement you deleted was Schwarzeneggers. How is it not relevant? And I won't respond here anymore to article questions.  Please post your concerns to the talk page.  --Tbeatty 03:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement I removed was from a third party about a fourth party. Scarborough wasn't involved.   No need to respond further.  *Sparkhead  03:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you're going to have to explain this to me about DU's Skinner
He makes a post on DU in which he uses his screen name, real name and position, yet that cannot be used for the purposes of sourcing all three things here? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's like saying he isn't who he says he is. Jinxmchue 06:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's notable in and of himself. Since others have objected (namely Derex), I'd just as soon leave it out.  David Allen is not under suspicion by the Secret Service nor is DU proper.  I would rather focus on the threat and DU's response than argue about non-notable personalities.  Skinner posts all his information on his DU journal page and I have no problem linking to it.  --Tbeatty 06:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My objection was to the lack of sourcing. I don't really care otherwise. Derex 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I sourced it. The new section about the Secret Service includes a link at the end which leads direction to a post by Allen in which he uses both his real and screen names. Why is this not good enough? Jinxmchue 06:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I left it alone after you fixed this objection, which I stated in my edit summary. I don't think it adds much though. (Sorry T, for hijacking your page) Derex 06:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That he's not notable only means he doesn't qualify for having a Wiki article of his own. He certainly can be named in the DU article, no? Many articles are like that (e.g. the "Loose Change" article). And it's not a matter of him being under suspicion by the Secret Service. He was the one they contacted and he was the one who posted the notice on DU using his screen name and real name. Jinxmchue 06:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I like to err on the side of privacy after a few tit-for-tat edit wars. It's easily available from the DU site to find out who Skinner is for those willing to find out.  Being an administrator contacted by the Secret Service is not particularly relevant to the administrator.  I would rather the article describe Skinner/Allen and his role with DU separately from the secret service inquiry as it makes it seem this was his only role.  I wouldn't mind mentioning Allen throughout the DU article and treat it as a BLP article either.  But it's unseemly to only mention him by name in the investigation.  Tbeatty 06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, David Allen (Skinner) is listed on DU's "contact us" page as the owner and co-founder. His real name has also been cited in several secondary news sources about DU. I believe in the 04 election cycle, he was recognized as a top fundraiser at the Dem convention. (He basically gathered donations from DUers in a paypal account, then handed the funds over to the DNC in his real name.) So he does have a certain amount of notability, and his real name is sourcable. Crockspot 20:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

PW
There seems to be maybe 4 or 5. I think these are self-described members (but not 100% sure on all). Ruthfulbarbarity, Nevermore, Rogue 9, Lawyer2b, + another I think. Of this group, it seems that Ruthful and NB... are old enemies. Nevermore may be a problem. L2B & R9 seem to be clean. It does seem problematic to me to have that many editors, from a small pool, be members. I personally think they should all just step away from active editing on that article, and stick to the talk page.

One of the problems is that the group just isn't that notable. Sure, we've heard them mentioned on blogs, but they don't get any mainstream press beyond a brief mention (enough to prevent AFD). That makes it hard to have a decent article satisfying V without breaking OR. I went looking for something to put in the "criticism" section, which has zero encyclopedic content. Well, best I can tell nobody notable has noted them enough to criticize them. Go figure. Derex 03:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Rush Limbaugh show . Mainstream coverage includes The Washington Post and Newsweek . Also covered by The Washington Times, the Dallas Observer  and FrontPageMag.com  Thanks to CWC for the links. Hope that helps, I see you said they are only mentioned in blogs. --Nuclear Zer0 13:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * September 7, 2004 they appeared on Unfiltered on Air America, and were interviewed by Lizz Winstead and Rachel Maddow. --Nuclear Zer0 14:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I said they've been mentioned, which is why they aren't up for AFD. No one notable is bothered enough by them to be critical though. For example not one politician, either right or left, seems to have even acknowledged the group's existence. Which must be a little frustrating, because their whole gig is to try to upset people. Contrast to Sheehan, who has plenty of notable and vocal detractors &mdash; people lined up to beat on the mother of a dead vet. Don't know if Air America would count and can't listen to it anyway. They seem to be dead now anyway. ..... I suppose you could count the FreeRepublic group who beat them as critics though, and they have an article here. ;)  ..... You know Zer0, given your recent request not to to interact on Talk because of "our history", whatever that might be, you sure are following me around on Talk pages a lot. Derex 14:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignoring your diatribe, Air America is a national radio program. Further you seem to have not read the sources to simpyl say "they been mentioned", the Dallas Observer has a 7 page article on them and what they did during the convention. Our standards for notability here on Wikipedia do not include if a politician comments on them. The fact that some of the top news publications in America have interviewed them or followed thier exploits, as well as 2 national radio shows interviewed the groups leaders, I think it goes for a bit more then "beyond a brief mention", it would serve you well to actually read the sources presented but I will instead give you a breakdown:
 * Newsweek - An entire article on the group
 * Rush Limbaugh Show - Entire segment + notice on website of interview
 * Air America - Segment on show with groups founders
 * Dallas Observer - 6/7 page article on the group documenting them throughout the convention
 * Washington Post - Entire article on the group
 * Washington Times - Entire article on group
 * Frontpage Magazine - Complete interview with Alfia and Lipton
 * I would call that a bit more then trivial and a bit more then a "brief mention", but thats just my own personal standards. --Nuclear Zer0 15:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Zer0, it's like the exams I just finished grading. Student doesn't know the answer to the question asked, so he answers something else entirely. I remarked to T was that I can't find anyone notable who cares enough to criticize the group. I cannot, and you haven't either. Please share it with the class if you have. Yes, there are, as I said, brief mentions in mainstream press sources. (I'm also fairly sure there's not a scoundrel alive that Rush hasn't fluffed.) I have never asked to AFD the article. Read that again. That is not the question. Just like that student, you get a D. You deserve an F, but I gave you both bonus points for misplaced effort, plus I felt a little sorry for the kid. Derex 15:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again please read the colums, Newsweek critisizes them as well Air America hosts, and others. If you were a teacher I would worry about students getting F's because you fail to read the sources they present or what they write. Not sure where I said you put it up for AfD. What I am saying is, you failed to read anything presented which is what leaves you with your incorrect view. Good day Derex, sources are presented for a reason, try reading them, if you have trouble understanding them let me know and I will write up summaries if I have the time. Just to be blunt since you seem to fail to grasp anything written above, Air America, Dallas Observer, and Newsweek critisized them. Again, I am not sure where you get your obsurd notion that a person in political office must critisize them to show notability, I guess that is your way of carrying your arguement on beyond the guidelines of Wikipedia, or just a matter of justification for your ownself. --Nuclear Zer0 16:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Newsweek critisizes them", no they don't. "Air America" great, show me the transcript. "Others" who? What would be even sadder than a professor not checking his student's source is the professor checking it and seeing that the student hadn't read it himself. Or, perhaps, failed to comprehend what they read? At any rate, I welcome you to write some encylcopedic, souced content for the "Criticism" section. My comment to T was that I could not. You have blustered on for half a page here about how you can. Great! Do it. Derex 17:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently you still fail to read the sources if you do not know where Air America crisized them or what was said. I think that says enough, good day professor *giggle*. --Nuclear Zer0 20:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, I've asked you twice now for a link to an AA transcript. Obviously you're trolling. So, don't expect me to respond to you in the future. ... I would have expected AA to be critical anyway, but they're hardly mainstream criticism. Derex 21:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Learn2Read its in the Dallas article. Now I dont want ot hear your response cause you jump all to trolling comments like a child on the playground instead of just re-reading the sources since its obvious I am pointing out you missed something. Geez, I hope you arent a teacher. --Nuclear Zer0 22:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: And Justice for All
Hello there. As you can see in this version, I removed Articles for deletion/And Justice For All, which does not exist. I reviewed And Justice For All, which was a redirect to the ...And Justice for All disambiguation page. So, I did remove a wrongly formatted entry. Had it existed, I would have never removed it on purpose. Hope this clears the matter. -- ReyBrujo 20:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I will inform the nominator the next time I remove an incorrect entry in the list next time. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 20:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If this wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious
Check out User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All/Andy Stephenson, particularly the description of dKOSpedia's "non-NPOV policy". At first I thought that was a misstatement, but the rest of the comment seems to imply that the article is not written POV enough to make it into Kos' pathetic wiki. Unfreakingbelieveable. - Crockspot 17:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

With Anchovies
Awesome. Classic. Morton devonshire 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi T. I'm glad to see we agree on something else. I assume I can count on your back-up next time I point this out? (glances upwards). You're right of course, on that one but it's doomed anyway. 

Cheers, Derex 04:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. I never agree with spamming.  --Tbeatty 09:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And I thought I would at least have been made a "Super Friend." At least I'm at the top of the list. Morton devonshire 02:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If I'm going to be a "Super Friend", I want to change my name to AquaMan. Or maybe "Fairness and Accuracy for AquaMan" BTW, he just stepped into it again.  Made another SuperFriend.  --Tbeatty 02:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He's apparently unafraid of getting blocked, which means he probably edits from a spoofed IP and can spoof a new one at any time. Morton devonshire 02:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I had to do it. Tbeatty 02:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Craig
On what grounds did you blank that paragraph on Larry Craig's article. Forgive me for not knowning what you're talking about when you say "And it still hasn't made it out." The paragraph was a small mention of a nation news story -- carried by a number of newspapers, npr, and broadcast networks. It also makes clear that Craig has denied the rumor. What good does it do to blank the issue, rather than reporting what has happened and letting the Wikipedia consumer make up his or her mind. If I was a betting man, I'd say you're coming at this from a political agenda POV. -Quasipalm 19:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP. The story has had no legs and is a news item.  It has not been picked up except as that small unverified claim.  Unverified rumours such as this have no place in Wikipedia.  2-3 weeks and nothing from NY TImes and WaPo should say something.  --Tbeatty 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping me. I'm new at Wikipedia and all I've really been doing is trying to improve articles. I don't understand what FAAFA's problem is with me using the discussion page for talking about how to improve the article. Bcody 19:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just him. Don't worry about it.  --Tbeatty 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD for Hacking Democracy
In light of your involvement in the Andy Stephenson debate, your nomination of this documentary seems suspect. Even if the consensus was that Stephenson was non-notable, a point I will concede even though I was on the other side of that debate, this documentary seems to be prima fascia notable. Deleting Andy Stephenson as not notable for lacking sources is one thing; deleting this article makes it appear as though you have an agenda for trying to remove the issue of electronic voting scandals from wikipedia wholesale. I want you to know that I am not accusing you of anything, and please note that I mentioned NOTHING of this in the AFD itself, and have no intention of doing so. It just looks suspicious, and this is a friendly warning. --Jayron 32 06:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in seeing what you think is notable about it. It has only one review in the NY Times.   It's had a month to generate references and details. It has nothing on IMDB (and IMDB has pretty esoteric stuff).  The reality is that there are no "electronic voting scandals."  My agenda is only to have an encyclopedia with verificable facts, not a willy-nilly collection of everyones pet project/conspiracy theory.  In the end, "Hacking Democracy" is an non-notable documentary.  I'm also not sure what your warning me for?  --Tbeatty 06:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, electronic voting, and specifically its unreliability, has been the topic of NUMEROUS discussions on all major news channels and shows. In the last week, I have seen and heard probably a few dozen discussions and bits specifically devoted to it on CNN, NPR, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. etc.  As a topic, it rises above wild conspiracy theories.  We aren't talking about any widespread conspiracy to defraud the american public.  We are talking about the fact that the Diebold machines and others have had serious security concerns raised about them.  Such concerns are verifiably part of the national conciousness.  WRT the Hacking Democracy documentary, it isn't just some indy film that showed up at some student film festival.  It appeared on HBO, and was seen by many people.  It was a notable film by that standard.  The only thing I am warning you of is that it appears you are making a WP:POINT that there is no serious public discussion of electronic voting vis-a-vis its reliability.  That is patently and plainly not so.  Implying that it is a "conspiracy theory" implies that it is the concern of a lunatic fringe.  While conspiracy theories DO EXIST around the issue, it does not make the issue itself non-notable.  The Kennedy Assassination has conspiracy theories, but it is by itself a notable event.  We can discount the conspiracy theories surrounding it without dismissing the subject itself.  Electronic voting unreliablity, and the public discussion thereof, is equally as notable, the existance of any conspiracy theories surrounding the issue notwithstanding. --Jayron 32  07:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Electronic voting is indeed a real issue.  "Hacking Democracy" however is not the notable documentary on this topic.  There is no "scandal".  HD lacks reviews.  It lacks major coverage as a documentary.  It lacks any awards.  It's empty page on IMDB is a testament to how many people have seen this film and filled in the details.  It is objectively not-notable regardless of what you believe of its content.  THis article was not about Electronic voting it was about this specific documentary.  Not notable.  --Tbeatty 07:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Snowball says otherwise. Derex 07:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point of my warning is that there appears to be a pattern of nominating multiple articles dealing with Electronic Voting for AfD. Again, I am not accusing you of anything; you may very well be an expert on the issue, and involved in editing numerous articles on the subject. I will also concede that your prior nomination for Andy Stephenson bore out: Concensus was reached that he was non-notable, my efforts to the contrary notwithstanding. This one however seemed weird. There were NUMEROUS reviews cited in the AfD in MUCH more than the NYTIMES, many papers seem to have reviewed it. A google search turns up lots of blog discussions, but also a first page serious review in a reliable source (salon.com). Even more damning, google news search turns up a HUGE number of reviews in real papers (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Arkansas Times, The Register, Boston Herald all on the first page alone). Don't hang your only hope on IMDB. This shows up in so many other places, IMDB notwithstanding, it passes notability and verifiability with flying colors. Anyone, you included, could have taken 30 seconds to find these reviews on Google and avoided the whole nomination from the start. --Jayron 32 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering that I snowballed it for consensus reasons, not notability, I am not sure what your point is. --Tbeatty 07:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And, that consensus was that it is notable. Derex 07:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That is true and is why I snowballed it. It doesn't change the fact that it is non-notable.  Consensus used to be that the world was flat too.  --Tbeatty 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So which of these newspapers and journals is NOT a reliable source for a review?: The New York Times, The Boston Herald, Salon.com, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Register (UK), The Winston-Salem Journal, CBS NEWS, Asheville Citizen-Times, Huffington (NY) Post, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Cleveland Leader, Black Entertainment Television(BET), CNET News, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Computer World, The Chattanoogan, http://www.sciencefriday.com/blog/index.php?/archives/171-Electronic-Voting-Fraud.html Talk of the Nation-Science Friday (National Public Radio)], Seattle Post-Inteligencer, Washington Post, Contra Costa (CA) Times, Baltimore Sun, Boston Globe, Emporia (KS) Gazette, Seattle Times, New York Post, TV Guide, Washinton Times, Forbes, Hollywood Reporter, MSNBC, Newark Star Ledger, Louisville Courier-Journal, New York Daily News, Kansas City Star, Wilmington (DE) News Journal, A South Korean newspaper, Dallas Morning News, Reuters, WKYC-TV, Orlando Sentinel, Variety, CNN Money, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, San Jose Mercury News, Anchorage Daily News, Rocky Mountain News, Cincinnati Enquirer, Royal Gazette (Bermuda), Raleigh News & Observer, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Detroit Free Press, Akron Beacon-Journal, South Coast (MA) Today, Salt Lake City Weekley, Gentleman's Quarterly (GQ), Nashua Telegraph, Wall Street Journal.
 * The fact that you claim that YOUR nomination was made based on NOTABILITY grounds, but that the keep votes were somehow not based on notability is PATENTLY REDICULOUS. The list I gave you above took about 15 minutes to find.  Each link contains an independantly written review of the program in question.  Each link is from a reliable source, an honest-to-god edited newspaper, ranging from small town papers to big city papers, to major magazines like Forbes and GQ, to TV shows and radio programs.  There is more of them, too.  I just got tired of linking them.  Please stop pretending that this subject is not notable, and that you lost the AfD on a "techincality" or because the vote was fixed somehow.  The subject is plainly notable, and easily verifiable as such. --Jayron 32  22:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you add them to the article? When I AfD'd it, it had no reviews.  As of yesterday it had one.  Tbeatty 22:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of those, including the very big ones like NYTimes, WashPost, WashTimes, etc were written several days ago. Your nomination timestamp says Nov 6. I google newsed it yesterday and found a similar list to Jayron. So, your facts are in error. Not saying it was intentional, but a bit more research would have been in order for a notability nomination. Especially considering the focus placed on this docu in the recent deletion reviews. Derex 23:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that you've paddled him sufficiently, go ahead and add them to the article. [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo  23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * paddled? in my world, gently pointing out a factual error is not punishment. i assume he believed what he said about the reviews, and was pointing out that gnews is the way to go on such things. (and i'm not sarcastic there, because plain google wasn't helpful.) i suppose those that can't bear to admit a mistake might find such a thing scary. tim isn't one such. i do know some others though ....


 * i'll leave it to you to add morton, because i know how very interested you are in improving articles. btw, the google news tip could maybe be helpful to you as well. because a bunch of times i've found plenty of cites within a minute or two for articles you were planning to afd. since you clearly wouldn't afd anything without first trying to improve it, i can only assume that you don't know about gnews either. (ok, a little sarcastic there) Derex 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I check citations before I nominate articles. It's why you will see me make references to having reviewed 20 pages of citations in my nominations.  Google News?  Yes, it's my home page.  Given the way you talk to people, I'm guessing you're about 14 -- would I be right?  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo  00:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Derex, you are mistaken and my facts are absolutely correct. As I said, as of today there is STILL only one review mentioned in the article (NYT).   The article had existed for a month with still nothing to cite as notable.   After a week of being aired with no addition of notability to the article, it is ripe for deletion.  Those editors that believe it is notable should add the reviews and citations but as of now it is very weak.  Being on HBO is not notable in and of itself.  Go to the HBO documentary page and no other documentary is listed in Wikipedia.   The whole paragraph on "Hacking Democracy" could be rolled up in Bev Harris or Black Box voting.  The article needs to cite the references that make it notable.  --Tbeatty 01:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed comments Tbeatty removed comments I made. (refactored)  --Jayron 32  17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A) I am not an admin and B) I reserve the right to remove screaming, accusatory messages from my talk page. Trolling will not be allowed. This article was nominated becasue it was and still is a non-notable documentary.  --Tbeatty 22:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing Hacking Democracy AfD

 * I've reviewed this and to be fair, he was the original nominator, so his keeping against his nomination as a "snowball" keep is fine.--MONGO 09:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC
I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question. --Nuclear Zer0 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Helpful Summary
You may be interested in this. I have perma-linked to the Q&A in my summary here.. Morton DevonshireYo  17:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

re: RfC
Please don't have disputes with other users on my talk page. It's unwelcome and unappreciated. If you have something to say to FAAFA, say it on his talk page. My talk page is not the place to hash these things out, no matter what he said there. If you have something to say to me, please say it on my talk page; otherwise, please leave me out.

Thanks. - Che Nuevara  08:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RPJ
This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration concerning RPJ. Feel free to add any comments you feel are necessary. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/RPJ
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Begging to be banned
He is just asking for it? Isn't he? JungleCat   Shiny! / Oohhh!  06:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)