User talk:DHeyward//Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Ho boy

Dang man, you beat me to it[1]. I've got to get faster. Thanks for the laugh. Morton DevonshireYo 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I have opened a case of arbitration at Requests for arbitration:Seabhcan--MONGO 08:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Personal Attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [2]... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 20:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What was the personal attack? I will strike/redact whatever you found offensive as it was not intentional. --Tbeatty 22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The question "Is English your first language?" is clearly intended to insult. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's not. I don't presume that europeans speak english as their first language or that they understand colloquial American expressions. I tend to write in an American colloqial fashion and when people don't understand very basic expression, I want to make sure they understand the writing style and the biggest impediment to colloquial understanding is whether or not English is their primary language (second to that is whether they are American). You seemed to not grasp the essence of what I was saying so I wanted to know if English was your firt language or should I write more formally. Tbeatty 04:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109Talk 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future to ensure that your prediction comes true. Cheers! -- nae'blis 00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Did you mean to do this? That is Cplot's user page. JoshuaZ 04:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops. He's the puppet master, not puppet. Will fix momentarily. thanks! Tbeatty 04:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for you input. I've revised the WP:Sock. I am trying to remain objectional. But if cplot is sock puppeteering it would be for "Circumventing policy." (Even though we are currently objecting to the block doing sock-puppets will not help the situation; meaning I can understand why you would want to remain sturn.) As per the rules "Policies apply per person, not per account... Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a block or ban causes the timer on the block to restart, and may further lengthen it." I would hence, unfortunately, understand and have to support, a lenghtening of the band. (That is the advice I can say which I hope falls on anyone thinking of doing sock puppeteering while blocked ). Again, if cplot is doing this I can not support it, but on the other hand I can certainly empathise if he is doing it. --CyclePat 05:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this edit. Certainly the edit complained of was trolling of the first order and his block was justified, but a misspelled link to dem attic is permissible, in itself. Fred Bauder 19:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the arbitration remedy: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_ED Fred Bauder 21:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. My interpretation was that the specific insertion of the MONGO page was to attack MONGO (and the other links attack wikipedia in general) and that those links (misspelled or not) could be removed. In general, I wouldn't remove the links if it was simply informative or part of a discussion but if the intent was to attack, I interpreted it to mean removal was supported by ArbComm. --Tbeatty 23:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hope you did not misunderstand me.

Hope you did not mis-understand about me. I just wanted to bring these indecency to your notice. swadhyayee 16:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei "cult allegations" section head

Do you really think it's wrong of us to have a section about the cult allegations? I mean, I know it's a very prejudicial word and I would never, ever even think of using it to decribe Opus Dei directly. But nonetheless, "cult" criticism are a big big big part of the discourse around Opus Dei-- almost all the new sources mention it, a google search for Opus Dei and cult gives 130,000 hits or so. True or not, the "cult issue" is what the criticism is all about-- shouldn't we say so? --Alecmconroy 16:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool!

I didn't know there was a special infobox for politicians!--BenBurch 14:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/September 11, 2001 Attacks.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] RFArb Seabchan

Please do not post proposals on the /Proposed Decision page as the page is only supposed to be edited by arbitrators and clerks (for maintenance and formatting). You may make proposals in the /Workshop page where they will be considered by the arbs and added for voting if they find it appropriate. Thanks --Srikeit 07:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dysgenics‎

Hi Tbeatty; on 15 November 2006 you suggested that Dysgenics "should be rolled into Eugenics". This has been proposed. You might wish to comment at Talk:Eugenics#Merge_the_Dysgenics_article_with_Eugenics.3F Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

[edit] Questions to the parties

Question 1 to complaining editor Tbeatty: You state in your claim that: "My experience with him forced me to do research on the Carcano rifle" "This was six months ago and I thought it was settled since it is overwhelming."

Could you give me the cite to the change you made based on the research I forced you to do? RPJ 06:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Here it is. And Here. --Tbeatty 07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.


For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 08:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vandal report page

I thought you would want it more inclusive after that ED person was erasing stuff from it. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis still has a lot more information than what I added. Anomo 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

  • RPJ is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
  • RPJ is placed on indefinite probation. He may be banned from the site for an appropriate period by any administrator if he edits in a disruptive manner.
  • Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for the support! MONGO 09:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11: The Big Lie

I have now totally revamped/stubified this article in order to deal with the POV issues. Please take a look at the new version if you like. Thanks, Bwithh 08:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] They huffed, and puffed, . . .

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

[edit] Tbeatty, I am requesting your comments

I have just filed a formal complaint against BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A., alleging that they have formed a cabal or meatpuppet partnership, in violation of WP:CABAL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#Suspected_cabal_or_meatpuppet_relationship_between_BenBurch_and_F.A.A.F.A.

I notice that you have encountered their special brand of tag-team intimidation in the past, and I encourage you to comment on your experiences at the page I have linked above, during the investigation. Thank you for your input. ArlingtonTX 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert?

Why did you revert [3] my message on User:MONGO's talk page? He recently reverted [4] a persistent vandal, but did not leave a warning on the vandal's talk page. If people do not leave warnings, I am never going to get the vandal blocked. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

MOngo has over 10,000 edits and was an administrator. Leaving template messages to established users is considered rude. --Tbeatty 12:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F.Y.I.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). TheOnlyChoice 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you revert my helpful changes?

You didn't answer last time. Anomo 03:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't need additional info. I have enough. --Tbeatty 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You Forgot These In My Dryer

You forgot these Cplot socks in my dryer:

The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 05:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:911ct

Thank you for the positive note on the template. It is not intended in any way to "compete" with any other template, nor is the other (others?) and it mutually exclusive. I have no particular commitment to the new template, but I feel that each has a purpose. This one is intended not to contribute any POV of any decription. The others seem to be able to be judged in certain circumstances to contribute POV depending on the artcile they are applied to (the templates temselves do not).

There is a small discussion on the template's own talk page. Please make whatever contribution you wish to it. Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

HI! I am a new Wikipedian, but have done some looking at your comments concerning FOX News. You seem to grasp neutrality. (Which is the reason I joined; read here User:OfForByThePeople). I have been putting forth the correct opinion concerning the matter. Though I am new, would you mind looking at Talk:Fox_News_Channel#Intro I believe new information and concerns which I have been putting forward over the past few days is quite relevant.Quite a few comments representing both sides has been put forth. Thank you for looking out! (OfForByThePeople 15:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Chewbacca Lives on Endor

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For Coming To The Aid of The Damsel In Distress Mobile 01Talk 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for Supports!

Thank you for very suitable number of votes, Zilla appreciate, blush at handsome words. (This show Zilla modesty, as praise in fact deserved.) Bishzilla | grrrr! 07:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A Request for Comment has been filed

I've filed an RfC against BenBurch here. Your experiences have been mentioned and I would appreciate your description of your experiences with BenBurch, FAAFA and Travb. Thank you. Dino 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, regarding the RfC, don't allow BenBurch to define the terms of the discussion. What you've done is within the rules AFAICT. The rules don't appear to be that strict; there's an RfC that's been there since the 19th with only one person certifying the grounds (rather than the required two), and nobody has deleted it. I suggest that you take the paragraph you originally put under "Comments" and move it up to "Evidence of disputed behavior," above or below my statement. Dino 03:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a very much better idea: why not strike your endorsement and let the thing die. It is not going to fix anything, it will simply be yet another venue for the he-said-she-said bullshit which is carrying on elsewhere. Given that the thing was filed by Dino, "certified" by his (banned) brother by proxy, then when that was struck signed by another puppet, the entire thing stinks like a week-dead fish. I strongly suspect that you have better things to do. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The RfC has been struck out, which is the right result. Tbeatty, if you yourself have an issue with BenBurch which you have tried and failed to resolve through discourse then you are of course free to start an RfC yourself, but I hope that will not be necessary. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope so too but from what I have seen, BB's and FAAFA's edits and actions have been entirely unacceptable and don't seem to fall within Wikipedia's polciies and guidelines. It is essentially up to them. --Tbeatty 15:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I thread

Tbeatty, hi. I replied to your comment at WP:AN/I. I think you were right; I should be more careful about establishing context before I step in with unhelpful comments. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they were unhelpful in the sense that they provide the opportunity to explain. I believe you are familiar with the ED drama that has occured in the past. Imagine the reaction of people who aren't familiar that see an AN/I complaint about welcome messages. By posting your reaction, it gives an opportunity to explain and that makes it helpful. I appreciate your comment on AN/I being more of an observation rather than an attack even though your initial observation was that the complaint was unjustified. I think that helps since it allows an explanation rather than a defense. Cheers! --Tbeatty 05:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concur

Thank you for your concurrence. I would like to establish with you whether you also, like Mongo, consider that I have had a "serious dispute" with you or not? Tyrenius 05:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I haven't had contact with you in a while. I would consider it extremely inappropriate if you ever took administrative action against me though (i.e. leaving warnings, blocks, etc). So I would have considered it inappropriate for you to step into a dispute in the role of administrator. But other than that, you can comment on my editing or frequent the pages I do as long as it is as an editor. You are certainly welcome to comment on my talk page. --Tbeatty 05:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If you don't consider that we have had a "serious dispute", then on what grounds do you consider it would be inappropriate that I should take administrative action against you? Tyrenius 05:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
We have history, not a dispute. I would question your motivation. Why, for example, would you, out of a thousand admins, take it upon yourself to step into a dispute? I would question your motivation to become involved. I understand Thomas Basboll's concerns but I submit you should have just forwarded him to ANI. Why would Thomas Basboll come to you instead of ANI? He must have felt he would have acquired more sympathy from you rather than ANI. I certainly would be extremely suspicious if a person I was having an article dispute with took it directly to you for satisfaction, and for you to act on it in any manner other than deferring all of it to ANI. --Tbeatty 06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of conjecture there. Perhaps you should ask Thomas Basboll instead of speculating. I presumed it was for the same reason that a lot of users go to an admin that they know and trust, namely that they presume will get a quick and fair response. If you look over my edits, you will see that this is not necessarily to concur with their position, but it is I hope to advise suitably. As my only action in the current instance was simply to ask for a reassurance that no threat was intended, I don't see that there is a great problem, particularly as Mongo has eventually stated that is the case. It would have been very easy to have said it straight away and avoided all the drama.

Not really any conjecture. I don't blame Thomas Basboll a bit for how HE reacted. His reaction was quite normal. I believe you, as an experienced admin, should have been the one to rationalize why you were being asked to personally intervene and whether you should have deferred it to the larger body or the regular channels of dispute resolution. MONGO is an established user. You should have realized that a threatening warning note on MONGO's talk page would not help the situation. --Tbeatty 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You say we do not have a dispute. We have a history. There is only one interaction with you that registers in my mind, which is the incident over BLP, which happened 5 months ago, since when I don't recall having any dispute or even any interaction with you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there was anything, it didn't leave any lasting impression for me. Is this incident what you are referring to as a history?

Tyrenius 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You blocked me for 24 hours in a quite controversial manner, unique as far as I can tell within Wikipedia. Never happened before or since. --Tbeatty 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you're overstating the case considerably. So one block is what you mean by a history? Tyrenius 02:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Not really. It's been my only block. You blocked me for 24 hours. It was controversial. If you can point me to a diff of someone blocked for anything similar, before or since, I'd be willing to reconsider whether it was unique. Regardless, I consider it enough of a history that I would consider it inappropriate for you to step into a dispute in the role of administrator. --Tbeatty 02:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't. You were warned not to repeat a derogatory comment about a living person. You went ahead anyway. You got blocked to stop a repetition of that. I invited any admin to unblock. Mongo reviewed and declined to. Jimbo endorsed the block, which is an extremely rare occurrence. It was a justified block. That's the only thing I've had to do with you. That's no history. Tyrenius 05:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting take. I still consider it enough of a history that I would consider it inappropriate for you to step into a dispute in the role of administrator. --Tbeatty 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't unblock only because I was an involved party.--MONGO 06:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Scarborough

Sorry if I stepped into one helluva beesnest when I reverted there. I only thought there was one conversation on the consensus, not three. Yipe! I will let you handle that one, cause that is way out of my league and not even my department. Just trying to help out there. Slighty related sidenote....anyway a better picture of Scarborough could be found, like the one from MSNBC? The one that is up looks like it is 10 years old. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 06:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do not refactor me again

(removed edit by unwelcome editor)

Evidence in the case should not be refactored by other parties. Having said that, there is no value to posting material about real-world figures (non-Wikipedians) that even arguably skirts any possible BLP issues on an arbitration page. This case is contentious enough without that sort of thing. I recognize the level of feelings this dispute has raised on all sides but I urge that moderation prevail everywhere and especially on arbitration pages. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nearly Headless Nick RfA > RfC

[edit] Your recent request for Checkuser

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant 05:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.


[edit] Check your date

Tbeaty, on the Free Republic/Arb/Evidence page, you'll want to correct your date (should be 2007) [5]. I would do it, but Im not sure Im supposed to be editing other's evidence sections. Dman727 20:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gotit. Thx. --Tbeatty 21:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Essjay

I was just reading Essjay's history and saw your response. I certainly didn't mean it in the negative manner it was received (AGF, please) and don't mind that the thread was removed. I honestly think the suggestion would be a good idea - a few steps in the moccasins that I among others have unfortunately been compelled to walk. Most of the people who actually face that situation are in no position to discuss it. Yes, the idea is shocking and disturbing - far more so is the reality. I'll withdraw the message, but please don't shoot the messenger. DurovaCharge! 21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't take it negatively, just disagreed. Some people seem to have taken what he did as a personal affront (it wasn't just your comment that lead me to that). I just want people to step back and realize that it wasn't a personal affront to any person or wikipeida as a whole. I didn't mind the thread as it let's people express what they think and feel rather than have it boil under the surface. --Tbeatty 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: We've been hitting the same IPs

Erk, sorry. =\ Perhaps I should leave test5 more often. As far as warnings, I dunno -- once they're blocked, they're blocked, but if the warning will still do some good, sure. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. :) Let me know if I get on your nerves doing it too often, too. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your improprer refactoring of the RFAr

Was improper and not allowed. How could you?! You just unrefactored Eschoirs own comments too!

  • Clerk note: Please do not delete or modify evidence or proposals submitted by other parties (or others). See talk page for more. Newyorkbrad 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC) - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 22:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You are correct in principle, but I think this proposal was a digression and the process is better off without it. You can restore it under your own name if you disagree. Newyorkbrad 22:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Either way (delete or withdraw) is okay with me. It appears to be unnecessary at this point. --Tbeatty 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advocate Needed

I would like to know if you're available to look over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_people#Mustafa_Hefny_Pic?

Basic summary- is whether the picture should remain or be removed. The dispute is sandwiched between various issues, such as wikipedia policy, and a (what I think is an) unrelated argument between Lukas19 and other people leading to a removal of all exemplary white people. My point in this is that the Hefny picture is unrelated to this "exemplary white people" issue and deals with a specific area of U.S. definitions of white people (starting from the 70's) and how it supersedes, at times, self identification. However, if the picture is in breach of WP policy, then it should go.

More detail- Concerning the "exemplary picture" argument, Hefny's picture is also African, which is a cause of consternation. (Please see the development and changes in the argument points of Lukas19). I am not against more pictures, and feel that this article could use more unambiguous coverage of te different social definitions of what constitutes 'white.' The picture in dispute is under a subsection of a U.S. social categorization of white that includes people of North African (in this case, Egyptian) origin as part of the classification of White. This articles briefly outlines the efforts of the U.S. government in the 1970's to combine all federal categories of race uniform definitions. Hefny's struggle is that while he self-identifies as "black," he is categorized as "white" due to his Egyptian origin. Since the other pictures were eliminated due to the disputes of 'exemplary people' this is now the only picture on the page, and this has caused consternation with Lukas (see white, genetics, and Europeans [6] and pointing out Hefny's as a bad example due to his Africanness [7] [8] [9] ) This picture is illuminating a specific issue, unrelated to the previous argument on 'exemplary white people' and other examples should be brought forward to bring up the national/other variations in social definitions of white people.

Various issues, like BLP and Fair use have also come up. I don't feel the image is a violation of BLP since it is used in the exact manner from the CNN article. I'm not sure about Fair use. If it is indeed a violation of wikipedia rules, then those rules have to be followed. Wood345 06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

unfortunately I will not be able to due to the WP:COI rules. --Tbeatty 06:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know of anyone else that might be a good match?Wood345 06:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You can try Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance and follow the instructions on getting an avocate. --Tbeatty 07:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do.Wood345 07:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I.Q.

I saw your post here referring to a 19 year-old garage mechanic and 50 year old PhD theoretical physicist both have the same input in the field of Quantum Electrodynamics and thought that you might enjoy reading about I.Q. (film) -- Jreferee 16:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking

In the past two days you have followed me to two seperate articles that I have been actively editing, that you had never edited before. Zombietime and Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_scandal When I did that a few weeks ago I was charged by an Admin with 'wikistalking' and given a 24 hr block. I encourage you to stop wikistalking me. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 06:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are a disruptive and tendentious editor. As such, I check up on your edits. Any editor is able to review my contributions and they can make a determination as to whether the edits are warranted or not. I encourage editors and/or admins to review my edits and yours and see which ones are disruptive. --Tbeatty 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your 'contributions' to the 'US Attorney scandal' article you Wikistalked me to show aggressive POV editing, WP:OWN, and a complete disregard for consensus. I encourage any admin to review your participation there. Quit Wikistalking me. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 14:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It does? Care to provide diffs? --Tbeatty 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. No. Bye. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
So the real answer is that it isn't POV and you are just here to try and intimidate me to stop editing? --Tbeatty 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

FaAfA, editors are allowed to edit articles. They're even allowed to edit the same articles you've edited. Your attitude here is unhelpful, to say the least. If you won't produce evidence for them, don't throw around such accusations. If you wish to improve the project, focus on content, not contributors. Friday (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Faafa, you aren't the only editor who keeps up on the news, and starts editing articles whose subjects have had recent press coverage. You're hanging on at WP by two thin threads, and this type of accusatory behavior does not help you. Crockspot 18:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, you are naughty...I have reported you to the appropriate authorities.--MONGO 18:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Tbeatty's 'honesty' on display.... After admitting to 'Wikistalking' me to two articles including the US Attorney article: "You are a disruptive and tendentious editor. As such, I check up on your edits." diff he actually claims on the talk page of the article in question, that I Wikistalked him to said article ! "The other editor came here jjust to revert me. He's about to be banned." diff He was entirely civil in his fallacious and specious claims though, and we know that carries much more weight around here than a mouthy truthful editor ! - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • One more vote. --Tbeatty 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You chose not to defend your specious "The other editor came here jjust to revert me." claim, I see ! - FaAfA 'Mistakes were made' 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this qualify as a blaze of glory? - Crockspot 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

I appreciate your support during my recent RfA. I'm happy to say it closed successfully, and I hope I'll be able to make good use of the tools. Shimeru 16:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Really. But, I suppose the chances of a fraud getting hired to a research position are just about zero, because the interview/seminar process is truly brutal. What's you field? I've noticed you hanging out at the Science answer desk, so I had guessed you were an engineer or such. Derex 07:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the research positions I've seen hired are more about social networking than proving credentials. Eved the first is from the PhD advisor and relevant publications/research. They want to know you are competent in the field. Teaching seems to me more rigid in determining qualifications through credential verififcation. My field is electrical engineering and I have an MS, not PhD. My graduate minor was in physics so that comes in handy on the helpdesk stuff. I work in industry on microprocessor design so I generally avoid articles in my specific field although I'll edit the basic stuff. I avoid editing areas of expertise just on ethical grounds and a very broad interpretation of non-disclosure agreements. Politics, policy and law are a passion so that's what draws my article contributions. --Tbeatty 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, my brother is physics/EE; you two are a bit alike come to think of it. Connections certainly matter for research positions. And it ultimately is more about competence than credentials, but the credential usually comes along for the ride. I, for example, hadn't yet finished my PhD when I started professoring, but then they leaned real hard on me to wrap it up. It's amazing the number of people who avoid editing in their fields, myself included. .... I thought elements of your credentialstar proposal had merit, and would welcome your further input over at the page. I think verification for masters equivalent and above is basically a good idea and will (a) be good advertising (b) resolve Essjay PR issues (c) consume some of Citizendium's oxygen. Probably won't do it myself, but still a good idea. ... By the way, it truly wasn't a POV fork. I don't really care if the articles are independently spun off instead of aggregated, but there's no sound reason to delete the basic content (except possibly Bush, which I think is actually in his interest to keep). Derex 09:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
People didn't seem to latch on to my credential proposal. I wanted to get away from separate user boxes and also get away from having the person with the credential maintaining his own verification page. I might summariaze that on the talk page but in reality, Jimbo will make the call and it will be somewhat heavyhanded. I think there was a similiar policy reversal over at reliable source/original research merging. As for the rape allegations, I would rather see them on the accusers page. Even Clinton's accusation is such a small nit in his overall biography that it's only worth a sentence. However, it does belong in the Juanita Broaddrick as that is all she is known for. By having a separate article, including bios of otherwise non-notable people, they all get too much notice. Maybe a category of presidential rape accusers? I am much more of a deletionist with tabloid elements that relate to biographies and I think far too much of Wikipedia is spent on tabloid stuff. I also happen to think a sympathetic point of view would make for better biographies. It may even lead some people to vote for deletion on hatchet articles as they couldn't stand to have a sympathetic article written about their own perosnal enemy that is otherwise non-notable. I've noticed Wikipedia can have a pretty strong mean streak. Tbeatty 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a fundamental philosophical difference with many who followed GabrielF's board. I understand the general feeling there is that having a Wikipedia article on a questionable claim is a way of promoting that claim. My feeling is that having a good article on such a weak, but notable, claim is an excellent way to debunk the claim, without ever taking a POV. I think the evidence on all 3 of the recent rape claims is really weak, but you'd never know that by web-surfing. Most any place that mentions any of these does so while promoting the truth of the claim. There is no place else on the web that uses NPOV policy; so this is the only place that actually aims to lay out just the facts without artificially promoting a certain interpretation. In that, I think we do a tremendous service by having such articles. My delete line is when the claims are not already notable. In that case, even a neutral article really does promote by drawing attention, and few 3rd-party editors are likely to be interested in keeping such an article neutral anyway. Cheers, Derex 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand. It's a tough choice. My personal belief (and the web is too new to see if it will hold out) is that these things will die out to the fringe of the web on their own unless they are propagated. Wikipedia is a high traffic site and by having the accusation listed here it makes it much easier to find these things. By being in wikipedia, they are immortalized forever and also given a high search engine hit rate as well as a ring of credibility regardless of how debunked they are in the article. If they only place on the web you find the Bush rape allegation is Democratic Underground, it says a lot about its credibilty. If you see it in Wikipedia next to the Reagan and Clinton rape allegations, it gets a credibility all its own regardless if what's written. --Tbeatty 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] substing

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. ST47Talk 12:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I guess that one will follow me around for a while

:-) —Doug Bell talk 09:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy cow! You made NBGPWS's head explode!

Check out his meltdown in his talk page history. Jinxmchue 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Now taking bets as to how long it takes FAAFA to start using a sockpuppet. Jinxmchue 06:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'bout time

[10]--MONGO 00:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:AumakuaSatori

I was interested in your second warning template there. Did you mean Larry Silverstein? Larry Sanger is someone different! Please see if you can help me update the article, I think it needs it. --Guinnog 15:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to discuss this at Talk:7_World_Trade_Center#Refresh. See you there, I hope. --Guinnog 15:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes I meant silverstein. I put the warnings there because the two progressive warnings about the problems with the edits were more descriptive than MONGO's test2 warning. It was to diffuse the situation as I think both the warning templates I left were appropriate for the edits.

[edit] WP:RFAR

Your request for speedy deletion has been declined. The process of arbitration supercedes CSD per Jimbo's orders, Cabal decree, and WP:IAR. For your actions, you will hereby be punished with the speedy obtaining of a shrubbery and the chopping down of the largest tree in the forest with a herring.

And yes, I know it's a joke. :) —210physicq (c) 05:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be even funnier if you actually did give me a shrubbery. But don't give it to me now; that would be stupid (and you would be stealing my joke). —210physicq (c) 05:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pay more attention

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Sharpton&diff=prev&oldid=122553708 Jiffypopmetaltop 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of User:NewYorkBrad

A tag has been placed on User:NewYorkBrad, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It is a test page which needs removing.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 20:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:NewYorkBrad

Could you please e-mail me the password for this account you created. I had been thinking of doing this myself to prevent someone else from taking the name and would like to control it myself as an anti-impersonation account. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create an account. Just the page. There is no account associated with that page. --Tbeatty 05:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 07:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[11]

[edit] User talk:Miltopia

Please do not post again to User talk:Miltopia. I think it would be best to let him come back and resume hopefully useful editing without spending more time on the incident that led to his block. Thanks for your understanding. Newyorkbrad 17:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not even for the "lulz"?  :). I did get a kick out this edit summary: was more than willing to assume good faith on Tbeatty's part and rvt without comment. I didn't think deleting comments without so much as a comment was considered good faith. But I have no issues with leaving him alone for a bit. --Tbeatty 05:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Babalooo's endorsement

Hi Tbeatty, as I understand the background for this edit, the correct refactoring would have included the whole endorsement and your commentary on it. Babaloo has obviously misunderstood how the project page of the RfC works and his material should simply be moved to the discussion page while informing him of the reasons. Or do you still think your interpretation of Babalooo's endorsement is accurate?--Thomas Basboll 12:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. My edit and comment was mistaken. I reverted it too far and have removed both comments. --Tbeatty 13:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Would you agree that the same reasoning applies to his "trolling" on Junglecat's view? I think the best thing to do there is to move it to move the original comment to the talk page and explain the edit to Junglecat and Babalooo. No harm, no foul. No unnecessary accusations.--Thomas Basboll 14:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to just delete them. --Tbeatty 15:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone pretending to be that stupid must be a sockpuppet. See The Insane Fuckwit or perhaps the Yabbadabbadoofus.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good sleuthing. Are you sure Lovelight isn't a sockpuppet of Babalooo? --Tbeatty 18:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing Rex/Merecat/Nuclear/Zer0faults.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Who? The Insane Fuckwit or the Yabbadabbadoofus? And who is ramalamadingong? Was that you? --Tbeatty 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty obviously a sockpuppet seeing how far they can push WP:AGF. Funny though. - Crockspot 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A request

Hi Tbeatty, I know it's all in fun, but please remove this section from the talk page of the collapse of the WTC article. It seems to belong on discussion forum somewhere. Thanks in advance.--Thomas Basboll 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Tone"

Have a look at his talk page - I'm not the first admin to call Tom on his abuse of admin tools. Blocking to win an edit war is very bad. He's done it at least twice now. If he wants to block someone he is edit-warring with, he should ask an uninvolved admin. I see no reason to tolerate people who block to win edit wars. If an uninvolved admin sees this as a situation in which blocking is appropriate, I have no problem with that. That's your call. But if you want to scold someone, scold the person who is violating the blocking policy. Guettarda 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your assessment but I thought your action should also have been brought to the noticeboard. Undoing a block without discusison or comment is just as bad and is another form of abuse. I will post the block and unblcok on AN/I. I don't think either action was appropriate. --Tbeatty 00:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)