User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All/Archive2

Formerly known as NBGPWS - Now known as Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

My pledge. With important elections coming up, and politicians on both sides sinking to new levels of sleaze and smear tactics - I - Fairness And Accuracy For All - will rise above the muck and mire! I pledge to not enter any negative info, or any info which could even REMOTELY be considered negative into the articles or even the talk pages of ANY candidate running for political office on Nov 7! Anyone who would like to can join me and take the pledge!

Fairness And Accuracy For All 14:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you live up to all this. Jinxmchue 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you have not. Why am I not surprised? Jinxmchue 02:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I've seen you been wrong before, but not this wrong. Is the President of Diebold running for office or something? WOW! - F.A.A.F.A. 03:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. So some "muck and mire" on Wiki is okay, then. Just as long as it's not about candidates running for office this year. Jinxmchue 03:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) I didn't enter ANYTHING negative about ANYbody (running for office)! 2)Your mistaken assumptions are astounding. If you watched the documentary or even read a little, you would discover that in districts where Dems are in control and use evoting, the Repubs are actually fighting against it, arguing that its unreliable and prone to hacking and fraud! I know you're upset about the loss of the House (and possibly Senate) but you don't need to act out with your wild unfounded accusations against me! - F.A.A.F.A. 04:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ironically, you contradict (1) with your final sentence. As for my assumptions, accusing someone of "Play[ing] Admin" or saying that someone is good at "dodging" because they "get lots of practice" is hardly positive or rising "above the muck and mire." Ah, but your "escape clause" makes it okay, since these aren't current election candidates, right? Jinxmchue 05:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - I refuse to lower myself to the GOP level. I'm not a scumbag like the Repugs who crafted and ran the underhanded, dishonest attack ads against Michael Acuri and others. Unlike Repugs, I have values and morals! I don't do meth OR have gay sex with male prostitutes, like your exalted leader either! LOL!- F.A.A.F.A. 06:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a little heavy on the partisianship & politicking there. Wiki is not soapbox. Dman727 06:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even need to respond to that. It responds to itself. Jinxmchue 06:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my user page Dman, and an entirely appropriate reply in response to a mertiless desperate attack considering that I clearly stated that I promised not to edit the articles of "candididates running for office". Obviously another case of this Pre Election Desperation Syndrome - F.A.A.F.A. 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand correctedt. It is your user page and you have that right. Rant On citizen, Rant On! Feel free to expose your partisianship and bias as you see fit. I apologize for interfering.Dman727 09:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. 'Speaker Pelosi' has an especially sweet ring to it, doesn't it? :-)- F.A.A.F.A. 09:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you may be suprised to find that I agree with you. FWIW, I don't consider myself a Dem or a Rep. I do however like a mixed government as it keeps one party from running away with an agenda (as all have done at various points throughout history). Either way, I'm waiting till tonight before emotionally investing in any outcome. cheers! Dman727 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:NuclearUmpf/NBGPWS

The irony considering whats above, but I have good faith in your intentions:

• Answers.Com
• DemocraticUnderground

Not sure if they are recent, but both use their content from Wikipedia, just in case admins at AN/I do not oblige you, those are at least images of the article at one point to work off of. --NuclearZer0 23:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I didn't think of checking there. Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [1] BenBurch 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Yes, I do actually have quite a few photos I can upload if you like. It also shouldn't be too hard to get a cite for that "most beautiful public building in the United States" quote; I've seen it in the LA Times, and Walker Tomkins, local Santa Barbara historian has it in at least one of his books. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: Image:SB_Courthouse1.jpg. It's not the best of the bunch, but it was ready for upload. There's some others that need some minor photoshopping, and I can also snap some more any time; I'm only a couple minutes away from there. Let me know. By the way I may also have some shots of Hollister Ranch from Gaviota Park and Gaviota Peak (since I saw from my watchlist that you are interested in that area too). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful pic! Thanks! That's one of the exact angles I was hoping for. The Hollister Ranch article needs a total re-write. I think that most of it is copied directly from their page. IMHO, its notable mostly for their private ownership of 8.5 miles of coastline, the cost of ownership there, their draconian rules and regulations, and efforts to keep surfers out. I've visted someone who has a home in there a few times. The place is amazing. Cheers Fairness And Accuracy For All 05:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make further edits like this one as it messes up the numbering on the main page, WP:MFD. Naconkantari 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I didn't see the note in the edit summary till too late. I've seen other discussions with page breaks, so I thought it was OK. Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is electronic, I would love to have a copy! Thanks so much! BenBurch 05:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I had already done so, but it is done now. BenBurch 16:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, most of the 'delete' votes have come from conservative editors with a similar edit trail. Groups like this often organize via email, then pretend not to know each other in public. Not saying that's necessarily the case here, but it's a classic situation. The opposite of good faith, when it occurs. Auto movil 21:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page: Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's the case. Derex 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched this debate with interest from afar, like a pedistrian watches an oncoming train wreck, powerless to stop it, knowing it will happen, and secretly, deep down inside facinated to see its conclusion.

Ask yourself Fairness, are you really any different from the person you argued with? To attempt to difuse the situation, I won't use his name, but that won't matter anyway, will it? Go ahead and post yet another ANI. I will illustrate the blatant hypocricy of the ANI when you do.

Both of you are hardcore partisans who use wikipolicy as a sword.

Both of you are going to be eventually banned. You will be banned first, and soon, because the other user's side is better organized and has virulently partisan admins on his side.

The only chance you have is to:

1) Become a diplomat and edit smart, in otherwords, become a POV diplomat. You are editing stupid. By stupid I mean that your partisanship is so evident, and the tit for tat deletions etc. are going to get you banned. You have pissed off a well organized group of partisans, who have much more power than you do.

2) Take a deep hard look in the mirror, and ask yourself if you are any better than your nemsis in the AfD. I don't think you two are much different at all. You are both POV warriors, pushing your own POV, refusing to comprise. POV warriors eventually get AfDs, then they get restrictions, and eventually they are banned or leave wikipedia with a loud egotistical pronouncement, which no one really cares about anyway. And they are in the outside looking in, and everyone keeps editing, and forgets about the POV warrior. That is your fate. If I was a betting man, I would bet 99 to 1, that is your fate. I have seen it dozens of times before. Rarely has anyone changed. I was indefinetly booted myself once, it is only by the grace of one kind admin who I had argued with before, that I am still here. I am still here because I radically changed my behavior, whereas most editors I know are slowly on there way out or have been indefinetly banned. Will I eventually get banned? Probably. I hope not, but if I was a betting man, probably. But I will be editing here months, if not years after you are forgotten. You might get indefinetly banned.

Signed: Travb (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. You must be MUCH more more dispassionate that I am. When people start f_cking with me, I'm pretty much powerless not to respond in kind. I already DID file another ANI! LOL ! Thanks for your thoughts. On to Nov 8!

Note - no pics here please. Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? You are DEAD wrong. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to add negative info into the article of ANY politician running for office next Tuesday, no matter HOW much I despise their views. Some of them are working OVERTIME doing just that.

I refactored your prediction. It was bad juju. Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is why I restore the photo: User_talk:Travb/Archive_8#Train_wreck you can delete it now if you wish. I respond to people in kind, but I do it in a diplomatic way, and I use wikipolicy like a weapon, as my advisaries have taught me.

I went up against some of the most powerful admins, and got indefinately banned. I then learned by looking at their edit histories, that these admins are no different then me, and in fact, in most cases they are far more partisan, stubborn, biased, peity ideologues than I am (or was). Except the difference is:

1) These partisan admins and veteran editors know how to use wikipolicy like a weapon, they learn how to vent in other ways, instead of using their mouth like a weapon, like you naively do (and I naively did and sometimes still do), they use wikipolicy like a weapon.

2) These partisan admins and veteran editors form "clics", some people call them "cabals". It is obviously going on, but because of WP:NPA and other policies, no one can actually say the word "cabal". It is the "elephant in the room", like I mentioned recently on the village pump. So what do you need to do? Get organized: seek out and kiss ass to partisan editors who share your POV.

Want proof? Look at the admins you have gone up against, they are so terribly partisan. People report them to ANI ALL THE TIME. Many users have gone up against them, and many of those users who went up against them are indefinetly banned. Ask yourself: Why are these other novice editors banned and these admins are still editing?

Two in particular that you are fighting with currently come to mind.

The absolute best tactic you can do is be less ideological and less partisan. But I have no illusions about this happening soon. Peoples ideologies change glacially. Unfortunatly, you will be banned before yours changes.

You know what? You are DEAD wrong. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to add negative info into the article of ANY politician running for office next Tuesday, no matter HOW much I despise their views. Some of them are working OVERTIME doing just that.

Yeah sure, everyone else is biased, but you. I already mentioned your stark and aparent bias on the AfD, maybe you should reread that section.

RE: Thanks for your thoughts. I responded to them on my page Very nice pic too, I just don't want pics on my talk page. [On my user page]

No prob, I will watch your page, so you don't need to comment here, and all comments are in one place. When I saw the "unread message" notice, I was thinking you were an admin who dislikes you, threatening me.

It is only a matter of time before someone threatens me or puts up a ANI about my comments on your user page. Many of these editors tactics are so pathetic, obvious, and predictable.

Maybe I can save you from yourself, you have been one of several "interventions", everyone always ignores me, especially partisans (because, of course, by there nature, they are not very open to new ideas), and they get banned or leave noisily and nastily. Maybe I am simply becoming more convincing with practice. Travb (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? You are DEAD wrong. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to add negative info into the article of ANY politician running for office next Tuesday, no matter HOW much I despise their views. Some of them are working OVERTIME doing just that.

Yeah sure, everyone else is biased, but you. I already mentioned your stark and aparent bias on the AfD, maybe you should reread that section.

You didn't get my point. At all. Yeah, I'm partisan, but there are some lines I won't cross, which 'they' do, and one is trying to affect even a SINGLE vote via editing on Wiki. Look at ANY politician running for office next tues, and you won't see a single edit from me . Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will agree to disagree.

Just because you don't do x, doesn't mean you are any less partisan. Putting articles which don't fit your POV, I would consider massively partisan. The idea is that you should add verifable sources to these articles you disagree with, not delete them outright. I know finding verifable sources is more work, but it is more effective. You were trounced in the AfD, and you are close to being in an AfD. In otherwords, your partisan wikiediting is a failure. You can be partisan and get your point across, you just need to do it right. You are doing it all wrong, and you will be booted if it continues.

We are not talking about the other guy, that is a red herring falacy of logic. Please look it up. I use falacies of logic all the time in my partisan debates.

In otherwords: your level of partisanship does not decrease simply because someone is more or less parrtisan. The bottom line, is that you are incredibly partisan, and you are falling into the same traps that many others novice editors fall into. You need to realize that the other sides arguments have merit, and the only way you can be an effective editor here on wikipedia is use reliable sources, and when someone deletes those reliable sources, and you kindly ask them to stop, and they adminently refuses to stop, diplomatically use the "wikipolicy sword". Deleting articles and sections of articles you don't like is not only rude, but it is counterproductive, and against the spirit of wikipolicy. We are here to build an encyclopedia remember? My partisan edits and POV have stood for months, sometimes years. Why? Because I use reliable sources, impeccible sources, exhastive sources and I compromise with partisans and allow their voice to be heard too, those who refuse to comprimise, I use the "wikipolicy sword".

Your edit style is disruptive and a losing strategy, I can't say that enough. I have seen it a million times before, from all poltical views. If you keep it up, which you probably will, you will be indefinetly banned. The writing is on the wall. Now all I need to do is sit back and watch the train wreck. Travb (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had your old account on my watchlist, so I noticed the name change. May I ask a favor or request of you?

I notice that on the top of your page you have a "Friends" and "Super Friends" list that seems modeled after Morton Devonshire's little list. We could duck and weave all day on what "Special Friends" means, but I think you and I both know that it divides people into a "Friends" camp and an "enemies" camp. It wasn't okay when Morton did it (in fact, it drove me up the walls fuming), and I really don't think it's okay that you're doing it, either. It divides the Wikipedia community further along ideological/personality lines.

Right now, it's looking like you're getting more attention than you might like from people in high places. At the very least, you might want to pull down the list in the interest of not attracting more attention than absolutely necessary. Captainktainer * Talk 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea. Thanks for the advice. By the way, the Super Friends category and a sock puppet account playing off my user name were created by Tbeatty. Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That explains a few things. I'm glad that I was able to communicate with you and work against one of my little pet peeves. Happy editing. Captainktainer * Talk 03:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My solution: User:Travb#Important_wikiusers and I lump everyone together. I am glad that I saw this talk page topic, because if my User:Travb#Important_wikiusers section is attacked and deleted, Morton Devonshire's "Super Friends" will be a casulty of this new policy too, and I can use his "Super Friends" section to argue the validity of my own section. There is nothing like an external enemy to bring two ideologically opposed editors together as allies. :) This worked faulously in Predictions_of_Soviet_collapse with User:Rjensen, the most intellegent conservative wikieditor I have ever met, and someone I edit warred with for months on Business Plot. This pages history is a great case study in effective edit wars which actually make the article better and more balanced than before. Travb (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't mind too much lumping all users together. It's when the lists start getting separated (like the Kelly Martin /B brouhaha) and categorized (like Morton's page used to be before he refactored the whole thing) that I get nervous. We're already factionalized enough, particularly on the left/right spectrum, and there's nowhere near enough good faith running around. Even innocuous lists can become problematic if not carefully managed. Captainktainer * Talk 04:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Captainktainer, notice how User:Captainktainer is such a diplomat? He got you to remove that section, because he was nice about it. He obviously has been on wikipedia a long time, and knows how to get what he wants. i.e. you get more bees with honey then vinegar. I need to write more like User:Captainktainer.

(removed comment thanks for pointing this out MONGO--I usually remove comments which are not permitted ASAP) Travb (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't been on Wikipedia that long. Only since April as a registered user. I just try to treat people on Wikipedia like I try to in real life. It doesn't always work, haha, which is why I'll never be an administrator. Ah, well.

As for whether it's acceptable to say naughty things about those who have left the project, in general it isn't appropriate to do so. They may always return to the project, and then what has been said cannot be unsaid. I had to warn a user today about placing various comments on WikiWoo's userpage; even though WikiWoo is a known vandal and sockpuppeteer, community decorum still applies... with some reasonable deviations given the disruption caused by that user. Captainktainer * Talk 06:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not to dredge up a dead horse (I can't resist) why does it matter if you have friends and "super" friends? It's your damn page and if someone else doesn't like it then they should hike the hell outa the page.... and go worry about something important like admins abusing their powers... Just because of the "Cap" I am now creating my own list of "Superfiends"... sheesh. 74.241.140.49 06:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Sch.C3.A4denfreude

You may also be interested in the village pump article I wrote:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Politically_motivated_AfD.27s:_the_elephant_in_the_room

I've been following that - good reading - well argued. Fairness And Accuracy For All 05:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest finding an admin that is either neutral or sympathetic to you, maybe Thatcher, and complain that they are baiting you, which they are. Travb (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ignore 'em for now. I could care less what Moran Moron Morton does, writes or thinks. (strikethroughs OK per Admin see) Gonna be pretty busy until next Tuesday anyway. Working on a phone bank calling voters in tight races. I think we start in Tennessee tomorrow. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 05:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in a broken two party system like America has, you can vote for bad or worse, I am casting my ballot for bad this year, as I always do.

I will vote straight democrat for the congress and governor, but I don't know about anyone else. I think maybe I will simply not vote for the rest.

In my state, there is this troubling idea that you can vote for all judges, even supreme court ones, if I am not mistaken. Like the founders believed, there really should be checks and balances against "unrestrained democracy". That idea is alien today in a Big Mac super-size society which erroneously thinks that more always = better, but the founders [who most people unfortunatly worship like prophets in the Bible, (see American civil religion)], beleived differently. I am rambling. Good night. Travb (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Thatcher to watch your page, and the other editors who you have had edit disputes to unwatch your page, the full conversation is here:

User_talk:Thatcher131#If_you_the_time_and_patience and User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Suggestions

I have suggested on this page, that you voluntarily commit to not voting on or editing any AfD for one month, as User talk:Thatcher131 suggested I and another user do. I have voluntarily committed to not editing AfDs for one month (until November 30), despite the other user not voluntarily doing this. If you voluntarily did this, this would show that you have good faith intentions, and are willing to comprimise, if you or the other editor refuse, then it arguably shows that you don't.

It is important to get that "arse" image you have changed with other wikieditors.

Again, it is voluntary.

I have spent way to much time tonight with this. Goodnight.Travb (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never agree to that unless 'they' did. I'll try not to start any AfD's MfD's or ANI's unless I absolutely have to. I'll vote in AfD's, but will be less mouthy. How's that? I'll be pretty busy helping the DNC win the Senate to do much editing for the next week anyway. We already got the House won. It's so certain that they already shifted almost all of the emphasis onto the Senate. I'm SO looking forward to 'The Hearings'! - - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts and your willingness to comprimise, I have been busy these past few days, and I just opened up my account after a 6 day hiatus. Travb (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This says it all about the current Partisan POV of Wikipedia:

"I count 42 mentions of Bin Laden in the main Clinton article. By contrast, this main article for Bush has a grand total of TWO mentions of Bin Laden. (In fact, the main article on Bush had ZERO mentions of Bin Laden until I recently raised this issue myself in the "Discussion" area). I find this incredible. If you read the 2 articles, you pretty much get the sense that the fact Bin Laden remains a free man today is entirely due to Clinton. I've seen a lot of pro-GOP bias over the years on Wikpedia, but this issue sets a new low for this "reference" resource." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.120.67 (talk • contribs) 14:14, October 30, 2006. (on the GW Bush Talk Page)

Ain't that the truth! (All for naught come Nov 8 too!:-) - F.A.A.F.A 09:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around quite a while here. I do think that prior to a year ago, there was probably a slight liberal bias. There were certainly more liberal editors, but they generally tended to be quite careful of POV issues. I'd say today there is a fairly dramatic conservative bias, and your example is a good one. I have my opinions about why this is, but I won't speculate aloud. Derex 09:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was a Republican until the middle of this year, when I felt my party totally left me (and this country) behind and I joined the Democrats. I can understand why Derex probably wouldn't want to talk about it, but in my humble opinion, which I shall keep on this talk page, is that the conservative bias is becasue Wikipedia is being "Freeped" like CNN polls and other media which some conservatives feel is biased or not sympathetic enough to their viewpoint. It's one thing to add more information to gain perspective, it's another thing for one to promote their viewpoint on all.--Folksong 05:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to 'America's Party', FS. Both you and Derex are right. About a year ago there was an organized effort on several Conservative discussion forums to recruit Conservatives Republican GOP defenders to become more active on Wiki. It worked. - F.A.A.F.A 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do? Nothing. I just said on the talk page my opinion of how the article could be better, which is what the talk page is for. To talk about how to make the article better. Did I edit the John Kerry article? NO, I did not. Do I think that it is important for people to know how the soldiers who were supposedly being criticized felt, yes I do. If John Kerry said something about Hilary Clinton, then someone on Wikipedia would have put her response. But I don't see why you do not want the soldiers response, and I still do not see why you have a problem with me putting my thoughts on how to make the article better on the talk page. Also, I don't see why you complained about my editing when I didn't edit anything. Bcody 01:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No electioneering on Wiki! 'Keep control of the House'? LOL! - F.A.A.F.A 02:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said They might, or might not, keep control of Congress, If you had read what I had wrote in the first place then you would have seen that. I still don't see why you have a problem with me using a disscusion page for what it is used for, and I thought I made it clear before, I didn't even edit the article. Bcody 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Voters want Democrats, rather than Republicans, to control Congress by 52% to 37%, a 15-point margin. The spread matches the widest ever recorded on this question in a Journal/NBC poll."

What we have happening here on Wiki with the John Kerry article, and all over the Internets, now has a name.

It has been officially coined as Pre Election Desperation Syndrome. -They're behaving like cornered rats! - F.A.A.F.A 07:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what your background in PolySci is, but you might want to check the historical accuarcy of that particular question... Piuro 08:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The spread matches the widest ever recorded on this question in a Journal/NBC poll." - That's the qualifier. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beef up the article if you want it to stay, I am at work so I do not remember certain names etc, but something like this:

The documentary followed Bev Harris, an activist for Black Box Voting as she attempted to discover if the Diebold voting machines could be tampered with, and if in their previous election use, contained any irregularities. During the course of the documentary multiple methods of tampering with the votes are shown. The first is through editing of the database file that contains the voting totals, the second is through the program that tabulates the votes named GEMS, coded by Diebold, the last was through hacking the information on the Accu-Vote card to keep bad records. The final method was tested by the Tallahasse Department of Elections supervisor X, and showed contrary to a previous Diebold statement, the person attempting to rig the vote would only need access to the card and not the voting machine nor tabluation software.

Or you can go into detail about the attacks, also mention Bev finding the GEMS code online, finding that that county had false tapes from the machines. These are things that will make the documentary stand out as more then just another film, credit her and this documentary with exposing this stuff as well. As much as you complain about my voting on conspiracy articles our beliefs run pretty parallel, our methods just obviously differ. --NuclearZer0 22:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reposted from Tbeatty's userpage)

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. --Jayron32 06:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Jayron32 07:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Snowball says otherwise. Derex 07:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Jayron32 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

What I always do, when I want to put something behind me, and not be reminded of the bad feelings and controversy, is I archive my comments, sometimes immediatly. (See my talk page template for the policy behind this). That maybe something you maybe want to do now, or in the future. Travb (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tend to your own house: [2]. Everything you are accusing me of you yourself are guilty of. In fact, I actually have not urged people en masse to come to Wiki for the sole purpose of influencing the site. You have. (Ben, too.) Also, I rarely ask the few CUers who are experienced Wiki editors to get involved in things - they usually get involved on their own. Jinxmchue 18:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Wikipedia: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. --NuclearZer0 21:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Posting your message on multiple talk pages is spamming. You're already on probation. I'd hate to see you get banned. I know that you're very upset and bitter over the humiliating election losses, but you don't need take it out on me. Maybe you should take a Wikibreak? - F.A.A.F.A. 22:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:SPAM. Not all messages posted on multiple talk pages is considered wrong.[3] And your faux concern for his Wiki status is betrayed by your personal attack(s). You're really not helping your case when you make comments like that. Jinxmchue 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend acknowledging old sins and focusing on improvements you've made. As best as I can tell that's what you've done in practice, so just be up-front about it. Most of this RFC is based on ancient history, and that's frowned upon, as RFC's are supposed to help correct on-going behavior. Derex 00:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping in to make you aware that TBeatty has certified the RfC, and there was 2 days left anyway. Thank you for attempting to report the information repeatedly, however its listed at the top of the RfC. I thank you for realizing it was in the wrong location. --NuclearZer0 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a FYI: MONGO, one of the co-signers to that RfC, has admitted to working for the US Department of Homeland Security (See: User_talk:SkeenaR#Proof and the diff [4]). Isn't that cute, an abusive administrator working on behalf of the DHS and spending his time deleting pages and banning critics (See: Block Log NBGPWS where he treatened you with a permanent ban as well). Tinhatliberal 11:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? He's not on here as a DHS employee. I've got a paying job too, how about you? Nice contribs there, socky. Derex 11:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't advise you how to act under an RfC file against you, other than to say that impeccably appropriate behavior should always be exercised. Try to take criticism with grace, and know that two wrongs don't make a right. I have faith that you can be an upstanding, constructive, non-combatant editor if you want to be. A good thing to do would be to demonstrate that.

Peace. - Che Nuevara 08:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che is right, but I'll give you specific advice. It doesn't do any good for you to point the finger at someone else. Be accountable for yourself; admit errors with grace, and focus on improvements. Then, actually improve. NuclearZer0's role in this has been pointed out by others on the RFC, and that's where it's going to be most effective in establining a context. However, you really do need to really act impeccably at this point. To the extent you are provoking people I can't support you. However to the extent that people are provoking you, let me share with you this wisdom that Khaosworks laid on me a couple years back, and of which I should be more heedful.

I find that nothing fazes a provacateur more than refusing to be baited. It not only doesn't give them a reason to strike back, but that inability drives them crazy since I'm not giving them what they really want - the satisfaction of biting back. I take my shots carefully, and in as subtle a manner as I can.

Derex 11:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being completely serious and sincere about this. I shouldn't have made those comments and I thank you for pointing them out here. That and the comments others made about it helped me take a step back and realize that it was wrong. Jinxmchue 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I suggest that you and your Wiki buds make sure you have your emails enabled, and if you feel the need to vent, email them. A lot of people who don't edit Wiki don't understand the dynamics and issues here anyway. Cheers - F.A.A.F.A. 05:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove anything from the article. My edits all were additions, such as cn templates, a category, and a template to the talk page. I even left the FR cite, just tagged it for additional citation. Crockspot 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information I deleted was superfluous. There is simply no reason put everything he ever posted on FR as well as his profile in this article. This article is not about FR and what he posted there. Nor is the article about the chain of events that led blogs to associate him with FR. The article is about Costanga, and with the limited information we have from him from reliable sources shouldn't be much more than a stub.--RWR8189 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What he wrote is inclusionable and even REQUIRED by the article. He is notable BECAUSE of these actions (threats). I will list everything I can find which he wrote as noted in the afadavit and the actions he was charged with as noted in the afadavit and other RS, including calling Nancy Pelosi a 'cuntface' (moving discussion to talk page)

I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to User:Morton devonshire's userpage is unacceptable and you know it. If you can't get along with the other editors here, then you should seek out another forum. If I see this nonsense one more time, I will be forced to block you from editing. Please keep arguments centered on the material and not the editors. Thanks.--MONGO 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since tbeatty is apparently so upset over a little playful fun between other users that didn't even concern him he must be opposed to any and all such stunts. Or not. Take a look tbeatty's own sock puppet - he created an entire sock puppet account User:Fairness_and_Accuracy_for_Aquaman Tbeatty's Super Friend Sock Puppet account solely to 'vandalize' my FAAFA page and taunt me. (did I run to an Admin?} see Is it OK to create a sock just to play with another editor's page? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 07:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on dude. You've been given a chance to redeem yourself, and to some limited extent, you have, yet you keep pulling these childish pranks. Two wrongs don't make a right, Golden Rule, yada yada yada. In spite of the gains that you and I have made, you still illustrate that my initial contribution to your RfC was spot on. Prove me wrong and fly right. - Crockspot 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting nostalgic, right before I was indefinetly banned, several editors kept warning me to shut the hell up, and stop. I didn't.

I would suggest maybe making a sockpuppet and editing articles on wikipedia that have nothing to do with the current controversy you are involved with. (preferably non-political pages)

Put a wikivacation sign on your user page, and turn off your e-mail.

You must follow the sockpuppet rules though: It is important you do not edit the same wikipages that you do with Fairness And Accuracy For All. Change the link in your web browser to this new sockpuppet. I suggest not voting for any AfDs etc. with your new sockpuppet.

I did this with my sockpuppet User:RWV, and it worked really well. When another user messaged me at my sockpuppet, I quickly removed his comment to the archive, and asked him not to email me at the sockpuppet anymore.

You need to lay low and let the train wreck you created die down. Hopefully when you return, your editing behavior will change, otherwise you will eventually be booted indefinetly. Travb (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: [5]

Can you please reduce your endorsement of my outside view on the Seabhcan RfC to just a signature. Comments like the ones you left can be seen as baiting and I do not endorse that nor wish for it in my section. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:NuclearUmpf "gets it" he has evolved into a POV diplomat, whereas you are still a bumbling POV warrior, User:Fairness And Accuracy For All. I was going to delete those comments myself. Don't you get it User:Fairness And Accuracy For All? Think about it,

User:NuclearUmpf is probably getting a lot of grief for bravely endorsing Seabhcan, your stupid comments:

1. only agitate the situation,
2. give your ideological foes more ammunition for Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All
3. makes User:NuclearUmpf look bad for endorsing Seabhcan

User:NuclearUmpf handled the situation artfully and skillfully. I am very impressed at his transformation. Long after you are permanently banned, User:NuclearUmpf will continue to be editing wikipedia. I am happy to admit that all of my predictions about User:NuclearUmpf being eventually booted are wrong.

Look at the masterful way that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan is handling his RfC, compared to the bumbling way that you are handling things. You can learn from other editors behavior.

Maybe only an Arbcom ruling or a boot will make you change your behavior. It took me about 10 times getting booted for me to get to the point I am at right now. I was much like you when I first started editing wikipedia. Thankfully the editors I tangled with were not as skillful as the editors you are dealing with, or I would have been indefinetly banned last year. You do not have that luxury.

When you are angry at the state of the nation or the world, I suggest finding a web blog with little oversite, where you can voice your slanted, biased opinions. I suggest frontpagemag.org, for example. Posting your stong ideology here is only going to cause you continued grief. I still post on azplace.net when I want to vent my own ideological biases.Travb (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments -- I agree, Hayes (now Cheney's official biographer!) is still a key source of much misinformation on this topic despite being thoroughly discredited. I signed on the Seabcan RfC but my knowledge of his interactions is pretty limited - I based my signing on the evidence presented on the page (which is pretty minimal compared to what is claimed; hardly a real basis for an RfC!).csloat 23:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your username reflects what you expect from Wikipedia, I suggest you look elsewhere, though you probably already know that. Thanks for trying to help the project, though it's probably not going to do much, sadly. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 02:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning messages on this page have been subst'd using the AutoWikiBrowser . Note:This is not a new warning, but only some minor maintenance, following Wikipedias policy of subst'ing warning templates. Thank you.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inaugural ball is something I forgot about, IIRC Arkansas' governor and his band played there. And if you look at my contributions the AfD wouldn't be a surprise. My current project is excising Wikipedia of non-notable blogs and internet forums, my next may be neologisms .--RWR8189 07:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your stance on these terms seems grossly inconsistent. "Fitzmas" is far and away more well-known than "santorum," and "idiotarian" is even more well-known than "fitzmas." However, you nominated "idiotarian" for deletion for supposedly being a "Non-Notable Internet-only Neologism" and claimed that you would vote to delete "fitzmas," yet "santorum" is perfectly okay with you. Care to explain this? Jinxmchue 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: your response on my talk page - It doesn't matter where you personally have heard things. The fact of the matter is that "idiotarian" is more notable than "fitzmas," which in turn is more notable than "santorum." Your postion on the deletion and inclusion of these words on Wikipedia is inconsistent and betrays your POV attitude towards Wikipedia articles. Jinxmchue 14:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Santorumloser.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. You really should know better than to do this. — RWR8189 07:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC) --RWR8189 07:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not make personal attacks on other people as you did at Image:Santorumloser.jpg. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Par for the course, it seems. Jinxmchue 14:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Formerly known as NBGPWS - Now known as Fairness And Accuracy For All

• F.A.A.F.A. 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may consider any and all contentious posts from certain individuals an unwelcome attempt to harass and/or bait me. Any such comments may be removed at my discretion in accordance with WP. "Users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments (on their own talk page) at their discretion." -F.A.A.F.A. 06:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear something up, while I do not believe there are "conspiracy theories" about who knew who and did what. I do believe that some of the information is false or has been disproven. I also do not believe that Saddam and bin Laden had an active relationship, but through security forces/intelligence agency has a passive relationship. Similar to the fact that the president of the US never had an active relationship with bin Laden when he was a "freedom fighter", but the CIA surely did have a passive relationship. Figured I would drop this here since I seen you classified me as someone who doesn't agree with you, figured I would further explain my stance, I may drop into the article, but currently dealing with a user on one article has been time consuming and trying to bring peace to another article has turned quite ugly. --NuclearZer0 13:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It rises to the level of Conspiracy Theory when right-wing propagandists push disinfo long after the Gov declares the claims false:

"In a transcript of Rush Limbaugh's radio show, titled "Believe Hayes, Not 9/11 Commission," Limbaugh promoted Hayes's book and his contention of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Limbaugh also featured Hayes's book on his online "Limbaugh Library."

"Since the June 16 release of the 9-11 Commission Staff Statement No. 15, The Weekly Standard has published no fewer than six articles by Hayes challenging the commission's findings." - F.A.A.F.A. 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that article to me. It has no interest other than one for Wikipedia, and, for all I see, falls under Original Research (apart of some supporters of Bush in the US — and only some — I hear that all of the rest of the world has dismissed this propaganda some time ago - albeit too late...). On the other hand, events such as those portrayed in the Gladio article are accused of being "hoaxes"... Leave me a note if there is any decision taken about the article you mentioned; eitherwise, I fear not having much time to put in arguments about an article whose very title is misleading. Cheers! Tazmaniacs

I appreciate the innumerable requests and suggestions -- and yes, even pleas -- that I run for Administratorship. I am thinking it over, and will keep you all informed of my decision. I thank you in advance for your support, and for your future vote.- F.A.A.F.A. 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. It would be great fun. --Tbeatty 23:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. F.A.A.F.A. 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL... Ruthfulbarbarity 01:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am counting on your vote too, should I decide to run. F.A.A.F.A. 06:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strike while the iron is hot I say. You should proably should run while you have the throngs of innumerable pleas to run supporting you. Dman727 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THIS SPACE IS A USEBACA-FREE ZONE! Member #1 COUNTER-USEBACA Squad

WTF is USEBACA? Or do I even want to know? Crockspot 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Morty's talk page. Apparently Wiki is chock-full of CIA and NSA agents. It's even alleged he's one of 'em! F.A.A.F.A. 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my name isn't mentioned in the list of usual suspects, so I'd say they're off the scent. (Faxing an update to teh Rove). Crockspot 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Comic Relief position currently open at Wikipedia?

I might endorse you if that's the case. Ruthfulbarbarity 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, I plead with you. Please run for admin. You would have my support 100% Consider this an unequivocal endorsement. Morton devonshire 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do inform me if you do a RfA, I would love to participate in the discussion.--RWR8189 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome. As with the Protest Warrior article (and all others), I am solely interested that wikipedia policy is followed and applied fairly. If someone is inserting praise of the organization not from a reliable source I will, of course, be against its inclusion. Lawyer2b 03:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would like to be upfront and state that I have never been a member of Free Republic. You will remember me saying that I don't like to engage in personal attacks which I find is de rigeur on websites like that. I would much rather debate policy and issues. Peace. Lawyer2b 03:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.--RWR8189 09:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FAAFA. After having a look around, it does appear (as you said) that there's a pretty significant dispute going on at the talk page of Free Republic. after reviewing the last two sections, the edits of User:BryanFromPalatine appear to be disruptive and textbook examples of personal attacks, such as the section below:

"You have exhibited an impressive level of skill in ignoring certain inconvenient facts and distorting others in pursuit of your false accusations, a signature trait of long-term members of the Internet left. This reminds me of the witch hunt against Karl Rove."

I would suggest warning this user about the WP:NPA policy first and foremost. If this tendency or other disruptive editing habits continue to rear their head, I might suggest you either ask an administrator to, or yourself, open a Request for Comment (WP:RFC) for this user. Personal attacks and uncivil tone are all unacceptable for the environment at Wikipedia, and I am surprised that this user has managed to evade community notice for this long. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the talk page, especially the links to the opinions given on your application of the policy at this article. Lawyer2b 03:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned your name several times here:

User_talk:Stone_put_to_sky#A_Machiavelli_view_on_wikipedia

Looks like from your talk page, with all the warning messages here, you are on the way to being booteded. If I was a betting man, I would bet you will get booted. I am being very serious.

Before you are booted, can you advise: User_talk:Stone_put_to_sky#A_Machiavelli_view_on_wikipedia about how fun a RfC is?

Nuclear stated today on Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Need_for_an_Amenable_Set_of_Definitions: "If he wishes to continue in this antagonistic behavior" is an attack and if you continue them I will file and RfC." I take Nuclear at his word.

Please see: User_talk:Stone_put_to_sky#A_Machiavelli_view_on_wikipedia, as I wrote User_talk:Stone_put_to_sky, I am asking User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All, to advise you how fun RfC's are.

I archived your comments as per: Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette, I hope you don't mind, you can revert if you wish, the last comment was 3 days old, and you have been on wikipedia since then.

When people write me inflamantory things, or I get warnings, I thank them nicely, then archive the comments, so everytime I go to my talk page, I don't have to see the inflammatory comments, and therefore I won't get mad or depressed. I archived the comments once on Stone's page, and I think it helped difuse the tension a lot.

If anyone ever gives you grief about archiving your comments, let me know ASAP, and I will give them the wikipolicy riot act. Travb (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I archive them when they get too long. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just trying to help. If I start acting like an overbearing mother that you are glad you never had, just tell me. Travb (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as per Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette I am going to archive your comments. Thanks for your comments, if you would like to have the last word, please do. My response to you is in my latest archive, if you care to read it. I wish you the best of luck FAAFA. I only ask that in the future, you please don't put anymore articles up for deletion which are referenced and don't match your own POV. I know I can say things to you that I can't say to other wikiusers, I hope you understand why, and don't get offended by my blunt words. Travb (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UI) If you think a Neologism no more important than the Neologism 'Freeptard' desrerves its own article, an article sourced only from blogs that don't meet RS V, thats your opinion. I don't, and as I told someone, I would vote to delete 'Fitzmas' too. Nite! - F.A.A.F.A. 06:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning messages on this page have been subst'd using the AutoWikiBrowser . Note:This is not a new warning, but only some minor maintenance, following Wikipedias policy of subst'ing warning templates. Thank you.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inaugural ball is something I forgot about, IIRC Arkansas' governor and his band played there. And if you look at my contributions the AfD wouldn't be a surprise. My current project is excising Wikipedia of non-notable blogs and internet forums, my next may be neologisms .--RWR8189 07:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Aboutavaphoto.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 20:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed for speedy deletion by another user before I was even finished with the images for deletion process.

And you should really know better than to upload such unencyclopedic and copyright issue images to Wikipedia.

Not to mention I thought all the threads popping up around DU concerning that picture and ridiculing that little girl were absolutely disgusting, I hope you played no part in any of those discussions.--RWR8189 10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my rationale for deletion, I not once stated that any editor was trying to make a profit...I stated that the book was spam advertising. Your comment here indicates that you didn't read why I nominated the article for deletion. Please cease these ongoing mischaracterizations.--MONGO 17:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you insult...if you can't stop insulting others, then you need to read WP:CIVIL. You have been blocked many times, so I again ask you to refrain from continuing to be incivil. Thanks.--MONGO 11:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded from User talk:MONGO

I didn't mischaracterize anything, and I didn't insult you. You insulted your fellow editors by accusing them of profiteering and having ulterior motives - serious charges which you now refuse to prove. I suggest you not repeat your actions again. - F.A.A.F.A. 15:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I not once stated that any Wikipedian was seeking a profit. Your continued accusation that I did will not stand. You did indeed insult me and again, if this is the kind of behavior we are to continue to expect from you, then this will be a big disappointment, but not a surprise as you have been blocked numerous times already for these kinds of infractions.--MONGO 18:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, I didn't see Mongo accuse any editors of profiteering here. Unless you can show where he did, I think your username implies at least an acknowledgment for misreading/misinterpreting what he said is in order. FYI, I voted to keep on the book even though I think it's garbage. Lawyer2b 00:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was the content of the article on De.5, 5:00; last edit by Mobile_01; after that ther was ony orphanbot-edits and the tag for speedy deltion as copyvio, by you. At this point, because of the copyvio involved, it is not possible to undelete the history (at least to my understanding of the policy). I won't chime in on your sockpuppet controversy

Bridgestone Manufacture a Rubber Dam.

Since first deployed in 1978, the Bridgestone Rubber Dam has been installed in more than 20 countries. From icy rivers in Canada to tropical streams in Indonesia, raging mountain rivers in the western United States and the majestic Mississippi, the Bridgestone Rubber Dam has proved to be a cost-effective approach for solving problems in the irrigation, hydroelectric, recreation and water conservation industries.

The most important benefits of Bridgestone Rubber Dam are:

• Low cost compared to other controllable gates
• Low environmental impact
• Long service life
• Very low maintenance
• Simple construction and installation on new or existing foundation
• Excellent operational features in ice conditions
• Safe deflation under any conditions
• Ability to control water level

Regards. Lectonar 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the idea. Unless, of course, you really have all of those sockpuppets you're always accused of having. On second thought, still an Army of One. Cheers. Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-10DKP for failed attempt. --NuclearZer0 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, what's with you? Morton Devonshire^Yo 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Are you aware that you helped unblock a user (Dino) who claimed that he called the author of a particularly contentious article, and then claimed that this author said that he never wrote said article here (when he did write the article - and it's even archived on his website!) - and based on this info a Wiki Foundation employee (who is not an especially active editor) User:Carolyn-WMF edited a contested article and removed critical material based on these false claims by Dino? proof here I look forward to a complete investigation of this matter, and find the utter unresponsiveness of this WMF employee and another Foundation member, Danny Wool, when questioned about this matter by two Admins and two editors more than a little troubling."

The discussions involved in this unblock are available in the unblock-en-l archives. This user was not blocked because of those edits, he was blocked for being a sockpuppet and the consensus of unblock-en-l came to the consensus that the user was not a sockpuppet and deserved to be unblocked. Anything more is outside of my expertise in this matter. I'm not saying that there are no other issues, only that they were not involved with this particular block or unblock as far as I am aware. --Yamla 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Do you not look at other, still-unsettled issues, including the VERY serious, highly likely charges that he tricked a Wiki Foundation Employee into editing on his behalf, based on what I allege are deliberate and calculated lies* - issues that would mandate permanent blockage before unblocking such a user? - *[refactored] Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The block was for being a sockpuppet and this is what we looked at during the unblock. Note that this was not a unilateral decision to unblock this user. There's nothing preventing the user from being reblocked, however, if these issues can be substantiated. Please see WP:DISPUTE and the various noticeboards at WP:AN if you wish to file a complaint about this user. Please note that I am recusing myself from any such investigation due to my involvement on unblock-en-l. --Yamla 21:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA, if you disagree with the ruling at Unblock-en-l, you may pursue alternative methods of dispute resolution; but what you and BenBurch are now doing is unacceptable. Dino 14:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your sockpuppetry unblock. Your TJ Walker claims and interaction with the WMF in order to get them to edit on your behalf is an entirely different, unrelated matter. Fairness & Accuracy For All

Please drop the issue of the Dino unblock. Barring new info, it is done. Also, please be careful regarding civility William M. Connolley 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice to 'drop' the investigation against Dino, but it's not in Wikipedia's best interest to do so. It is not even sockpuppetry I'm talking about. Free Republic has a documented history of being so extreme (up until 9/11 when they underwent a 'sea change') that they theorized that Clinton bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City so that he could pass anti-terror legislation....

[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae09bb25c23.htm The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire]

[www.freerepublic.com/~actionnewsbill/links?U=%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2Fbrowse More claims from this time period]

Freepers even speculated that Clinton, not al Qaeda, bombed The USS Cole : "IMO the Cole bombing, if not another American Reichstag event, is AWFULLY convenient for a lot of Clinton goals.." [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a208ce00453.htm Cole bombing - An American Reichstag?] Wow... just wow.

Another incindiary thread from this period: [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a387c13bb5565.htm Sudden Instant Death Syndrome (Clintons)]

And the owner of the site himself was so extreme that he threatened he would 'take up arms' and 'be ready for war' if Bush were elected, calling him a 'cokehead and a felon'. [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bd2556430e.htm JimRob calls Bush cokehead and felon] I have never added anything to the Free Republic article but documented claims from verifiable secondary sources. (see) Free for all at Free Republic - Salon.com I will however wait until TJ Walker and American Politics Journal weigh in to verify or deny Dino's claims that TJ Walker admitted to him that he didn't write his July 06, 1999 article entitled 'Is FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com?' and that because of this they 'pulled' the article, before persuing this "Dino' matter with more vigor, and I'll make sure not to break NPA or CIVIL. Fairness & Accuracy For All

• Actually, I am not an admin so I can't really help you. Basically what I've been doing is closing and archiving cases in which the outcome has already been determined. In that particular one, all the accounts had been blocked. All I did was to put the archival box around it and note the conclusion. MER-C 10:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabal recommends that you stop baiting Dino on his user page. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'll try my best. (which Cabal? - I hope it's not the LaRouchians or 'Clammers'!) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 12:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

My response to Morty

I may consider any and all contentious posts from certain individuals an unwelcome attempt to harass and/or bait me. Any such comments may be removed at my discretion in accordance with WP. "Users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments (on their own talk page) at their discretion." -F.A.A.F.A. 06:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

	CABAL-FREE ZONE
	This user space is guaranteed to be 100% Cabal Free, and 'sanitized for your protection'. "Certified Grade A, 100% Cabal Free" - U.S. DIvision of Cabal Inspectors - D.H.S. Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Inspected by number 23[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your work in dealing with sockpuppet, specifically User:ClemsonTiger, I award you this barnstar as a measure of thanks. Chris 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You were a big help with the directory too. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company2.0, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Your comments to Tbeatty are not appreciated. Since you are clearly mischaracterizing his edit summary, and he has asked you to quit readding the comment, would you please do so?

Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for 24 hours for this [6] edit summary among other things. Comparisons with Stalin are pretty much 100% unhelpful. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - probably deserved it -- But having my comments deleted three times by Tbeatty was pretty damn annoying. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe next time don't readd them twice, then it will only be one third as annoying. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True dat! LOL! - Fairness & Accuracy For All

(joke) In the words of one nearly-famous Wikipedian....:"My entire purpose here is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for libel bring more humor to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia administrators understand that." Fairness & Accuracy For All

• Well done for taking it in good part. Please do try WP:DR, it may help to resolve these disputes. Also perhaps read some of TBeatty's work on articles less politically charged, it may help you to respect him more as an editor. I have tried this several times with people I've been in dispute with. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a friendly, easy-going guy in most cases - but its pretty frustrating dealing with editors who know WP well enough to argue entirely contradictory understandings and application of the same WP depending on if they're trying to include something, or exclude something. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Fairness & Accuracy For All

Oh the irony! :o) Guy (Help!) 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Tbeatty : Sorry my tongue-in-cheek attempts at humor fell flat with you. Seriously though --your repeated actions of raising the spectre of Willy Horton when talking about the Peter Roskam article is an example something that political operatives advise against. (unless you are trying to bias others against Roskam, that is). You see -- these actions have planted the mental image of, and thoughts about a convicted rapist and murderer in the same 'mental frame' as Peter Roskam - in my mind -- and possibly the minds of others reading your comments -- probably not what you intended. Politics 101, Mr. Beatty. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when someone archives their talk page, the removed edits are put in an archive. Otherwise, it would be more accurate to leave an edit summary that simply said "deleting". —Doug Bell ^talk 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps like me, you didn't know that a blocked editor can't even edit their own archive pages. I saved the edits in a text file for when my 24 hr is up. Apologies will be graciously accepted. - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Perhaps you should ave waited... Guy (Help!) 16:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did know that, which is why when the "Archiving" comment went by not once, but twice, in my watchlist I came and looked into it. Since I archive my talk page by including links into the page history instead of maintaining a separate archive, I figured that maybe you used the same approach.

Perhaps you should have reverted the changes back once you found you couldn't archive them.

And had I said something requiring an apology, I would offer one. I was merely commenting on your action, not assuming bad faith. It had occurred to me that you might be planning what you said, but the fact that you made two passes removing comments from this file did not quite fit with that scenario since it would be logical that you had tried to start or edit the archive file after cutting the first chunk of comments from the talk page and would have discovered your problem before cutting the second chunk out. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't considered the scenario that after I discovered that I couldn't access my archive page, and created a text file, I went ahead and archived more comments to this text file because I didn't think it was any big deal, or that anyone would actually care, as I planned on adding to them to the actual archive page as soon as the 24hr is up. I admit that 'apologies' was a smart-ass remark. That's probably cause I'm a smart-ass. (with little respect for authority as well!) Sorry if it upset you. I consider this matter closed. I hope you do as well. Peace. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered your option, just considered it unlikely enough to make my comment. No worries, I'm much harder to upset than that...matter closed. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand that relying on the history is recognized as one of the acceptable archiving methods. It is better for those editing on controversial subjects to be completely scrupulous about all procedure & technicalities, letting any possible breeches by their opponents contrast with their own good faith and openness. (removing true attacks is of course permissible--though some clever editors move them to an archive page of their own). Just friendly advice.DGG 00:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please remove the threat from my user page and maybe if so inclined run a checkuser on what IP or user posted it? Thanks - Fairness & Accuracy For All 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I alerted on it Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Death_threat_posted_to_user.27s_page. --BenBurch 03:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ben! I don't believe its a legit death threat or even a legit threat though, only some pathetic loser's attempt to harrass me. They say you're a 'nobody' on Wiki until you've been threatened. I guess I have arrvived. LOL ! I wish the troll would have used The Godfather allusion with the horsehead in the bed though! Much 'more better'! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 03:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take all such threats seriously, and where the perps can be found out I always hand them over to the authorities. --BenBurch 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably good advice. I just read a disturbing account on a Wiki-critical site about one Wiki editor's inappropriate actions towards another editor - who was a 16 year old girl! There are some sicko-psychos out there in cyberland! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 05:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that kind of crap continues to happen on your userpage, put in a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP.--MONGO 06:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MONGO - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus warning removed - FAAFA (The Chosen Vessel of the Remaining Bride) 20:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the timing on the post there. My apologies. What Dean does and gets away or doesn't get away with on ANI is not currently up to me, but he's been pushing across the line of the proposed community sanction in my opinion. We'll see what happens, whether he backs off or whether it gets enforced or what. Georgewilliamherbert 23:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an arbitration request over the current situation at Free Republic, as well as other articles. You are an involved party in the request, and may make your response there. Thank you, Prodego ^talk 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone beyond WP:ANI. This situation is harmful, it has stopped being a contained article dispute. It is now turned into an all out brawl, on many pages. It would be very difficult for me to withdraw arbitration now that I have informed everyone, and an outside user has commented. In fact, I am not sure I can do it at all. Also, under the current situation, I think this arbitration is necessary. You only need to make one comment (not even that if you chose not to) and the rest is up to arbcom. Also, what ban are you talking about? Only arbcom can ban, and none of you are blocked? Prodego ^talk 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This ban. Proposed_community_ban Your RfA was well-meaning, but I believe out-of-order when other remedies had already been proposed, and were in active discussion. - FAAFA 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't really do anything about it now. We will have to wait to see if arbcom decides to accept or decline the case. Had I known about it, I would not have made the request now, but since I have, I really have no choice. I do believe this is necessary though. Prodego ^talk 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will suggest that they decline pending the outcome of this proposed community ban. I hope you won't disagree. - FAAFA 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no problem with that. In fact, I recommend it. Prodego ^talk 00:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only hold out:

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company2.0 Please accept or reject. Travb (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is meant to mount a persuasive case why the case should be accepted by ArbCom, meaning that you should say that a party of the case has been disruptive, has not listened to consensus, has continued to edit war, etc. (these are not accusations against anyone, but just examples). What you seem to be doing is listing all the evidence against DeanHinnen out to the open prematurely and clogging up the page (so is DeanHinnen's long, winding statement that I can condense into seven words). All you need are a few select and convincing qutoes. The rest can be presented later. Feel free to contact me for more clarification. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, basically this is just a request to accept the case, and unless they chose to do so(1/0/1/0), evidence is not presented. Prodego ^talk 01:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company2.0. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

With regards to your comments on User talk:EVula: 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 will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I can understand your frustration, but there's no reason to actually insult me over a mistake on my part. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you 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 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to add to the evidence page. It is where the arbcom gets its info from. You should create a section and put any and all evidence you have that would support the remedies you want the arbcom to give. Remember they get a lot of their info from that page, be sure to present you case. Prodego ^talk 02:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a confirmation that she was a foundation employee, and then he said that my block was an appropriate action. [7] and [8]. Prodego ^talk 01:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: If you do this, or anything remotely like it, again, I will block you. Whether the arbitrators hear Tbeatty's evidence unrelated to Free Republic is up to them, but such actions will pretty much guarantee that they will. Thatcher131 14:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[comment from unwelcomed editor read, noted, and redacted] FAAFA

I'm going to expand the FR section instead and have already moved your proposals. Acceptable? Thatcher131 01:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am not going to make any proposals dealing with Tbeatty's evidence against you. The arbitrators may or may not wish to pursue it, but I have a feeling it should be heard as a spearate case, if at all. Thatcher131 01:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking another editor while an ArbCom on you is in progress is very foolish. I have blocked you for 24 hours to give CWC some peace. Hinnen is a zealot, monitoring his edits in a calm and civil manner is, in my view, at least excusable, but following CWC round with your inflammatory edit summaries is just not on. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's TOTAL BS! After reading his totally INCORRECT BS revisionism and spin about politics, I decided to look at a few of his articles. I picked a couple subjects that I was knowlegable on, like Power Line and corrected innaccuarcies OR and POV. Every edit I made was totally accurate and factual, as were my edit summaries. Neoconservatism is distinct from Conservatism, but the Neocon supporters here are embarassed at the label, since it's not so popular with bush's disaster in Iraq, so they're trying to delete these FACTS when they can. THIS is POV. What you're doing is harassment too. I urge you to unblock me. FaAfA 14:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. What you did was to follow Chris and bait him. Don't. Don't even think about it. It's just about acceptable with Dino because he's a tendentious editor and a consistent problme, Chris is not, he's an editor in good standing, it's not acceptable to follow him round assertiong your POV over his POV using aggressive edit summaries. It's just not. It's not like this is a secret. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and as I said in my email ( I was going to edit for tone and 'hostility' but as you might well post the actual text of the email - so I decided to leave it unedited):

"Unblock me, and I agree not to edit his POV filled dishonest attempts to make raging moonbats look middle-of-the-road for at least 24 hrs.

Note that blocks are not punative, they're preventaive, and I just agreed to what you said your block was intended to accomplish. I need to post on the RFAr too.

What the fuck is wrong with Wiki, that can somone expose themself as being full of shit and dishonest to boot like CWC did over the last 24 hours, and another editor can't make good faith efforts to remove their blatant dishonest spin from Wiki????"

He also has now lied about ME on the protest warrior talk page, and you refused to remove that lie, when asked. My take on your actions is that you're trying to 'assert your Admin powers' to 'rein me in', (normal) but that in light that I agreed to not edit his pov filled writings for the length of time of my block, that you ARE being punishing not perventative, as I want to work on the RFAr. I asked the Admin who unblocked DeanHinnen to unblock me as well. Peace Now! - FaAfA 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fairness And Accuracy For All (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

undeserved block (see below)

Decline reason:

Declined because this is only a 24-hour block, and with an ArbCom proceeding underway, your behavior was unhelpful. Take Guy's warning to heart. Mangojuice^talk 13:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

In the past 36 +/- hours User:Chris_Chittleborough made two intentional misrepresentations about two editors, and in talk, posted specious inaccurate discredited POV consisting of his revisionist misinterpretations of American politics. (he's an Aussie, and apparently doesn't know American politics well)

Please see the following page - last section. The pertinent discussion starts with: "Calling Dean Hinnen a neo-Nazi is improper"

User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All/rfa

After CWC intentionally smeared and defamed Admin Guy (Guy used the term 'far-right' not 'neo-Nazi') and posted his inaccurate totally-discredited conjecture about American politics, I decided to check if he played as fast-and-loose with the truth in his edits. I looked for articles where I knew the subjects.

I found two articles where I was intimately familiar with the subjects. I made a couple minor edits, and on an article that was 75% unsourced OR, added a template. My edit summaries were civil. CWC immediately complained about me 'wikistalking' him! Guy, who's involved in an RFAr in which I am a party, and who has been repeatedly accused of taking 'my side', blocked me. I won't speculate if he was trying to 'even the playing field' in response to these accusations of favoritism.

I deny any 'wikistalking', and reassured Guy that as an act of good faith I would agree not to edit any of the articles CWC edits that I haven't previously edited for 24 hours, and noted that "blocks are not punitive, they're preventative, and I just agreed to what you said your block was intended to accomplish. I need to post on the RFAr, [and remove CWC's intentional misrepresentation about me] too."

There was no convincing reason for this block, (Guy even speculated that he thought I was trying 'to test the Admins' (paraphrasing - unlike another certain editor I don't like to put words in other people's mouths) a distinct lack of AGF - and now that I have agreed to what the block hoped to accomplish, its unneeded, and only punitive.

If I am not unblocked, I ask that an Admin redact CWC's intentional misrepresentation here:

link

The false claim is "(FAAFA has now repeatedly claimed to be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, yet he favours unnecessary change here? How ... odd.) " Please refactor this specious distortion.

Thanks - FaAfA 03:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I may delete any comments from my provaceteurs, after they're read, without notice

(hopefully one of 'em won't create another SPA just to troll this page, like he did in the past ! ;-)

• I mean these comments sincerely, and am not attempting to bait or troll. You take everything to a too personal level. I seem to remember you putting words in my mouth on several occasions, the last time when you announced that I was a vehement defender of the Swift Vets. I don't think I've even ever edited the Swift Vets article. I was involved in a dispute over the definition of the word "swiftboating", but that's about it as far as I can remember. But I didn't find it necessary to make demands for refactoring, or to set the record straight, because, really, what does it matter? We should be worried about content, not personality issues. My God, you weren't able to "set the record straight" for a 24 hour period. Teh Wiki will dry up and blow away... You or I could disappear off the face of the Earth, and Wikipedia would still go chugging along without so much as a hiccup. You take it too personally when you perceive a slight, and you take personal shots at others with almost every edit, either in the summary, or in the edit itself. (At least that is my perception, as you have never addressed something to me without at least a smartass edit summary. It really reflects poorly on you.) I know you're not stupid, and you can write pretty well. If you just stopped with the personal/personality issues, most of your problems would disappear. Look how much energy of your own and of two admins that you've wasted trying to get a 24 hour block unblocked. Jeez, it was a 24 hour block. Go rent a couple of movies and come back after it expires. It's not the end of the frickin' world. (Hasn't it expired already?). - Crockspot 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Crockspot, you are 'misremembering' things (possibly out of your dislike for me):

My 'guestimate' is about 40-50 Swiftboat edits edits

"never addressed you without a smartass summary"

False - we worked together collaboratively on the Mike Stark article.

I have a different take on things. I feel that you are the one who 'got their hackles up' over the Ava Lowery / CU dispute. I seems to me that after your attempts to use Non RS-V OR (forum posts) to invalidate an RS V source (The Progressive) on the Ava Lowery article were Admin denied (The Progressive article named CU as a source of harassment - I got a kick out of your denial that when a CU member told a 15 year old Ava to "go masturbate to a pic of Cindy Sheehan" that they couldn't have known her age! Her age is stated EVERY time she is mentioned. That's much of her notability - if she were a 30 year old - she'd get very little press) (you actually 'vandalized' that article with a hoax template, arguing that OR forum posts 'proved something'), your attempts to use OR in the DU article were overruled (a blogger wrote a script that supposedly 'counted the members' ! but when Ben ran it - it came out 2-3X what you claimed. Ouch!) and the CU article got deleted, you personalized these issues to my determent. I can point to several posts in the last FEW DAYS where you have maligned me on talk pages (and an ANI?), in disputes that have NOTHING to do with me - solid proof of your resentment - But you told Ben: "PLEASE stop invoking my name in a negative way, or I will start making administrative complaints. You savvy?". I dropped the axe and told you that I was willing to work with you a long time ago, CP. You never did, and you're still 'swinging that axe' at my head on a regular basis. I'm now telling you: PLEASE stop invoking my name in a negative way, or I will start making administrative complaints. You savvy?" Drop the axe CP. Now. - FaAfA 21:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[comments redacted] FaAfA

• If you're going to remove my response to your [*claims], but leave your [*claims] standing, at least have the common decency to put a link to what you deleted. If you're going to remove part of it, why not remove the entire exchange, starting with my first comment? (I have no problem with that). - Crockspot 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)PS. My problem with you has never been about any particular dispute, it has always been about your behavior and incivility. I cannot remember a time when you have not acted like a complete immature jerk. The only exception was for that few hours when you acted like a human, and we were able to work together. I had to give up though, because you stopped behaving as soon as I confirmed on your RfC that we were "working together". You used me to make you look good on the RfC, then you stabbed me in the back. As the Chimperor says, Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, uh, you don't get fooled again. I'll never trust you, and the main reason I don't edit at WP much anymore is because of your behavior, and the WP community's willingess to tolerate your bullshit. - Crockspot 21:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC) [*refactored][reply]

You think I READ your Swiftboat edits??? LOL ! I was merely keeping an eye of the mythical 'cabal' for AfD's, attempts to POV LIBERAL subjects. (or conservative subjects that I actually CARE about) If I had seen 20 edits from you to the DNC article, for instance I WOULD have read them. Swiftboaters? I just don't care. At ALL. You can write that they're 'Freedom Fighters' and 'The Moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers' like Reagan called Osama and friends, and the Contra terrorists, and I wouldn't care! Go for it! I may be wrong, but I'm feeling a LOT of anger from you, and have for a while. Since approx early November. LOL! I'll edit my user space as I see fit. Please don't vomit your anger on this page again. Thanks - FaAfA More : I have no problem with editors who demand civility and no nonsense from EVERYBODY, but when someone condemns MY behavior but cheers on similar behavior from MONGO and Morty - that's a problem. Bye Bye. Be well. Just quit harassing ME. - FaAfA 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Similar behavior" -- just what are you talking about? I have been perfectly civil with you. If I haven't, let me know what it is, and I will apologize.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morty - You're an unrepentent WISE ASS like me, and it annoys the shit out of some stuffed shirts like SIMILAR behavior from me does. FaAfA 22:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of stuffed shirts, you mentioned something about talking about tin-foil hats on the Arbcom page -- can you provide me a link -- I could never find it.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in here Link At least you get my humor :-)! FaAfA

[redacted] FaAfA

[redacted] FaAfA 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chill. Seriously. Ain't that important. Call up some girl you haven't seen in ages and go drink grande lattes made with burnt coffee. --BenBurch 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I think I'm going to write a certain, completely non political article which I've been planning for a long time over the next few days. (along with defending myself against the people who want to silence me) - FaAfA 03:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone other than Dean wants to silence you, but I agree with the "This is a good time to take a short break" comments. Whatever you want to do that's not WP admin stuff related, go do it for a bit. Just walking away from the keyboard for a couple of days helps a lot; the discussions won't go anywhere in the next couple of days. Relax, enjoy yourself, try and stay centered when you get back. Peace. Georgewilliamherbert 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive agreed to take on mediation. We can get started now at the mediation talk page, as there are multiple articles involved. Thanks -Ste|vertigo 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation takes place on the discussion page Mediation Discussion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mobile 01 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Don't know if I'll have the time - we'll see. FaAfA (npa) 09:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The continual sniping on the Workshop page, and the sheer length of the page at this point, are going to make it almost impossible for the arbitrators to use effectively. Please limit any further contributions to the page to information that you think is necessary to a decision. I know this is difficult to do, but it's in everyone's best interest for the people who have to decide the case to be able to follow the arguments. Newyorkbrad 03:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text you re-posted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence did not come from User:Apj-us-nyc, it came from an anon - user:69.203.110.35....see diff --rogerd 04:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FaAFA. I think you did a great job with this message — so much so that I've taken a copy for my own future use in similar situations. Thanks, CWC(talk) 12:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the funny reply, it's given my lots of smiles.

But I really came here to tell you about http://www.dontvote.org/. Check out the low percentages of correct answers for some rather important people. (You might have to do the quiz first.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that Image:Apj.jpg is "a screenshot of a copyrighted Wikipedia web page" is incorrect. It appears to be a screenshot of another copyrighted web page that is almost certainly a copyright violation. At the bottom of APJ's pages it clearly says "© 2007 American Politics Journal". --rogerd 11:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--rogerd 11:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image is reproduced with the permission of American Politics Journal Publications. All rights reserved. -- Apj-us-nyc 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post again on User talk:DeanHinnen. There is no reason to further inflame the situation. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not modify User:DeanHinnen again either. Newyorkbrad 23:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your chin up and give'm hell. Don't let the Stalinist get you down. Fescue4u 04:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...but based on your "proof", I assume that Apj-us-nyc can speak for his/her self. I won't even read anything into the fact that you both have an interest in the blues. Heck, there are a lot of different people who like the blues. --rogerd 13:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go refactor your reply. I don't like being made to look like I supported you AFTER that outburst of yours. ThuranX 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After your disgraceful conduct on WP:AN/I, as well as a cursory look at your contribs, I've blocked you for a week for persistent incivility, personal attacks, and just plain meanness. Please moderate your tone once your block expires. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to correct myself. Please moderate your tone immediately, so that you can contribute usefully to this project once your block expires. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

Given your continued disruption and personal attacks on this talk page whilst being blocked, I have restarted and extended your block to 10 days, as well as protected this talk page for the same time period. I have noted this action on the ANI thread for further discussion.[9] I have removed the personal attacks as well as the disruptive image placement (which is, really, a personal attack as well). Daniel Bryant 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your emails. Please do not bother sending more, my tolerance for aggressive personalisation of low Wikipedia drama is strictly limited. When you are in a hole, it is usually wise to stop digging. For your information, my politics are very very different from those of TBeatty, and it took considerable efforts on your part to overcome my natural liberal tendencies. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]