User talk:Bmedley Sutler

Hi, and welcome to WP. I'd be interested in reading your papers if you post them online. While we could use the references your paper may cite, in its claims, we wouldn't be able to use your papers directly for articles on WP, since that would constitute what is known as "original research." But, I am interested in reading your papers.Giovanni33 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You can now edit the US State Terrorism page. I requested unprotection and it was granted.Giovanni33 03:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding

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

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

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

Forum Shopping

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

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

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

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

RfC comment on waterboarding talk

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

Why...

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

Be careful

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

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

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

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

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

Zeitgeist the movie

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks and WP:Civil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks but no thanks

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

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

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

Unexplained moves

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

Unblock request

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

---

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

Comment as reviewing admin for 1st unblock request:

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

---

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

Proof of unfair block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy your stay

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

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

Note to Ultramarine

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

Your version starts out with misleading POV:

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

The truth:

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

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

I AM FREE!

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

You still dont get it

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you joking ALKIVAR?

You write:

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

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

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

Deetjen's

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

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

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

Dirty Sanchez

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

Joe Birkett

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

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

Reply (Crockspot RFA)

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

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

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

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

Journalism

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

NPA

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

Association fallacy of Osama bin Laden quotes

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

BLP

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

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

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

Linking

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

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

Bear's story

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

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