User talk:Bellowed

Banned messages

I'm wondering why you have deleted the messages that a user has been banned from the talk pages of a number of articles? Is this Wikipedia policy? The messages are less than a month old, I believe. Hgilbert 10:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bellowed! Thank you for your message on my talk page. It would be a good idea to ask administrators what to do with his pages. Erdanion 22:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comment at Erdanion's Talks page. Thebee 00:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my user pages. --Pete K 05:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, if you spread distortions or if you slander someone on your user page like you are doing about HGilbert, I will go onto your page and correct you. I will not stand by and allow you to continue your smear-campaign.

Otherwise, I will be most happy to stay off. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to back up your claim of slander - or retract it? Otherwise, you are slandering me. --Pete K 21:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to defend myself against someone like you. All anyone has to do is look into my claim for five minutes and they'll see the truth. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righteousness does not make a very good defense. You either have the goods to say I slandered someone or you don't. Defend it or retract it. --Pete K 14:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I learned long ago not to even attempt defending myself against unreasonable people. It's a no-win situation. If I offer evidence, you will spin it around and deny all the evidence I presented and still demand a retraction. I'm not going to waste my time. If someone wants to look into it, they can.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 15:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bellowed, when I at one time requested that Pete substantiate an as far as I remember libelous statement by him about me he answered that he would do it in court if I sued him, but not otherwise. He seems to like such types of answers. Feel free to use his method. Thanks, Thebee 16:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How funny. Thanks for the advice Thebee. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you've got nothing to support your statement that I have slandered anyone. THANKS! --Pete K 20:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete K:

In other words, ...

Not in his his words, nor "in other words". In your dream as wish.

Thebee 22:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Sune... Wrong again. Unsubstantiated claims... you should know about these - you have a whole website full... actually, three websites isn't it? Bellowed, be a man - support your claim or retract it. --Pete K 02:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O'Reilly

I upgraded the cites to O'Reilly in both Moyers and Soros. FYI, Factor transcripts are archived in the O'Rielly section on the FNC website, so there is almost always a good written version available of whatever is on the show. - Crockspot 20:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soros

Your message on my talk page amounts to: "If you want to remove lies from the Soros page, you must also remove facts from the George W. Bush page."

And since you clearly know nothing about Goethe, please leave him out of it. — goethean ॐ 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the LIES vs. FACTS comment you made above makes me seriously question your bias towards any editing you do on political matters. I cannot assume good faith with comments like these. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your change to George W. Bush. Please see WP:POINT; the content you removed was not libelous and clearly states that the allegations are made by activist Michael Moore. - auburnpilot talk 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to review the definition of libel; in the United States statements must be demonstrably false to be considered libelous. Natalie 17:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help Natalie, but, honestly, I know that it's not libelous. You should tell what you told me to the people over on Soros's page, Natalie. Auburn Pilot was right, the only reason I made those edits was to make a point. I'm trying to show them how ridiculous their interpretation is. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 17:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you continue inserting it without a strong consensus on the page in favor of its insertion, I might lock the page or block you. I'm leaning towards the latter at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you win the "cool as a cucumber award"? Sure they didn't mean "pickle"?|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty cool about this; don't mistake firm resolve for anger. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not your threat of imposing the 3RR that made me say you were losing your cool; it was the fact that, you, an admin, instigated an edit war with me. Other editors were backing off the reverts because of the arguments I was making and, even still, other editors were making constructive edits even though they didn't like the material and were not reverting. You, however, seemed to desire only to impose your will on that page, a page which you admitted to knowing little about, and then say that "you all should work things out on the talk pages." Like I said, that's what we were doing. We were working it out on the talk pages and making constructive edits that were leading somewhere, until your award turned into a pickle. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

No-one's given you one of these yet:

Welcome!

Hello, Bellowed, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

WP:TALK

Please note that WP:TALK says to post on talk pages in chronological order with the oldest posts first - your post here is better placed at the end, with colons (:) for spacing. I've taken the liberty of moving and spacing it for you, and have added a reply. Happy editing!

WLU 02:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for upholding Wikipeidia policy.

I award Bellowed this barnstar in appreciation of your efforts to uphold WP:NPOV, WP:BLP / WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:CIVIL policy.
--JoeBonham 17:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

Please remember to be civil to other editors. Edits like this are not helpful to the project irrespective of circumstances. WLU 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moyers

I added one of the sources from the Moyers article to the mention of Moyers in the O'Reilly article. There is also no mention of O'Reilly (that I can see) on the Moyers talk page, except for the section that I just added, so you should comment there to help build a consensus. - Crockspot 19:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea Crockspot. I'll start a discussion up there here later today or tomorrow. Thanks for the idea. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for this bit of "consensus engineering." It's rare to have the tactic spelled out as it is here. This will be extremely helpful at the RFC for the Moyers article. Eleemosynary 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleemosynary, your violations of WP:NPA makes me wonder why you are not blocked again? Your seem not to want to cooperate but to attack and slander. Why are you not showing good faith?Willie Peter 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notification of suspected sockpuppet report

Just so you are aware: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willie Peter. I'm skipping the tag on your userpage because this is an isolated, simple incident and I see no reason to hurt your reputation when checkuser is pending.--Chaser - T 06:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the consideration. I appreciate it and am looking forward to having this resolved. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser came back unrelated. Thanks for your cooperation and sorry for bugging you.--Chaser - T 01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. Thanks for being so professional about it. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 01:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And thank you for saying so.--Chaser - T 01:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this advice - [1], it's to bad, I get no apology, since I'm the victim of an out of control editor. Oh, well - Wikipedia policy of WP:CIVIL WP:NPA and WP:AGF are just for some and not all? Also, since I'm new, any edits I make will draw out the Pov gamesters with more accusations, it will never end. This has left a bitter taste in my mouth.Willie Peter 06:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy shopping

You may find the essay on policy shopping interesting and relevant to some ongoing discussions. :-) /Blaxthos 16:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he saw it. I had linked to your essay earlier in the debate, thus his use of the word. I'm not sure if it is clear from that convoluted debate, but my remark was not about Bellowed, but another editor there. - Crockspot 16:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blaxthos, I love your essay. It definately does put into words the whole situation going on over there, so good work. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll to settle Soros discussion

I'm asking for a straw poll to settle the Soros discussion. Please participate. Smallbones 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my Talk page

Rest assured no one is "following you." However, if you continue to state untruths, ignore consensus, and bait and troll on Talk pages, as you have done on both the George Soros and waterboarding page, don't be surprised if other editors revert you.

Also, you may be interested to know that "JoeBonham" who awarded you a barnstar (above) has been revealed as a block-evading sockpuppet of Joehazelton (as was Willie_Peter), and has been banned indefinitely. --Eleemosynary 18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't agree with sockpuppeteering--it's sneaky and you can create false consensus, etc. However, I will say that I can understand his frustration. Teams of biased editors who gang up on a single editor who wants to change "their article" are the real reason sock puppets exist. So I don't feel all that ashamed by accepting his barnstar. Further, anyone who is an enemy of yours is a friend of mine. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your tortured, entirely incorrect defense of sockpuppetry has been noted. As has your paean to a user fond of making death threats. Thanks for saving a lot of time. --Eleemosynary 05:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did it ever occur to you that if you didn't engage in disruption, harassment, gaming the system, constant reverting and biased editing that perhaps he might be just a normal editor instead of a sock? Just a thought.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And not a coherent one, as this particular user began his sockpuppetry over a year ago, and I only encountered him last month [2]. But your mischaracterizations of my edits are not all surprising, considering you've long employed "disruption, harassment, gaming the system, constant reverting and biased editing," then, in a bit of schoolyard sophistry, have falsely accused others of these very same things.[3] But, once again, your support of a user who has made death threats to several editors (but not me) has been noted. --Eleemosynary 00:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I was wrong. Again, I don't support this kind of behavior, but I do think that you ought to back off of your incivility and disruption because it only will cause others to want to do the same type of thing, even sockpuppetry. I asked you before to stop accusing me of sophistry, but I see that my words only made you come up with even worse accusations since now you're callign it schoolyard sophistry. Please stop. Please stop following me, harassing me, and reverting me with obviously contrived merit like you just did on the Giuliani page. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 01:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to justify sockpuppetry. Noted. Your continued accusations of harassment are themselves harassment. Cease the schoolyard sophistry. --Eleemosynary 01:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please desist from your ongoing POV pushing at Waterboarding. You are unwilling to produce any references and citations to further your revisionism, and the article is tagged controversial, the talk page clearly requests citations and references for major edits. Additionally no one appreciates your harassment of Eleemosynary. You have been harassing him, and engaging in spin in claiming it is the other way around. 24.7.91.244 19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that both editors have been harrassing each other, and it started before the waterboarding dispute. Have you ever edited under another account or IP? You seem strangely familiar with the players. Your piling on does not help the situation, and could be seen as disruptive itself. - Crockspot 20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me, various comcast Bay Area IPs - most show up on waterboarding hist. It's my first run in with them - but I have tosay whilest they are both warring with each other, it's bellowed who is causing problems with the article. Whatever Eleemosynary's reasons are - his assistance with Bellowed's POV pushing on waterboarding have been welcome. Once upon I time I did edit under a user, though never on any article these two know about - I dropped it after getting sick of warring and stalkers, plus I spent way too much time on Wiki. I intend to confine myself to waterboarding and won't be following either into other articles as this runs and runs - it seems this row spilled into waterboarding from Rudy & Soros, when rows move it can become geometrically viral as more ppl get sucked in. 24.7.91.244 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two of them need to learn to take a deep breath and walk away from each other. Please don't encourage either of them. Focus on the content of the article. I have very good reasons to take sides with Bellowed against Eleemosynary, but you don't see me in here slugging it out. In the long run, those who can keep a cool head and be unaffected by conflicts will be the more respected and trusted editors. - Crockspot 20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockspot, your thinly veiled charges of sockpuppetry against the above anon user are disruptive and could be considered harassment. Please cease them. You are indeed here "slugging it out"; saying the opposite is farcical. I recommend your take your own advice re keeping a cool head, considering some of your recent (now-debunked) accusations.

Crockspot needs to stop the veiled threats and sockpuppetry allegations. Regarding Crockspot's advice to not "encourage" anyone, Crockspot is no stranger to inserting himself in disputes regarding Bellowed[4], but only, it seems, when he needs to take Bellowed's side against a growing consensus. Which, based on comments above and elsewhere, may be exactly what he's doing here. -- Eleemosynary 00:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it NPOV on Giuliani controversies page

Hi, I'm glad to get a direct message. It's important to have open, direct communication. I, of course, am trying to hew to a NPOV style. I do not understand why you removed "interrogation" from the waterboarding discussion. I had actually entered "interrogation" as a means to have more neutral language. Is not the whole point of applying pressure, by whatever means, a matter of interrogation? Interrogation in its most benign, barest, most gentle sense, is just a pursuit of information, by one [interrogating] from the [object] interrogatee, if you will. I am therefore, restoring the term "interrogation." Interrogation is a lighter term, is it not, than torture? Dogru144 05:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Quick shout on Giuliani

I just tried to get the basic points said about him in the criticism, and assuming that if people want the full story, they can read the article about them. I agree that I did use weasel words, but it's hard not to in criticism sections. It was just a beginning blue print. I just got one sentence or phrase from each section that was in the criticism section. If any part is BS, please remove it! It's very difficult to make a criticism section NPOV, but if you have any ideas or think the rebuttles should be in the main article, go for it! I was just trying to keep it short, but if it sounds POV, again, try to fix it or let me know of any ideas, as I don't know much about his controversies and such. Thanks! hmwith talk 14:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waterboarding

File an RfC. It's the only way. --Eyrian 17:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. I think I will.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop moving around my content on the waterboarding talk page inappropriately - that is vandalism. YOU wanted my rebuttal statement discussion converted to a regular statement, I did. You canl;t have it both ways, and get to move stuff around so you can rebut when you want, but require straight statements by others. My above statement at the root of the RfC is relevant, and topical to the first line, as you violated the RfC rules in choosing not to place a neutral statement, to place a completely based bit of POV which has no backup. 24.7.91.244 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism, I'm trying to ensure that the formatting for the RfC statment is left intact. We cannot engage in a dialogue where the statement belongs. And why did you delete my rebuttal, yet restore your statment in full? You asked for sources, then deleted them when I pointed them out to you. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the now copied rebuttal section. BTW reasons were in edit summary. 24.7.91.244 21:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to move my posts. Your links did not back up your claims either. Dennis Miller??? You must be joking. You have no consensus for your changes. The whole world, except for a small number on the extreme right, consider waterboarding torture. Do not move or edit my posts again. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 04:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Actually I like Chasers suggestion of an ANI report, as we are at a stalemate. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents where I have filed an ANI and proposed resolution. 24.7.91.244 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bellowed, I asked 24.7 to remove the diffs due to issues that I mentioned on his talk page. I also left messages on his talk page about name-calling and revealing personal information online, closed two unproductive threads at Talk:Waterboarding and left numerous comments there. I'm trying to de-escalate this situation. Please help me do that.

Bill Moyers

Since you weighed in earlier in the debate regarding the exchange between Moyers and O'Reilly, I'd appreciate your input here. —AldeBaer 08:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 9/11 conspiracy theories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alex Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]