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)

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)