Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007

Please leave the comparitive statistics in there. Statistics aren't of much use without a comparison. They were there for months before you deleted them. --Uponsolid133 06:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Loving v. Virginia do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Martial BACQUET 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm really sorry. Your recent edit was appearing like a vandalism, this is why I reverted it. I haven't seen you were a sysop. I'm sorry. Martial BACQUET 00:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is it. But don't worry, I'm in the good side ;) but I've seen an external link and a removal of content so I believed it was a vandalism. Have a good day. Martial BACQUET 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Will Beback. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Eugenics. The discussion can be found under the topic Eugenics. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. --Schwalker 09:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAM! Oooo I'm totally taking you seriously. Tell me, are you the type of person who regularly tags along on other Admin's fights just to get a taste of the action bc you really can't handle it on your own? Nice job, child. You totally remind me of the guy who'd sit would let his friend fight and only help out by telling him to look out for the punch heading right for his face.Chairman Meow 21:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your civil wiki cites these examples: Belittling contributors Judgmental tone Calling for bans

All of what you have just done to me. Perhaps I may have been a little zealous, however, zealousness is it's own excuse, not taking the plank out of your own eye, isn't. Don't judge if you are guilty of that which you claim to deride.Chairman Meow 21:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am kind of new to Wikipedia. I will make sure that my edits have an edit summary and a talk page comment. Thanks for the tip. Love-in-ark 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the copyvio from? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it for the time being then. Consensus was that there is some encyclopedic value to it. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, an IP editor added some fairly unsavory (and patently false) commentary about Berry. Out of an excess of caution, should this edit be deleted? --Ssbohio 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you email, I'd appreciate a reply when you get a chance, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a source of Pechtold's question regarding Wilders' wife, although it is a blog. So if you want me to translate another source for you, I'd be happy to. Mallerd 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to review your contributions list.[1] If I read it correctly, you've made just 50 edits to mainspace articles since 4/30/07. In other words, you don't seem particularly involved in Wikipedia. Yet you are passionate about this linking policy and have made hundreds of postings about it. Why does it matter so much to you, more than actually contributing to Wikipedia? People who don't want to get harassed have an obvious interest in the outcome, but I don't understand your interest. Am I missing something? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You phrased it nicely, so I'll assume you're genuinely curious, and not gearing up for Ad Hominem attacks. :)

People have lots of different editing styles-- the most valuable are Wikignomes, who make prodigious amounts of minor edits to thousands of articles. I tend to focus on one article or issue at a time-- right now, my focus is towards the BADSITES issue. Look deeper into the history and you'll see I have substantial contributions a substantial number of articles.

What is my personal interest? Wikipedia is heading towards being THE most important content site on the entire internet. And the thing that makes the internet (and Wikipedia) so magical is that it's the first communications medium in human history that is truly completely uncensored. The internet has every point of view imaginable, and Wikipedia discusses every notable subject imaginable.

This kind of communication really is changing the world. A year or two ago, I was playing Warcraft and got to know talking with one of the people I was playing with. She was a Jewish teenager, living in Israel. She has a boyfriend, she told me, someone she met online, but she had never met him. "Did you two live too far away from each other to be able meet?", I asked.

"No," she replied. The boyfriend lived within 50 miles of her. But you see, he was Palestinian. She was Israeli. Even though they were close together geographically, their families would never have allowed them to date, or even to meet. But they secretly were very very close, using the internet, the uncensored medium.

The internet is going to change the world. Wars are going to become infinitely harder to fight. Historically, it was conceivable for Americans to bomb Russians-- who did we known in Russia? Thanks to the Internet, all peoples are going to start to come together more and more. You don't want to bomb a country when you're scared you're friend there might die. You don't want to declare war on a country if it means half your Quake Clan might be killed.

In Myanmar, where there's a massive human rights crisis, the first thing the government did was shut off the internet, because they knew it would bring world attention to the people of Myanmar, and tend to make the rest of the world reach out and want to help. Whereas, without TV or internet or phone service-- Myanmar is just a place on a map-- not faces of people we want to help.

In all this, I've spoken in terms of the Internet, but I could just as easily talk about Wikipedia, since we're on the cutting edge of the internet. It's a wonderful beautiful thing. An encyclopedia that covers _Everything_, that's free to anyone who we can possibly get it to. Christian children can learn about the Islamic view of Jesus and Muslim children can learn about the Christian view of Muhammad. Creationists can learn about Evolution even if their communities don't want them to, and Evolutionists can learn about Creationism even if their communities don't want them to.

But we have to resist the temptation to start censoring. It has to be the encyclopedia of EVERYTHING notable-- not just an encyclopedia of the popular or the approved. And censoring always starts so small-- surely THIS speaker is sufficiently evil that we can censor discussion of THAT person/group. No one would ever defend this person/group-- they're without redeeming value. We can get rid of them. Oh, and what about this one too? And what about this one? And soon-- amazingly soon-- we're not censoring coverage of ED trolls anymore, we're censoring coverage of Michael Moore.

So, that's my story. Wikipedia is a powerful force, and it's tempting to use that power to try to stop specific cases of harassment. But not only is such power easily misused, ultimately, the value of having a totally uncensored encyclopedia of every notable subject is so great that it far outweighs whatever small help censoring the encyclopedia would. Not linking to harassment will not cause that harassment to no longer exist. The simple fact is-- if someone is harassing you, stalking you, or threatening you-- you have to take it to the real courts, not to Wikipedia. We don't have the power to do anything about it.

And censoring those accused of harassment from our encyclopedia (if they are notable to merit mention) will sell out our reputation. We don't HAVE to be the uncensored encyclopedia of everything, after all. We could be the encyclopedia of only "acceptable" point of view, rather than NPOV, and if we're not careful, that's where we might wind up.

I don't mean to get melodramatic, but since you asked. BADSITES isn't about ED or ASM or even Michael Moore. It's about Wikipedia. No one here has the ability to delete Michael Moore's speech. The BADSITES proponent arent' trying to delete things from Michael Moore's site-- they're trying to delete things from Wikipedia. From our site.

If a vandal came here and started randomly deleting external links, we would immediate recognize that they're deleting valuable content and we should defend the encyclopedia from them. But when those very same deletions are done out of a compassion to protect the harassed, suddenly it's very hard to see that a valuable part of our encyclopedia just got deleted. But we _NEED_ the link to Michael Moore-- and just as surely as we should defend it from a vandal deletion, we should defend it from a compassionate deletion. (although, of course, we have far more respect for the deleters in the latter case).

BADSITES is a test of Wikipedia, the Uncensored, Free Encyclopedia dedicated to covering everything notable. It is a test of whether this project, or any project so conceived and dedicated, can long endure. If we given in to the temptation to censor, and if we don't change our minds later and turn back, then in the end, Wikipedia will just be little more than a fancy blog host.

I want Wikipedia to work. I want the world to have a Wikipedia. I want the Wiki process to work. And if I can take a few minutes out of my day to try to help the Wikipedia stay free, and work.

I don't know how to help the world. What action can I do that will give a citizen of China the right to vote in a democratic election? What can I do, today, to help make a woman in Saudi Arabia be allowed drive a car? I don't know. But one think I can do to make the world a little better is try to protect Wikipedia. And silly as it is, I think in the end, that will help the world. --Alecmconroy 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your full reply. I'm not sure what it has to do with citizens of China. It's certainly true that we should protect Wikipedia and its contents. Protecting Wikipedia means protecting its editors, because without editors Wikipedia is an ampty ballooon. We don't allow personal attacks and we shouldn't allow harassment either. If you're truly interested in the well-being of this project I don't see why you'd oppose policies that prohibit linking to marginally-reliable source engaging in active harassment of WP editors. Don't you want to encourage editors to contribute to the project? Do you think they will if they face being targeted for harassment? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I want people to feel safe and free to contribute. But I can't protect them. All I can do is deface articles-- which is no protection at all, since the harassment will remain. It's just trading our credibility, objectivity, and NPOV for a handful of magic beans that won't really do anything at all to stop the true external harassment. --Alecmconroy 12:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiil, please refer to [2]. I'm involved in a BLP dispute initiated by an advocate at [3]. User 202.63.42.221, the advocate, now proposes: "If you think (which you obviously do , otherwise you would have removed the content you added already) the material you added to the talk page does not contravene these points listed above , I am willing to go through and strike out the text I think fits these criteria and you can then argue to keep it if you wish , again within the strict criteria of "Biographies of living persons-WP:TALK that means no "soapboxing" personal views (also)WP:SOAP". This strikeout of perfectly acceptable material and article ownership is unacceptable and appears based on pretextual use of BLP. Your non-partisan comments would be appreciated. --Dseer 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Will": Wondering what can be done with regard to DCGeist? His behavior on Wikipedia has been nothing short of disturbing as evidenced, for example, in his "commentary" on the Gone with the Wind (film) page. Surely Wikipedia has and will continute to take a stand against behavior such as his. 24.45.196.36 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, my message was in large part designed as a red flag for passersby who might be convinced by the troll's lie about the L.A. Times indicating that the Tara set was anywhere in Hollywood in 1979, and weighing in on that basis. I felt it necessary not only to flag the lie itself, but to indicate the troll's own readily accessible record for those unwilling or unable to research the substantive matters. I'm happy to remain silent on this from now on--except if the troll again makes objectively false claims. Those do need to be explicitly addressed, I believe.—DCGeist 21:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Will" I resent your representation of me as a "troll". Trust me in that I have better things to do with my time. But I must say that the inclination toward name calling at Wikipedia is truly astonishing. Perhaps this is the way of the Internet... but I wouldn't know because adding to a site like this is something I do on an irregular basis.

Simply put, I'm not satisfied to simply go by someone else's word simply because they say something is so. And as I've been able to surmise by your writings, you share this sentiment. It's an admirable trait. Please know that I have no intention of making you "jump through hoops". I'm sure you also have better things to do. I'm only asking for follow-through on an earlier statement in which you said that you saw the double photo included with the story about the set's destruction. And it's these photos which go to the heart of the issue. If in fact I'm wrong, the photos will bear it out. And again, photographs -- per Wikipedia policy -- can be used as sources. Therefore, if you'll be so kind as to humor me this last time, please post the photos from the 1979 L.A. Times story. 24.45.196.36 22:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Schwartz Memorial Library at the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University has ProQuest Historical Newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, 1881-1986. It's 11 miles from Franklin Square. — Walloon 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Walloon", while I appreciate your suggestion, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to hike out to Long Island to grab a copy of photos that "Will" says he already has. Furthermore, why would anyone in their right mind make such a trek for the sake of a web site? Again, if "Will" is truly interested in putting all of this to rest, he can simply post the photos. The photographic proof will put to rest once and for all the question of this second Tara set having once existed on MGM's lot #2. 24.45.196.36 18:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already described the photo and copied the caption. For whatever reason you don't believe me. Since no previous evidence has been sufficient to convince you that your memory is incorrect I doubt that going to the effort to find the article again, cut out the photo, and upload it to Wikipedia will convince you either. I've devoted plenty of time to this silly argument and am not interested in indulging the whims of an anonymous editor who is not willing to make the effort to acquire easily-available sources on his own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, hate to call on you again, but an outside opinion would be appreciated. Talk:Charlotte, North Carolina. I believe my fellow editor is trying to [[|WP:SYN|synthesize]] a statement about Charlotte's air quality improving indirectly out of sources mentioning national trends. If you have a moment, I've gone as far as I can on this one. Thanks.--Loodog 05:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been ongoing since last night with this user, I don't think he is getting the point, hence my warnings. When someone tells you to cool it and you continue to remove things from a page, then that is vandalism. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't wanna play hardball, but you're well past 3RRs here. I'll give you a few moments to self revert, or I guess I'll have to go noticeboarding. <groan> --Alecmconroy 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I made three reverts then it was inadvertent. I believe I only made one revert. Edits that change text to new text aren't reverts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel you have editing in error, then I would happily accept your statement if coupled with a self-revert, and will gladly forget the whole matter. We all make mistakes and lose count. If you stand by your edits, however, and refuse to self-revert, we have a behavior problem on our hands, and I guess now's as good a time as any for the community to address it. --Alecmconroy 04:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough to know about complex reverts. --Alecmconroy 04:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you might try editing an article occasionally. ;). Wink notwithstanding, that feels a tad like a personal attack, given the context, but no matter.

I'm off for the night. I hope when I return, I find that you've seen the error of your ways, or that others have convinced you of them, than you have self-reverted, and that the policy page is again unprotected so PM, BenB4, and its other principal authors can continue their work of improving the proposal they want to present to the community.

I'm _truly_ and sincerely hoping for that. If I get back, and you still are hammering away, editing without regard to the opinions of others, the page still protected with your disputed changes un-self-reverted, then I have to accept we can't make any progress on this issue until your behavior is in line, and that means and I have to go through the work to dig up every on-wiki behavior problem you had in the past however many years, and then I have to file some sort of form or case or something, and then one half of the project will be yelling at the other half, while I try to argue through the noise that whatever people think of BADSITES-like policies, your behavior still need to change, and you ought to be warned or blocked or banned or de-adminned or god knows what.

And let me tell you, that is a world I _really_ don't wanna wake up to. Ugh. But, if we can't convince you to change your ways, it's better to get it over with sooner rather than later.. But let's all hope some wise admin comes along in the night, looks at the 3RR, explains to you where the error in your thinking is (or explains to me where the error in mine is), and we can all go back to arguing over things that matter instead of arguing over behavior. :)

G'night. For what it's worth-- I want you to know I really don't have any harsh feelings toward you. I think you're wrong, and I think this whole BADSITES/NPA/Link2ExtHarass issue won't be resolved until we can get some behavior changed. But-- never think that means I think you're somehow a bad person. We're just two nerds who like to write having a philosophical disagreement. Its my job to change your behavior, or to stop your behavior-- but never think it's my job to dislike you. --Alecmconroy 06:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. -- But|seriously|folks  07:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it. -- But|seriously|folks  08:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note here. --Marvin Diode 12:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently cited me for POV editting on the Reconquista (Mexico) page. I did not eggregiously violate the terms. If I am being repromanded for not citing sources, then I'll point out that my additions were quite minimal and that the version you restored it to failed to cite references on even more material than I provided.

I editted the article solely for objectivity, removing highly sensational and intentionally conflational material, much of which was not cited. The changes to the text or wording were designed to balance the article in places where removal would have damaged the integrity of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivity Check (talk • contribs) 05:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, Objectivity Check 06:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are applying porn star categories. There was an earlier concern that "star" is not an accurate term for everyone who appears in a pornographic film. What criteria are you using to decide if folks are porn actors versus porn stars? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't know there was a difference between a porn actors versus porn stars. If you tell me what the criteria is, I'll correct the changes I've made. Epbr123 08:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Since you expressed some interest in the Stanislavski articles, it'd be good to get your imput on this - proposal to move the article. Thanks, DionysosProteus 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Even though my mother's from Mississippi, I'd never known about Theodore Bilbo until reading about him recently. Definitely an interesting character. Mandsford 22:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments on the cult discussion, which seems very similar to a point I've just run into, and I wanted to clarify whether your position reflects consensus on the topic. The issue is whether a suicide bombing can be referred to as terrorist in the narrative voice, considering the language of WP:TERRORIST. The argument is that with the possible exception of the organisation responsible, that terminology is near universally accepted (including by people like Yasser Arafat). Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 00:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you saw this message, but I would be very appreciative if you could respond either way. Tewfik^Talk 10:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in to see if you've seen this. Tewfik^Talk 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to usury is something which can be detected in short, recent articles by LaRouche or his organization. I don't think that it is a matter of dispute. It's the secret code interpretations, favored by King and Berlet, that seem dubious to me. --Marvin Diode 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Will Beback. I'm alerting all of the editors that took part in the the deletion debate for the article Adult-child sex that it is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've know that you have an interest in the Canadian far right. Perhaps you would want to provide your input on whether these two articles should be kept as they are, modified, or deleted as per the nomination? AnnieHall 05:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been admonished about canvasing in the past though it wasn't really intended as such (though the way I worded my message at that time could be interpreted as such). In this case I really was looking for legitimate input, however. I even asked Dogmatic for his input as well. I really am interested in improving the articles in question and thought interested parties might have something to say in this case. Still, I understand the need to tread with caution. AnnieHall 04:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say it;s uncited but I could cite several dictionaries that will tell you that "appered" is spelled "appeared" and "recognised" is "recognized"... did you actually pay attention to what you were reverting?--Dr who1975 06:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. I don't know what kind of thrill people get from intentionally introducing spelling errors into wikipedia.--Dr who1975 17:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beleive it or not, I thought of the English spelling thing too and came to the same conclusion regarding it being about a U.S. Senator. I always have to keep British spelling in mind when I'm working on Dr. Who pages.--Dr who1975 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Will Beback. I noticed you have an interest in the subjects above and are an administrator. To be honest, I do not have an interest in the subject matter above, however I stumbled onto Alex Kulbashian by accident and noticed alot of unsourced claims. I am not an expert on the subject matter but I have done my best to remove these unsourced claims and yet user:UnionPride keeps re-adding them. Would you be kind as to have a look at the article and make any edits accordingly and also ensure that users don't try to add back unsourced claims? Would you also be kind as to have a look at other articles in this category, as I believe there are many other unsourced claims in these articles? Like I said, I do not have an interest in the subject matter but my primary concern is in protecting the project. Thanks Pocopocopocopoco 01:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding user Milomedes (talk · contribs) 's comment here, the last paragraph being an obvious threat and intimidation, a warning from you would be surely better accepted. Obviously the guy is disturbed by who knows what, and unable to listen to any advice from me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you did the correct thing by contacting Will to mediate this matter, and I generally agree with his temperate remarks to me.

Having said that, you are completely out of line.

What a waste of project time. Your own long-standing habits of attempted intimidation of me, and probably others as well, cause you to see things that don't exist, like your fictive "obvious threat and intimidation". Nonsense. I'm the good guy here. What I wrote was the proper and the decent thing to do, and I would write it exactly the same way again – your uninvestigated hip-shot, conflict-of-interest biased, and uncivilly potty-mouth charge, notwithstanding.

Note that you selectively quoted me without ellipses, omitting the clause where I explained that I was issuing a warning due to failure of the group to discuss a real-world war issue. That pointedly displays your personal bias, due to my previous compilation of ethics charges against you. As an admin with a personal grudge, you are ethically forbidden to block me for any reason. Where I'm concerned, you are just another editor, and I expect you to behave that way without further pretense under a false color of authority.

Will suggested safety warnings by email, but (1) I don't have it available (and one reason for that is so all attempted intimidations will be public), (2) since the risk is still potential, private communications could mis-viewed exactly as you are trying to impute my public warning, (3) more than one editor may be at risk, (4) the risk can yet be averted by a group warning.

Sunni and Shia are at war. As mainstream religious and cultural groups they are both decent peoples, but they are stirred up by extremists who kill members of each side every day in Iraq. If almost no group that actually fits the sociological description will accept being called a cult, it's guaranteed that extremists will find that word insulting when both sociologists and average people don't agree that major religions can be cults. Extremists are well-known to use lethal force to revenge what they believe to be religious insults. They are also skilled at using the internet, and can certainly find anyone that I can find.

Relisting Sunni and Shia as cults is asking for trouble. When I first spotted the personal risk to LOGRTAC editors last year, it was the cap on a pile of troubles caused by wrongly listing major religions as cults. You are one of the editors pushing this POV, so I will hold you fairly, proportionately, and publicly, responsible for any consequences.

Based on the repeated violence against them, UK citizens are also at particular risk from extremists living in their own country. One of the editors appears to be a naive high school student editing under his own name, who has published details about his small rural town. He is getting in way over his head, and had no idea of the potential personal consequences of his aggressive but merely literalistic pushing for relisting of major religions as cults.

Again, I'm the good guy here. You are getting in the way of my trying to avert him from his own path of folly. Milo 20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am WillBeback1 on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/WillBeback1. Thanks. -- ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I pasted more than intended to begin with, or something.Jimmuldrow 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will,

I have an article I'd like to add to the wiki, but I want to have it reviewed before posting it for official viewing. How do I create an article for review? Do I add it somewhere on my User page?

I'm new to this - don't want to make a mistake and i could not find this info in the help pages.

thanks gjamal 26 October 2007

Hi Will,

Ok, i've added the article to:User_talk:Gjamal/sandbox

Now, how do i get administrators to review it and provide feedback?

thanks.

gjamal 04 November 2007

Will, you just mass-reverted a series of carefully annotated edits with one misleading edit summary. Also note that for King to be used as a source, his comments must first be published, and a self-published website doesn't meet Wikipedia specs. Also, the source was misleadingly labeled "Papert" -- there is no published source for Papert. --Masai warrior 22:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: Sorry to bother you with this, but I found your name as an administrator who had had dealings with this individual before, here, and I thought you might like to look into the AfD at David jason Silver; you suggested in July 2006 that he might have to be blocked indefinitely if his behaviour didn't change, and it seems that he's up to his old tricks. I apologize in advance if this isn't the right way to go about this, but I thought someone ought to know (I've posted a note about this at the current Administrators' noticeboard as well). If there's something further I can do to help with this, or you think there's some different way I should have proceeded, please let me know. Accounting4Taste 15:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm not actually completely uninvolved, but I'm probably one of the more uninvolved admins. JoshuaZ 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit ironic; with "Some folks were more interested in allowing trolls than in extending good faith to Jimbo." you're accusing people of "allowing trolls" (instead of, you know, believing in good faith that the person who was blocked is not actually a troll) in the same breath as saying they should assume good faith. And, no, we shouldn't begrudge him a family camping trip, but there's absolutely no evidence that Miltopia's trolling (even if he is a troll) is such an emergency situation that Jimbo couldn't have waited until monday to place the block. Even in good faith, a hit and run is poor form. —Random832 21:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the choice is between giving an assumption of good faith to Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, or to Miltopia, editor of Encyclopedia Dramatica and accused troll, I'll side with Jimbo. Isn't it great that that's not what the choice is, then? I was talking about your stunning lack of AGF towards, not Miltopia, but rather a large number of editors who are not Miltopia, and who have not in fact assumed bad faith of Jimbo. —Random832 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you are an admin, is was wandering if you could help me answer a question I have. (This is unrelated to the List of groups referred to as cults issues where I encountered you.) There is an editor who seems to be consistantly ignoring consensus and generally upsetting people, though they defend what they are doing by referring to other policies, notably WP:EPISODE and WP:N. While the actions might be technically correct according to these policies, and the editor has been doing this for quite some time; the way they are being implemented is upsetting a lot of people, and generally sowing unrest and confusion in their wake. Is there anything I can do to try and improve this situation, as they refused to answer my queries on their talk page? (I do accept that most of this may be interpreted from my PoV) Conrad.Irwin 22:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you had originally uploaded the image Image:CCHR.jpg to the English Wikipedia under public domain. I have utilized this free image in the article Cult Awareness Network. Do you feel like transwikiing the image to Wikimedia Commons with a more detailed description and a public domain license, so that there is no confusion in the future as to its status and so it can be used across multiple projects? Also, of course, I would always value your feedback on the changes I have made to the article Cult Awareness Network, which I hope to nom for WP:GAC in the near term future. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I moved it to keep the article consistent, as the article never used "Fernández de Kirchner." Whether we should use your preferred title is another matter. I personally don't have a preference. Both titles seem to be used extensively, although I have seen a preference for "F. de K." in English media. ☆ CieloEstrellado 18:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^_^

No problem :-) --PolarWolf ( grrr... ) 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Self Righteous Twat, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Self Righteous Twat is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Self Righteous Twat, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 23:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Beback,

Thank you for locking the article about me, which is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor

I’m sorry the article has been such a headache to administer.

I am grateful that the current version keeps out the worst of the unsubstantiated allegations about me. It is clearly an improvement over many versions.

However, it contains a number of errors, both of fact and of emphasis. Corrections will improve the article.

These suggestions are in sequential order, *not* in order of importance. The most *important point* I have to make is No. (7), “Views on the Holocaust.”

(1) First Sentence

The current first sentence says: << Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist and an advocate of racialist theories to explain the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries.>>

No one really know what “racialist” means, so this sentence –- although otherwise factually correct -- is not illuminating. The “source” given for this sentence never uses the word “racialist.” Because no one knows what “racialist theories” are, I would suggest the following: << Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist who explores the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries. >>

If that’s too bland, you could try:

<< Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist and an advocate of what he calls a “race-realist” perspective one the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries.>>

(2) “Works and Views.” Current first sentence:

<<He is the author of Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle (1983), which among other things argues the distinctiveness of the Japanese as a race as well as a culture; Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in America (1993), which hypothesizes that multiracialism in the United States is the cause of many of todays social ills;>>

Both book descriptions are wrong; whoever wrote them did not read the books. I wrote the book about Japan when I was still a liberal on race and certainly did not argue “the distinctiveness of the Japanese as a race.” On the contrary, I criticized the Japanese quite sharply for excessive preoccupation with their own uniqueness, and warned that they are not a good model for Americans.

Paved With Good Intentions was not about “multiracialism” and drew no conclusions about it. It was an extended critique of the idea that “racism” explains black social failure. The following would be correct descriptions of these two books:

<< He is the author of Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle (1983), which argued that Japan is not a good social model for the United States and criticized the Japanese for excessive preoccupation with their own uniqueness; Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in America (1993), which argues that racism is not a convincing explanation for black social failure;>>

(3) The two following sentences are completely unrelated to each other.

<< Taylor insists that he espouses a doctrine of race realism. In a 2003 interview with Phil Donahue, Taylor said that Central Americans are organizing en masse and invading the rest of North America.[3]>>

The first sentence is true; the second is wrong. There was such an interview, but you will search the cited transcript in vain for any such statement by myself. It is pure invention. If, for some reason, you want to cite that interview, you could say <<In a 2003 interview with Phil Donahue, Taylor said that Mexican government officials brag that Mexicans are “reconquering” the Southwest United States.>> That, at least, is something I actually said.

(4) “White separatist.” The article contains the following sentence. <<He has described himself as a "racialist" and a "white separatist".>>

The source cited says I have described myself as a “racialist,” which is correct, but does not use the term “white separatist.” In the past, I have used the term “racialist,” but I no longer do so because no one knows what the term means. I have no recollection of ever calling myself a “white separatist.” You will certainly not find that self-description in any of my written work. I’d like to know who it is who claims to have *heard* me describe myself that way. I suspect I have never called myself that, so that description should be removed.

(5) Here is another very muddled passage. <<Taylor says he is not a white supremacist, whom he defines as one who wishes to rule over others. He claims to be a "yellow supremacist" because he has theorized that Asian people are the most advanced humans (in evolutionary terms), followed by white people and those of African descent. [5]>>

The first sentence is correct. But having just defined “white supremacy” as the desire to rule over others, would I be likely to say that Asians should rule over whites (“Asian supremacy”)? Let’s look at the source cited for the second sentence. It is a journalist describing a conversation with me as follows: “He dismissed the ‘white supremacist’ and ‘racist’ accusations as empty epithets. If anything, he says he is a yellow supremacist because he believes Asians are genetically the smartest race, then whites, then blacks.” Therefore the sentence in the Wiki article is a paraphrase of a journalist’s paraphrase of my conversation with him--which, by the way, says nothing about “advanced humans (in evolutionary terms).” This is very sloppy work.

Why can’t the article refer to something I have actually said rather than paraphrase a paraphrase? It is relevant to note that I consider blacks superior to whites in some respects. The following would be an accurate summary of my views:

<<Taylor has published arguments supporting the view that backs have a genetic superiority to other races in certain athletic endeavors.^[1] In response to charges of “white supremacy,” Taylor has written: “There is no scale on which racial differences can all be ranked so as to draw across-the-board conclusions about racial ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ . . . . It is certainly true that in some important traits—intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease—whites can be considered ‘superior’ to blacks. At the same time, in exactly these same traits, North Asians appear to be ‘superior’ to whites.”^[2]

(6) More muddled thinking in the following passage:

<<Taylor has questioned the capacity of blacks to live successfully in a civilized society. In an article on the chaos in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Taylor wrote "when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight.">>

I did write those words attributed to me, and they are some of the harshest I have ever written about blacks. That is why “anti-racists” like to quote them, and that is why they appear in Wikipedia--not because they are characteristic or representative. However the sentence with which they are introduced makes no sense. The quotation from me refers to blacks living entirely on their own, not living in a “civilized” society, or one not of their own making. As the quotation says, I am talking about blacks “left entirely to their own devices.”

If you insist that out of millions of words I have written about race, the sentence on Hurricane Katrina must be included in Wikipdia, you should leave out the first sentence. It only adds confusion.

(7) “Views on the Holocaust”

This section should not be in the article. I have never written for publication about the Holocaust nor lectured on it. It is not an area of special study for me at all. I have spent 20 years writing and lecturing about race. To have a section called “Views on the Holocaust” that is almost as long as “Works and Views” is completely wrong. Why is this section even here?

It is here only because someone who already disagrees with me about something else, has taken a single sentence I wrote and twisted it maliciously to say that I have suspicious “views on the Holocaust.” Obviously, in my one-line reply, I was writing about the six million figure, not whether the Holocaust occurred. I have nothing like the historical expertise to judge which of the generally proposed victim totals of 4 to 6 million is most accurate.

I gave a single-line reply in a private e-mail message to an unknown sender, and suddenly I’m accused of Holocaust denial. Quite absurd, really. *At least* this section now has my denunciation of this charge as absurd and malicious. Many versions of the article have removed this important point.

• If* this section is to remain, it must be balanced by the following addition:

<<Taylor has always seen Jews as full participants in what he calls “race realism:” “It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.”^[3] >>

My views in this respect are, in fact, *vastly* more significant than my one-line expression of ignorance about the Holocaust death total. You will find my views on Jewish participation sharply debated and attacked on many Internet pages.

(8) “Praise and Criticism”

To trot out David Duke as the first source of praise is obviously an attempt to discredit me, but when I checked the source, he seems to have said those words about me. At one point, someone had included praise of me from Samuel Francis, praise I far prefer to that of David Duke. Any reason why that can’t be included to balance David Duke? The text was:

<< The late paleoconservative, Samuel Francis, has written of Taylor, “What attracted me to Jared Taylor and AR is what seems to attract most of their other readers—not that AR is the last, quaint representative of a dying breed gnashing its fangs at a world that has passed it by but that it is in fact the harbinger of a new breed.”^[4] >>

(9) More “sympathy to Holocaust denial.” The following is in the article:

<<Other critics have described Taylor as a racist and an advocate of white supremacy, and have accused him of sympathy to Holocaust denial.>>

The sum total of “sympathy to Holocaust denial” is my one-line e-mail message quoted above. This does not bear repeating here.

(10) External Links

The link to the Color of Crime (the second of the links) is to the 1998 version. The link should be to the latest version, and should therefore be: http://www.amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=color_of_crime

(11) Possible Additions.

I realize, first of all, that editors of Wikipedia do not agree with my views on race. However, what is the purpose of this article: to caricature and discredit those views or to present an accurate, concise summary of them? Should direct quotations from me only be those selected by my critics? If I have any reason to be in Wikipedia at all, it is *because* of the views I promote, *not* because of the way either critics or admirers characterize those views.

First, I repeat that my positions on Jews in general are extremely important, and urge the inclusion of the text from section (7) above:

<<Taylor has always seen Jews as full participants in what he calls “race realism:” “It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.”^[5] >>

Also, the following is a good summary of an exceedingly important issue.

<< Taylor compares racial solidarity to family loyalty: “Our nation or race is, in effect, our extended family in the largest sense, and our feelings for our extended family are a dilute, but broader version of what we feel for close kin.” He adds that a preference for one’s own race in no way implies hostility to other races, just as the preference for one’s own children implies no hostility to the children of others.^[6] He claims it is a dangerous double standard to encourage non-whites to show racial solidarity and to work openly for group interests while condemning whites who do the same thing.^[7] >>

So is the following:

<< Taylor argues that race is not only a valid biological category^[8] but is an inevitable part of individual and group identity. He points to consistent racial self segregation—not only in America but around the world—as evidence that race is one of the most basic human fault lines, and a frequent source of conflict. Taylor argues that a preference for people like oneself is natural and even healthy, and that attempts to encourage or force racial integration are misguided. He believes it is impossible to build a society in which race can be made not to matter.^[9] >>

These are central aspects of what is in fact a nuanced and carefully elaborated body of work. They deserve to be in an article that purports to be encyclopedic.

It would be my preference that the article be removed entirely. My views seem to attract criticism so intense that verges on the malicious, and have given rise to many unsupported edits. However, if the article is to remain, I would request that it be accurate.

I repeat my regrets that this article has been such a bother to the volunteers at Wikipedia.

Thank you and best regards, Jared Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.194.12 (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving the info at my site. I have a question. I am contributing to an article (Thucydides) and my references do not link properly to the reference list. Could you tell me how do that or where to find instructions on the guideline pages? Best (RFB 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hiya,

I've replied to your note about WP:NPA at my talk page. Hopefully my comment resolves the matter :)

Thanks!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, 8 hours is not a long time for involved editors to collaborate on building upon an RFC. Some of us work and sleep. Why the hurry? Rough consensus seemed to be headed in the direction of at least giving the RFC a chance. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was far more than 8 hours, and your action seems like a good call, SqueakBox 05:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 8 hours and 17 minutes. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec'd) No, that is since it was restored, I signed some outside views several days back and they were still there a few mins ago so it is well longer than 8 hours, SqueakBox 06:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it was up for 8 hours after User:David Fuchs restored it based on RfA consensus. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete it. I'm trying to come up with a thoughtful comment (and certification) for it, but the thing is going up and down so fast I can't even get to it. Please let things run their course. --Elonka 06:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Speedied Rfc for an explanation, SqueakBox 06:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The worst that can happen is a discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are right, SqueakBox 06:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks.  :) I've gone ahead and certified, and posted my reasoning on the talkpage. I'm also working on a comment for the RfC itself, but, as I said, I'm still giving that some thought since I want to get it right. But thanks for giving the RfC a chance. :) --Elonka 06:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you removed my edit about Mike Gravel [4], saying that it was "not an activity by LaRouche." However, you did not remove "Jeremiah Duggan," also not an activity by LaRouche. What is the standard for inclusion? --Niels Gade 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, do me a favor. Track someone down from ComComm and find out why the previous submission of permission was rejected and why I never recieved anything. I sent, you know it, ComComm just ain't doing their jobs. If I have to copy the full damned email onto the talk page to prove it, I will. You know what, that's a good idea. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're an admin, you have been "involved" with this article from my beginning it's updating and you continue to. You want to see something done, you can help. Found the email, I will be posting it (sans addresses) on the Stephens City talk page in a moment. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the bottom of the Stephens City talk page. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check the OTRS inbox....I have resent the submission for permission. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this? I can tell you right now, they will only allow Wikipedia and only Wikipedia to use the history they have written up. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia-only permission not valid? They and I are only working with Wikipedia. They only want this on Wikipedia, hence the requirement for the link on the Stephens City, Virginia page. Again, are you talking about this? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, NHC is closed until about 10am tomorrow (small town, small town hours), so it isn't like I can run on down there right now and get the permission. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're just not going to answer my question, are you? Are you talking about this? Is that the way it is supposed to be written? If so, I can have them send it to the permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org email address themselves, directly from NHC in the morning. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then show me the letter, gimme a link and answer my question. Stop giving me some crap answer, and just work with me...or get me someone who is willing to. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the letter at the bottom is a "Typical request letter for confirmation", I am wanting a letter for permission. Also, I passed "chill out" about 20mins ago when you, Metros, and Mufka decided to do a nice gang-up/stonewall job here. I ask a question, you dance around it for 20mins. All I am asking, is a link to the "template", if you will, for requesting permission to use this history. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you 5 times for a link for exactly what this permission has to say for ComComm to consider it valid....and you refuse to show me. I asked you to work with me...and you, what, give up? Dude, you are the one that needs to chill out and learn to work with people. Patience, my friend, patience. Now...can you show me exactly what the permission is supposed to say so that ComComm can consider the permission from the Newtown History Center valid? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy hell, dude! That link you gave....was the link I included three times in posts to you on this very talk page. You sent me the same thing I asked about. Now, you want to tell me you were really reading my posts above, cause it appears you weren't. Do me a favor, from now on, unless you are going to actively pay attention to posts that people make and posts that are sent to you, don't help me out...please, save me the migraine next time. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With help from others, who didn't mind taking the time to explain things and show me what I had to send in, the gentleman in charge of the Newtown History Center will be sending in the submission for permission to use the history. What makes this even better, is that he is the person who wrote it :)

Once again, do have some better patience when working with people. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you haven't read your talk page very well....read the above post again. "the gentleman in charge of the Newtown History Center will be sending in the submission for permission to use the history." I post that and some two hours later you post "I understand that you are still pursuing permission" on the Stephens City talk page. I have to ask, do you actually read what is posted on your talk page? After last night and now this, I don't think you read what people write at all.

Do me a big favor, leave the Stephens City article up to people who will pay attention to talk pages and have the patience to work with others, it will save me a migraine. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would do me alot of good if you were willing to help, you aren't (the above shows that) so, it ain't getting us anywhere there. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Stephens City Talk Page. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Break

So...does this mean we can readd the "not-rewritten-by-me" version from July now? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verbatim version has been readded. This version is from the NHC website and last added in July. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the articles which refer to ethnic groups could be titled in plural. That's what I saw in other something-Americans articles since this is an encyclopedia and the article talks about a people, it's not a lexicon which gives the meaning of what a Greek American is. And the other point is that I couldn't move it because there was already a page with the name I wanted to move the article to.. - Sthenel 22:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, funny you would say it because: I was thinking over the last couple days that I wish I had nearly as much patience as I saw coming from you. SaltyBoatr 15:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the "incivil user" that supposedly drove away his previous avatar, Hornplease. Bakaman 01:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea how hard it was to find the word "bicenquinquagenary". Centennial, Bicentennial, and Tricentennial are easy to find, but try finding "bicenquinquagenary"....sheesh! - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always get the "it's" and "its" thing goofed up :) I have caught myself when coming to an "it's"/"its" part of a sentence and normally catch them, but sometimes they slip past me. Thanks for the correction though. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Neat! That one is a force of habit for me. I make sure the commas and periods are all in there. I even think I use, too, many, commas, sometimes. They say "ya learn something new everyday" and I just did. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love how you warned me and not Squeakbox even though he did the same exact thing. Is that maybe because you agreed with him? Neither of you provided any compelling arguments for the edit that you were fighting for. --Ospinad 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may not spend my whole life on Wikipedia like Squeakbox does but I'd hardly call being a member for about a year and with over 1000 edits a "new account" besides I already knew of the 3 revert rule that is why I didn't do it a 4th time --Ospinad 21:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not spend my whole life on wikipedia and for you to claim that I do is incorrect, Ospinad. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not, you only average about 100 edits a day... anyway why don't you try explaining to me why it is so hard for you to understand that the sentence about Lindsay closing his site doesn't belong in the section about the police investigation because it makes it seem like they are related? Why do you want so bad to make it look like he is a criminal when all he is trying to do is survive? Ospinad 03:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err don't just make figures up off the top of your head concerning me. Try counting. Actually I do less than 50 edits a day on average and probably spend 2-3 hours a day on wikipedia, just an average hobby. We can talk about Ashford on that talk page, Will's talk page is not the place for it, but I am open to discussing this issue there. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I really don't care how much time you spend on Wikipedia, my only point was that Will said that the only reason why he warned me and not you was because he thought I was new to Wikipedia and I said that just because I haven't been here as long as you have that doesn't mean I'm new. It doesn't matter to me where we discuss it, we can do it here since both of you reverted me --Ospinad 05:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine not to care how much time I spend on wikipedia, what is not okay is to take some figure of the top of your head and present it as fact. I suggest you don't comment on how much you think I edit here. Will was referring tot he fact that I have been editing here for years and clearly no my way around wikipedia, and it is considered inappropriate to warn obviously experienced users about our policies or using templates. We need to discuss it on the article talk so other editors can also comment. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all keep calm. I was mistaken that Ospinad was a new account. Regarding the article, I suggest finding a third or fourth option instead of fighting over just two choices. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are an active participant in Orange County Community issues, and I wanted to let you know that West Garden Grove is experiencing problems just as a few of the other communities in the area have in the past that you have been involved with. Just giving you a heads up in case you want to add your two cents. Marinidil 03:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to vote on this issue? Marinidil 04:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and help. User:Alansohn has been hurling accusations at me all morning, most of which I've archived. I deleted what I THOUGHT were Marinidil's edits this morning and sent Alansohn a message, polite message actually despite his previous behavior. Instead of just saying "you made a mistake, I had previous fix it" he's been making numerous false accusations including that I deleted sourced material several times prior to this morning, claims my only motivation for deleting the WGG article is something too convoluted for me to understand, and claims I was vandalizing the page. Apparently accidentally deleting something you thought was added by a banned user is equal to spraypainting a building without permission. I'll gladly take a warning of incivility if you could also give him one. I've withdrawn the nomination based on his behavior this morning. I just can't be caught crying at the office. Any assistance would be appreciated. IrishLass0128 18:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. Obviously I'm not the only one he's nasty too. I guess it's a pattern and I shouldn't have taken it so personally. Again, thanks. IrishLass0128 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. I'll have to look into that later. I am watching this page. Bearian 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently 'protected' the Sahaja Yoga article - despite being involved as a party to the dispute, (valaya links for example). This is clearly a breach of admin privileges - and it is obvious that you endorse the current version. Simon had breached the 3RR after I reported it, and yet you still maintained his edits. Sfacets 22:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SYfacet, the protection has encouraged you to be serious about the discussion page, which has been a bit of a rarity lately. A lot of discussions are being held up by your non-participation. It seems you have time for reverts and complaints but not for discussion. Pls respond to the various discussion so things can move forward, rather than just having endless ongoing discussion that can be used as an excuse for blocking content. --Simon D M 12:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been told by an IP editor on my talk page here that you might have some useful information on the urgent need to delete by speedy an article I've marked as prod. If there's history behind this of which I'm not aware (which, given the circumstances, seems probable :)), please let me know or (of course) feel free to handle it yourself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I think something has frozen over..lol. --Northmeister 01:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will... I saw on the RS boards that you had very thoughtful and nuanced views on how expert views applied to BLPs. Would you mind looking at this on the BLP noticeboard? It reminded me a lot of the debate about the LaRouche page that DKing made, that is supported to be used as a source. As near as I can tell, the following happened. Paul Wolfowitz had a book written on him by this Unger fellow. Unger is an expert on Wolfowitz, as DKing (and Berlet) are of LaRouche. Wolfowitz's article makes note of an affair he had (heavily sourced) that affected his career negatively. David Shankbone interviewed Unger on Wikinews. In the interview, the topic of Wolfowitz, and later, the affair, obviously came up. Unger made some comments about Wolfowitz's situation. The Wikinews article was linked off of the Wolfowitz article afterwards, as what appears to me to be a supplemental or additional reference and source. Various fellows are now arguing that it fails everything from BLP to EL to others. Would you mind taking a look? It struck as similar in nature to the apparent issues surrounding the Larouche things you were working on, so I tried to compare Unger to DKing, which was apparently dismissed and DKing labeled to be in violation of WP:COI by Cool Hand Luke. Thanks for any help, its getting dense and confusing. • Lawrence Cohen 20:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment of today. Please accept my apologies. Thank you for the links. I really do appreciate your help and undesrtand your view and your concern in this matter. But pease tell me, what do we do when personnal attacks is not toward an user but toward People or Organization in wiki articles and/or toward leaving persons personnaly named in articles and/or talk page by a user ? --Agenor 77 08:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun a thread on Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action. • Lawrence Cohen 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged this user as a blocked sock...but the block log shows no block. Is this another phantom block (sometimes things don't appear in the log) or did you forget to apply the block? I just wanted to bring it to your attention in case the block was mistakenly not applied. IrishGuy ^talk 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wasn't sure what the issue was so I didn't want to step on any toes by doing it myself. :) IrishGuy ^talk 00:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Could you please move Olympiacos to Olympiacos FC because there is already a redirect. - Sthenel 11:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we decided to split Olympiacos. It's now about the football club only so it should be moved to Olympiacos FC, while Olympiacos CFP refers to the multisport club. - Sthenel 11:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I think the redirect pages are ok. Olympiacos should lead to Olympiacos FC temporarily. - Sthenel 12:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beback, would you consider this article to be a citeable source regarding an opinion about LAUSD: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58713 - I would state "In the article Chinea states X" -- WhisperToMe (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar - although it seems that mostly what I do is revert vandalism on the hydroelectricity and hydropower articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from poisoning the well against me - this is a form of harassment - why on earth would you want a ridiculous warning like "Note that by viewing the above website, you will be revealing your IP to its owner, Sfacets."? Any webmaster can see visitor statistics. Sfacets 23:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On WT:SOCK you say "If there's s presumption in the policy that users may create special accounts for creating or maintaining controversies then it would make it impossible deal with users who stop short of exhausting the community's patience and then switch to a new account, all while keeping yet a different account for making non-controversial edits. " I was just wondering: do you have any sense that this behaviour is in the least common? Are there any well-known instances in the AN/I archive I can look at? (I've been arguing for some time now that there should be a centrally searchable archive of restrictions on accounts together with links to the discussions that caused those restrictions.) Relata refero (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do actually believe you are right that the language of GHBH should reflect that socks acting in a manner that is collectively problematic is also a violation of the policy. Do, please, however keep in mind my very real concerns about the level of discretion that some of the changes would imply. I think we should try and find wording to express both concerns. Relata refero (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ongoing mess at AN/I served one useful purpose at least, which was to remind me that you might have missed the concern that I raised on WT:SOCK about discretion. When reducing drama is the criterion - one we all share - wildly increasing discretion will not actually serve to do so. Relata refero (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear what is going on. New editor pops up as soon as Sfacets gets blocked and sets about sytematically removing sourced material with misleading edit summaries. Never discusses, never answers talk page. --Simon D M (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis a mystery indeed. Sfacets 10:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Teamantime is clearly a member of the same group as Sfacets and SahajHist, I've left messages asking them to have a word with him/her. --Simon D M (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Sfacets and SahajHist to also have a word with Try-the-vibe, 121.210.52.44 and 203.49.171.174. These are clearly all Sahaja Yogis, the latter two are from Australia, the same country as Sfacets and SahajHist. --Simon D M (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

121.210.52.44 makes taunting reference to 'Teaman' in his edit summary suggesting that both are the same person. SahajHist and Sfacets have turned down my suggestions of mediation, even though the Australian co-religionists in question are probably acquaintances, if not friends. --Simon D M (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they are giant mutant centennial brains in jars, typing in edits telepathically. Of course I know these editors -(not)- we hang out at Raju's computer club after a hard day at the mines. Sfacets 20:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting to the point where the page needs some sort of protection and/or mediation. A group of co-religionists are using their numbers to push through POV structure, POV wording and removal of sourced material. I have spent hours discussing my edits with Sfacets but he just refuses to get the point, just keeps on saying the same things over and over, ignoring requests for sources, keeping discussions going long after it is clear he doesn't have a leg to stand on, making unreasonable demands that whole sections of books be typed out for his perusal, etc. This is just sham discussion to block the edits of others while he pushes through with his own. --Simon D M (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Sfacets & co have reorganised the page, stripped out most critical information and replaced a lot of neutral wording, Sfacets is filing to get the page fully protected in that state 'for some time'. The amusing thing is that he's saying it is "so that discussion can progress". --Simon D M (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you look closely you will notice that I requested the block while the article was reverted by you. Please do participate in the discussion, but stick to the subject. Sfacets 06:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sfacets reverted at 14:04, Sfacets requested block at 15:12, Simon D M reverted at 16:01 --Simon D M (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willbeback, you keep reverting the page back to include many edits which were not reached by consensus, and you do not offer an explanation. Do you share Simon's agenda? Try-the-vibe (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WBB, I noticed you removed a question from the talk page. According to personal statements on a website, Simon Montford has in the past, claimed to be various religious figures. I was trying to verify his point of view, in a way, to find out where he his coming from, and with genuine concern, by asking him if he still believes that he is a religious figure. May I rephrase the question on the talk page? Try-the-vibe (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will. I left a message on Talk:Teresa Heinz and would appreciate your reply. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Will. Category:People born in Mozambique was deleted. The admin, User:Black Falcon, said that it was unnecessary anyway as a compromise because Heinz's article shouldn't contain the Mozambican categories, except People from Maputo, if it's a defining attribute. Please see his talk page and also Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Question for more. Thanks. SamEV 09:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, please answer User talk:Black Falcon, so we can resove this. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for taking time to find/add refs for the Charles Goethe article. Ombudsman (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, you are pretty good on the neutrality front and I would appreciate your input on this post to the admin board, because I am having constant difficulty with this User. --David Shankbone 05:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, this is all related to David's inability to let go of his conflict with Ted Frank. If you have any concerns about my behavior, feel free to email me or contact me on my talk page. ATren (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Baruch Lanner, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baruch Lanner. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews redux. Cool Hand Luke 21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to add references to the Stephens City page, which I did fairly well. But since I was referencing the same thing over and over (in a couple paragraphs) I added <ref name="Steele"> instead of the entire reference over and over and over. Well, of course, this didn't work. Would you mind taking a look at the page and you will see what I tried to do. Thanks! Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

returned from your block with the same.... --Brewcrewer (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Special:Contributions/Smythloan it is possibly HC but I can't see any edit that's stepped over the line yet. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for your answer. Sfacets 05:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press in the next few hours, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 03:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After this: User_talk:Brewcrewer#3RR_warning, I am taking off from policing these editors that are "jew obsessed". For now, I will contribute to Wikipedia in other ways. All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, the Gangaji article appears to have acquired a single purpose editor who suppresses sourced criticism while amplifying the guru's claims and rationalizations even in the controversy section. Please comment if you get time.--Dseer (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your catching forum link, missed that. Editor favoring Gangaji insists on even rewriting or deleting other editors comments on the talk page and repeat edit warring and information suppression to enforce personal interpretation of BLP. Next RV will result in their 3RR violation. Please intervene. --Dseer (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Will. I am at a loss as to how to deal with an editor on the Gangaji page who consistently removes the material I add, even though I believe my edits comply with wikipedia rules. Because the editor kept undoing edits on the controversy section of the article, I recently added a section on the Gangaji talk page called "A Summary of the Gangaji Controversies" and carefully summarized them with what I felt were very good sources. The other editor then changed the title of my section to make it sound as if I was trying to dismiss all the controversies, which was confusing because I was in fact trying to summarize NOT dismiss the controversies .... someone reading the section would be quite confused because the heading was in direct conflict with the content below. I would appreciate your advice on how I should best proceed. (Iddli (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)[reply]

I saw your comments on The Hat last week (which didn't get deleted BTW). Thought you might want to weigh in on The Crab Cooker. :) --evrik ^(talk) 15:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recent editing of the a&f article has gotten out of control. certain users have completely decimated the article and turned it into and advertisement more so than it has ever. i have been reviewing what can be edited, but since you tend to frequent the article more than i, you might have a better idea as to where to revert back to, and what should be edited. let me know how you feel about it. Kmccusker2 06:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this article? I'm fairly certain it's a creation of Ericsaindon2, but can't be positive. The majority of references to a Platinum Triangle in California seem to point to something in Anaheim... but the creator of the article seems to have interests that Eric doesn't share. I've never heard of the Platinum Triangle either, though that means nothing. There are references in the Golden Triangle article to the neighborhoods listed in the Platinum Triangle article, but I always thought the Golden Triangle was the shopping area on Rodeo. Anyway, take a look. Hope things find you well. AniMate 21:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? This is the second Elite Hills article I've managed to find. I've done some more internet research on the other and have found references to it. I'm guessing that when I first started looking for property I pretty much ruled out anything west of Fairfax and the "Platinum Triangle" passed me by. I may have to reconsider seeing as how its turned into a buyers market. AniMate 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A somehat combative editor wants to abolish the disambiguation page for Islamic_fascism and create pages with names that in the past have resulted in huge edit wars. I wonder if you could visit Talk:Islamic_fascism and see if what I am proposing (have the discussion on an exisiting page that other editors actually monitor) makes sense, or if I am being obstructive.--Cberlet 23:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Will for the kind words. SaltyBoatr 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed my bad comment in response to messages from yourself and Arkolochori. However, I am still looking in vain for any rebuke to Cberlet from you, for comments such as this. --Marvin Diode 16:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I need some help with difficulties in the editing of the laser quest page. I added a bit of slang/jargon that has been in the sub-culture for several years now. A few days ago, a user came along and erased this comments as he believed that they were vandalism. I posted on his page a brief note saying that it was in fact slang that was used in laser quest circles and that he may not know this as it appeared, at least on his user page, that he did not know anything about the game. He has since reverted the page ( I admit that I reverted it to the version that included the slang before contacting you) and added a comment in his edit line that I perceive was an insult towards me. I took offense to this, made him aware of the offense, that I was seeking a third party/admin help on the matter, and that I felt he does not have the right to revert the slang of the laser quest sub-culture as he does not have involvement in it. Furthermore, I detailed as to why it was pertanent to include, and why there was no "encylopedic" documentation, as sometimes slang does not get official documentation, how ever well known that it might be. Any advice/help in this matter would be appreciated, as although I do not really wish to engage in a revert war, this user has made it a point to. Thanks for your time and any advice or help you may be able to offer Rocdahut 19:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, I am the user in question. Rocdahut has not provided any proof of verifiability or notability of the term Denver download, other than his own word for it. A Google search for +"denver download" +"laser quest" gave only six hits: four Wikipedia mirrors and two internet forums. They do not meet WP:RS. As explained in WP:V#Burden of evidence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Aecis^Brievenbus 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok this will take forever so make sure you have the time and yes it is pretty much a waste of time but its fun. get a random article then go to the discusion then go to some ones talk page that you don't know then click one another random person untill somebody shows up one someones talkpage that you know plus its suprising some of the stuff people do and yes i came and wrote this message by that challenge then you tell the person that you find this challenge and get them to do it. ok!? ANOMALY-117 20:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC) for any questions[reply]

Yeah, I thought so - but actually was trying to AGF it on Ron Paul. I took it off Edwards as it was not only spam but also incorrect identifying text. So thanks Tvoz |talk 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will! This article has a tag saying it does not meet notability guidelines. I and others disagree and feel we have now established adequate notability. Who should we talk to about getting the article reassessed and the tag hopefully removed?

thanks!

Sojambi Pinola (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, long time no see!

Thanks for this edit to Sun Myung Moon. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review the Acceptable request guidelines before making claims. You provide no evidence to back your request. Sfacets 06:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new user suddenly appeared about a day after Dking began to promote the "LaRouche planet" website on the talk page of United States v. LaRouche. My hunch is that Dking thought he might weaken his case if he added the link himself. As it stands, under the Dking name he appears to be restoring it.

Your request seems ironic to me, because when I asked you for evidence that User:Don't lose that number was a sock, you merely pointed to the fact that someone added a template to his talk page, and you indicated that the template was sufficient evidence to make the accusation. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the the future, I pledge not to "express concerns" about any account being a sock, unless I possess incontrovertible evidence. Can you make the same pledge? --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I categorically deny that I originally placed the material from the LaRouche Planet website in the United States vs. LaRouche article. However, I did restore one of the two links removed by Marvin Diode (on the other, I agreed that it was not relevant to this particular article). I don't have a sock puppet name. I was not "promoting" LaRouche Planet but merely acting in conformity with Wiki editorial policy. However, Marvin Diode has now convinced me, through his unruly behavior, that I should. Everybody, click on LaRouche Planet today and learn the truth about Lyndon LaRouche!--Dking (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you spamming this user's userpage with harassing unfounded messages? There is no evidence to back your claim. 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Will - I actually really did want to support you based on your tremendously level-headed handling of the edit war at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, but I am very strongly opposed to the concept of designating entire domains as "attack sites" - I think we are throwing out many, many babies with a very limited amount of bathwater. I actually think it's the worst decision ArbCom has ever handed down. You've made a number of edits that indicated agreement with that decision, and you've enforced it at times. Ultimately I just have to oppose your candidacy based on that philosophical difference. No disrespect intended, though - you're one of my favorite admins. --Hyperbole (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comeback! [5] --Uncle Ed (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new on Wikipedia, I'm hoping you can explain why referring to the controversy over Unification Church owned/controlled/subsidized politically agenda-oriented media should not be referred to as "propaganda" in the sub-heading, as your recent change to my edit would indicate?

That's the heart of the controversy, right?

While the characterization of Unification Church associated media as "political propaganda" is clearly less politically correct among Unification Church members and neoconservative pundits than "publications", the former fairly and accurately describes the controversy using the proper word while the latter (in my opinion) utterly fails to describe the controversy.

I'll open up a topic on the talk page for discussion, and you might want to check Uncle Ed's talk page for my more extensive comments for more context...

Thanks,

riverguy42 (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about LaRouche Movement, but know a spot of POV when I see it. I thought people would just revert my tag lol, it looks much better now to me. Thanks again. Merkinsmum 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you adding a beliefs section to the SY article when consensus has not been reached? Sfacets 00:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you seem to be keeping tabs on this. Do these edits always come from that same IP? --Rlandmann (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you here. Since you haven'tr responded yet, I'm guessing you hadn't noticed my reply. The favor of your reply at the same page is requested. --Ssbohio (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply v2.0 posted. --Ssbohio (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming up on 3 days... Any reply? --Ssbohio (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be a week tomorrow... Have you had any thoughts or formulated a reply? --SSBohio 21:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Will! I saw this edit by the IP and naturally came to take a look since it was such a large addition. However, the edit actually seems okay. Now mind you, I didn't get through the whole thing, but what I did read was sourced and seemed fairly useful and straightforward. I saw that you blocked the IP as a sock, and obviously I don't know the story on that and won't pry, but is there a reason we shouldn't keep the edit? Just curious. Thanks for your time! GlassCobra 07:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, you're right, that's quite the history. Okay, well, I've got my eye on the article and will revert if the guy shows up again. Thanks for the quick reply! GlassCobra 08:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as guidelines on blogs, it says under 12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

The second link is not considered a "blog" but a reconized authority, as the writer is an expert on Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists. It should be allowed. User:ReaganRebel 20:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC]

It is a known fact that Johnny Lee Clary is an expert and recognized authority on Neo-Nazis and Nationalists, and it is a proven fact that Richard Barrett is a Neo Nazi. Clary is an author and has appeared on many talk shows as an authority. His article on Barrett should stand. If you do not wish to recognize Clary as an authority, shall we go to arbitration or get it up for a vote? User:ReaganRebel 20:34, 14 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaganRebel (talk • contribs)

The other blog I am not sure about. It appears to have some of the same information that the Racist Hall of Shame has. I would just go with this one. ReaganRebel 1:38am, 17 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaganRebel (talk • contribs) 07:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been thinking of doing an LTA page for Ericsaindon2 for some time, but his latest appearance last night (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaheim Hills, California, (Anaheim) for more details, prompted me to start one. Feel free to add more as needed. Blueboy96 00:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, may I know what's wrong with the username? --King Edmund of the Woods (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I might contribute my 2 cents (before the dollar falls again)... That username could be seen as an oblique reference to masturbation. I can also see where it might be someone's legitimate name, but, overall, it's better for a user not to have a name that could be taken the wrong way, even if the name was well-intended. --Ssbohio (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

I was wondering if you would be interested in helping with a dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse The section in question is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse#False_allegations_of_sexual_abuse_in_childhood We need someone neutral that is well versed in wikipedia policies. If you aren't able to, would you be able to suggest someone else.Abuse truth (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Please have a look at the history of Twelve Olympians. The user Carlo ms06 adds everyday Hades to the 12 while he is not, without any source at least, though the twelve Olympians are clearly assigned in the greek mythology and some variations are mentioned in the article. I have tried to start a conversation in the discussion page but nothing...I tried to talk to him in his talk page but....nothing again. Could you do something with it because I don't want to go on with this edit war. Thank you! - Sthenel (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you contributed to some discussion on this topic over at UNLV. Question: IYO, should all faculty on Wikipedia be added as notable faculty at their respective universities? Please reply to the specific case of UNLV at the talk page. Thanks. Tparameter (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you removed the quote attributed to Justin Raimondo from Chip Berlet, saying that it was "self-published." Could you explain to me how the cited source, Antiwar.com, is different than Political Research Associates, Berlet's group, which is cited so ubiquitously around here? --Niels Gade (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a great idea. Unfortunately the person who asked for the protection accused someone else of sockpuppetry. My reference to mediation was a very subtle reminder that dispute resolution may become necessary. I really didn't have a strong opinion on the matter until the accusations started . but now I am just letting everyone know that getting rid of John will not resolve anything. : Albion moonlight (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, as an uninvolved administrator I was wondering if you might have an opinion on the "Controversies" section in this article, as is being discussed on the Talk page. The article could definitely use a third (actually fourth, as I was the third) set of eyes.--Samiharris (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]