User talk:Will Beback/Revisions

Archives

• User talk:Will Beback/archive1 - January 2006
• User talk:Will Beback/archive2 - February 2006
• User talk:Will Beback/archive3 - March 2006

Live Rock

Noticed your removal of BarraCuda's addition of an external link on this page. This user has added this link to many pages, in a similar fashion. Note- I'm not dobbing, just unsure of protocol in additions such as these, additions that seem to only be for promotion!

Cheers

Como006 15:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

UCLA

I'm not sure how the List of University of California, Los Angeles people#Notable UCLA faculty is different from List of professors at UCLA. They appear to overlap. -Will Beback 20:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, they appear to overlap. A merge would be just fine. StabiloBoss 18:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Mystery man

Thanks for the message. I get a new IP address each day, so writing me replies is a bit pointless. But I said to you how you could respond. I was just passing on a message for your benefit. Feel free to delete it. Was just trying to help you out there.

Well, someone in the process is misinformed, I never made any legal threat or mentioned libel. I simply asked for certain postings which violate the forum's own rules to be removed. -Will Beback 04:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Cult suicide

Thank you for your note about cult suicide. I understand that Siegel's death doesn't meet the current, narrow definition of cult suicide stated in the article, but perhaps the definition should be broadened. Suicide is a phenomenon in many cults, involving both members and leaders. I think there's a reason for that. Incidentally, there are more sucides in AR than just Siegel and Baird, but unfortunately Siegel's is the only one there is any encyclopedia-quality evidence about. -MichaelBluejay 14:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

please

don't rv my discussion area. 132.241.246.111 20:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not your discussion area. It belongs to the IP. Get a username if you want to have your own userpage. -Will Beback 20:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

well...

....I guess that makes sense. 132.241.246.111 20:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Charleton Heston

Hey, I noticed you removed the article I posted and said it should be on wikisource. I also felt that there was something off and I didnt get a response from a mod. How do I post articles speeches on wikipedia? They are different from posting editable pages I know but I just am new to wikipedia.

Thanks,

Jerry Jones 20:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

wiki email

I know you are a volunteer, just like the rest of us.

I tried sending you a wiki email, asking for advice on a mediation request someone else filed that I was involved in. I haven't seen a reply back, and don't know whether you did reply, but your email didn't make it to my eyeballs.

You committee members list an email link next to your names on the committee page. You do, in theory, respond to email on mediation matters? And when you do you put "wiki" in the subject line, to help make sure your reply gets through the receipient's spam filters?

Thanks -- Geo Swan 14:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you please help me out?

I would like to edit the articles you mentioned on my discussion pages to get them wiki-appropriate. I got the source material from the Stones and rewrote it into third person. Your posting is the first time I became aware that someone else has done the same thing. The bios came out similar but not identical. Could you join me in a conversation on my dicussion page (since it is a little less cluttered) on how I can remedy this situation? Thank you Cate108 23:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a little update on the charges I intend to make... I am swamped at work and may or may not get to them before the entries are deleted. I grabbed a copy of the old text in the event that I do not make the changes in time. Thanks for your help and understanding. Cate108 19:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You are the fastest reply in the west. Cool! Cate108 19:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

One more question, how to I find a user's list of contributions. I can find it on my watchpage right after they make a contribution/change but if someone else makes a change, it is lost. Is there a more reliable way of finding out? Thanks, Cate108 19:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. That is all I ever say here... thanks, thanks, thanks! LOL! Cate108 19:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thoughtful

Hello again. It was very thoughtful of you to adjust your comment on my talk page. Yet, you did not need to. I was not offended - I just want to write good articles. I will take you up on your offer to help when I am further along on my articles. Perhaps you would check them for originality and appropriate formatting. Is that OK? Thanks again. Cate108 00:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC) transnistria article is the playground of some sovietic pov pusher like User:Mikkalai. He keep reverting the word romanians from the language, population paragraphs. He doesn't admit the fact that moldovans are romanians, even if he can't prove is not like that.

Will, you like Rattlesnakes?

Sorry, this isn't that important, but I saw your mention of rattlesnakes and their usefulness over at Crotalus horridus' page. It so happens that I have owned a Canebrake for four years that lives in my bedroom. She's about 4.5' long now. She's only bitten one guy, and he deserved it <g>. Great pet, even better exhibit—lots of oohs and ahhs when she eats! Dick Clark 15:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Shame on you

I understand the policy of not having a mere list of external links, but the links that have been removed storytelling festival are (contrary to your contention) to NON-profit/NON-commercial sites. Removing ALL the links (besides the link that is more related to the tellers and not the festivals) seems a bit extreme since it removes any links to any festivals which is what the article is about. Until more internal WikiPedia pages are built by those that are familiar with each individual festival, I believe that it would be useful to have some of them linked here since many of the festivals have various distinct qualities, not only in region, size and venue. I have a feeling that this page has been vandalized by the people who are charged with keeping others from being destructive...tearing down and removing information for the sake of inflating their "number of edits" instead of posting constructive information on the talk page and encouraging others to contribute. Shame on you! (this was left unsigned accidentally, but made by me Alancookie)

Thanks will for the suggestion for creating an external list of sites in lieu of placing a large external list of links on wikipedia. I will explore the possibility of doing this. I had wished that this suggestion was made when removing the information from the page. New users may be more likely to stick around if they are given guidance rather than just smiting their contributions. Thanks. Alancookie 01:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude Ranch article

I listed this external link in the Dude_Ranch article that was removed. I saw the link to everyduderanch.com, which is a very incomplete directory that is not very easy to use. Not that any directory is 100% complete, but the directory I added is much more extensive and would provide a better resource for those researching dude ranches in the United States and Canada. If you consider it link spam, consider everyduderanch.com spam as well. Furthermore, according to the external links article it is acceptable to have an external link to a web directory for the topic, which if there are two to choose the better (or open if any are). It is obvious that this dude ranch directory is more extensive than the everyduderanch.com directory therefore should replace it.--Ggman 21:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Aiken Arbitration

mixvio applied for arbitration and accidently left you off the notify list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Mixvio.2C_Rabinid_and_others_v._Jmh123.2C_Michigan_user.2C_Maria202_and_others

LaRouche

That's a good idea. The case for a block I was making, along with Sarah's, seems to be going ignored... BTW, I did not know that a block would require the approval of three admins. 172 | Talk 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Infantophilia Frederick Wills Gold Country Santa Clarita Valley Rancho Del Mar High School Thomas DiLorenzo Dara Torres Emerald Triangle Saddleback Valley Chronophilia Alice Day Amy Alcott Jay Fiedler West Los Angeles Baptist High School Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center Little Seoul Abe Saperstein LAPD West Los Angeles Division Anaheim (Amtrak station)

Cleanup Max Baer List of United States history articles Dixiecrat Merge Gay panic defense Ronald Reagan Freeway California State Route 71 Add Sources Barney Ross Sexual abuse False memory Wikify Stephen M. White Emil Moldovan Arizona Territory Expand Webb-Haney Act Newsweek Martin Yan

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

pants

what are you doing to my pants?--Cookamunga 00:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• no pants? you can't be serious? do you expect us to all run around without any trousers on? can you imagine the controversy?! Will somebody please think of the children!--Cookamunga 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Meetup

Hi Will,

We're having a meetup in Santa Barbara on Saturday at noon. I'd love it if you could come, but given the short notice, I fully understand if you can't. Angela will be there. Come up if you can!  :-) Antandrus (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Point?

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand the message you left on my discussion page. I'm merely trying to enforce the same standards that you obviously embrace. Is there something wrong with this? Corax 02:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is much to explain really. My edits were self-explanatory. I saw facts that were not cited, so I simply inserted the the ref tag. Is this a violation of Wikipedia policy? Corax 06:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

People over at that article have questions. This is a collegial effort. Responsible editors are willing to explain their edits to each other. -Will Beback 06:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would think that an administrator would comprehend written English better, but prehaps I overestimate your intelligence. What do you not understand about this: I SAW FACTS THAT WERE NOT CITED, SO I INSERTED THE REF TAG AS A REQUEST FOR CITATIONS. How is this in any way a violation of Wikipedia's stated policy, or disruptive to the encyclopedia? Corax 14:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Easy. Remember civility. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT -Will Beback 16:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The only purpose of my edits was to request citations for unsourced information. That you, in your rush to violate wikipedia guidelines by assuming bad faith, believe that there was some hidden agenda, is not proof that such an agenda exists -- or that my edits were in violation of Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you keep your conjecture off my talk page, just as I expect you to keep it out of the articles you edit. You seem to have a problem with both. Corax 18:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas page

Hi. If you get a second, would you mind stopping by the Clarence Thomas Talk page? I'm in a dispute with a user over whether the fact that Thomas performed, at his home, Rush Limbaugh's third wedding should be mentioned in the article. I think it should. The other user does not. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. Eleemosynary 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned comment by Corax

I have explained my edit. Now stop vandalizing my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corax (talk • contribs)

Feature Article ?

How can the article Fictional resistance movements and groups be placed as a Feature Article ? Martial Law 05:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC) :)

I am unfamiliar with the process, and I did read the wiki-protocol. Just trying to stay out of trouble. Martial Law 06:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC) :)

WikiProject Dead malls

Since you seem to be interested in helping out with WikiProject Dead malls, would you consider adding your name to the participant list? SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Requiring All Changes To Be Made With An Account

It seems like there's a LOT of Vandalism GOing Onn. Well, we could require all changes made to be made from a logged on Useraccount. Depending on the vandalism though, I acually don't know what the vandalism is like,[since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNUL hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up], but it must be made clear User Accounts have the option to be deleted, & after a certain period of time, they should be deleted; somepoeples personalities are like that they like to have things open ((open ended/no closure)).

Please reply.

Please leave one if you'd like more clarification on this issue. You could also contact me iooiioioo@hotmail.com [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNUL hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up].

thanks

24.70.95.203 20:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals). You should have looked at it the last time I mentioned it to you. Also, why do you constantly repeat "your" email address and that screed about why you won't sign up? We saw it the first few times, we don't need to be reminded of it every time you make a comment, unless you're just trying to make some point. --Golbez 20:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should require 24.70.95.203 to register before making any more edits. ;) -Will Beback 22:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked Perennial Proposals, but the thing thats' not there is the ability for the user accounts to be come deleted after a period of time, & the option to delete an account. 1 reason people do not sign up for an account is because a name they want has been taken. Another reason is because they want closure; if the person decides they no longer want to be associated with Wikimedia, they have no way to achieve that.

Please reply

24.70.95.203 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fill Your Heart

Hee hee! Thanks for the heads up!  :) --Sojambi Pinola 17:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

michael dellums

hey will

i've responded to your comment on Michael Dellums

Justforasecond 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Jason Bennett Promoters are Back

Hello, I see that Ucprof is hitting all the famous acting teachers and adding the Jason Bennett links again. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I don't know what to do about that. Would you please advise? Tree Trimer 17:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: JarlaxleArtemis

Do you have any issues with a user:JarlaxleArtemis? He agreed to apologize to you as a condition of being unbanned, but now can't recall you. This may be in regard to something that would have happened back in the fall of last year. The user is trying to fulfill his requirements. If you'd like to see it settled that can happen or you can waive it off. -Will Beback 08:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Will: Thank you for your message. To be perfectly honest with you I can't recall any specific issues with this user, although the name is familiar; regardless, there's no need to apologise to me, since I've forgotten what the issue was anyway! Consider any such issues hereby waived in their entirety. :) I sincerely hope JarlaxleArtemis has a productive and enjoyable new life on Wikipedia, regardless of any issues I may have had with him in the past, and that he has every success in joining us as a productive editor. If he needs any help, by the way, I'm at his service, as I am at yours. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ford Foundation

Accidentally ran a bot I was developing and it made that category change on that page only. The IP that changed it right after was me too...acidentally logged out. It was supposed to edit the sandbox page but it chose a random page instead. snpoj

Guidelines for Wikipedia lists of ethnic groups

Please may I draw your attention to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guidelines_for_Wikipedia_lists_of_ethnic_groups

Your contributions would be very welcome. -- Brownlee 11:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron Dellums and Michael Dellums

Hi Will. I see you've run into User:Justforasecond. If you have the time and energy, it would be appreciated if you could look over and participate in the discussions at Talk:Ron Dellums as well as the Michael Dellums article. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Any reason not to AFD the Michael Dellums article? I don't think he comes close to being notable. Guettarda 12:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk to Bcorr, he created the article. It's fine with me if its merged with Ron Dellums. There are only about three sentences of information which won't weigh down Ron's article too much. Justforasecond 16:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is headed for AfD. I woudln't vote to merge, just to to delete it outright. -Will Beback 19:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WetheChildren.com

These people think that 2 year olds should be medicating their own genitals (among other arbitrary demands)...that's not weird? They are creepy extremists. If ETAY doesn't belong on the child abuse page, neither do these people. St. Jimmy 14:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Oh, and the mandatory indoctrination (oops, family planning/parenting) classes for welfare recipients was a nice touch too. St. Jimmy 14:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 immigrant rights protest

There is an article that is stated "2006 immigrant rights protest" and this title is clearly POV and not balanced. I need an admin to come and take appropriate action because knowing wikipedia someone will just come and remove labels I put up to go their way.

I think it should be fair for all sides and say "2006 Immigration reform protests" or "2006 Illegal immigration protest" or "2006 immigration protests" something along those lines. Shoving biased terms down peoples throats will just make wikipedia lose its reputation.

Thank you for your consideration and please help us resolve this matter.

71.131.234.218 12:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Brian Brockmeyer

• It looks like he is now posting under the IP 66.254.238.240 Makes the same changes and addresses the same articles. AriGold 21:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • He is being disruptive and is now using the name RicardoTubbs Instead of saying Miami defeated Florida State, he insists on using "pummelled" or "dispatched" or anything he can think of that is nnpov. He also insists on saying that Miami has had "unrivaled" success at producing NFL players which is patently false. I have changed it to great success, but schools like Notre Dame and Michigan had put more players in the pros and Florida State and Ohio State currently have more pros. I addressed this on the discussion board, but the poster is notorious for not discussing issues. AriGold 12:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

re: SPLC

"A while back I added "controversial anti-hate group" as a description to SPLC in a number of references on various articles. I did so because editors were adding all sorts of ad hominem attacks on the SPLC and it was essentially a pre-emptive compromise. More recently a well-intentioned editor removed one and soon even worse descriptions were added in its place, so we eventually we reverted to the compromise formula. If you have a better way of describing it then that'd be great. But to leave it undescribed invites others to describe it- Will Beback 22:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)"

Thanks for the explainer. I don't have a better descriptor though a link to its page should suffice. I understand it does not. skywriter 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

pedophillia

Hi Will - how do I open a debate with you/others on the edits we are all making to pedophilia in literature/fiction etc/

Tony Sandel

Mentorship

Hello. You're now officially a mentor of Neuro-linguistic programming. Be sure to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming. I sent you a bit more detail by email. Again, thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And if you have any questions, concerns, problems, etc, you may ask John, kate or myself. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I keep the tequila in my second desk drawer; this too is vital information for undertaking this task. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Please do not be uncivil to your fellow editors. I have edited in good faith, and you are supposed to assume such. Please do not try to coerce me through aggression (I would see "blocking" as a type of aggression). Thank you CabotTheWarrior 08:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)CabotTheWarrior

Pomona College?

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if this is the appropriate page to ask you questions about editing, etc., but I was curious as to why you temporarily disabled the Pomona College page. Is adding a link to a student page ("PoGoss") considered "vandalism"? Why? Did someone request that the page be protected? Who? Is there someone else I should be directing these questions to? Thanks.

Rockero

Your kind words and offer bring a tear to my eye. I really wouldn't mind doing a few extra chores around here. I must admit that there have been times when I've thought to myself that a mop and bucket would come in handy, if the community dares entrust me with them. Only thing that worries me a little is that I'm starting grad school soon and I don't know how much time I'll be able to contribute at that point...

But that's a few months off yet. Besides, I think it will be fun to subject myself of the scrutiny of the community.

I accept. 8)--Rockero 23:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks again. I hope you don't mind if I come knocking on your door for advice from time to time. PAZ, --Rockero 23:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

template:dominionism

I think you will find a clear explanation on the deletion page. You should realize that dominionism as a "trend" is a category and field of study, and major figures in the field of study should be included in the template, just as important people in the field of philosophy are included in the philosophy template, even if they did not create a new philosophy themselves. People interested in christianity should be directed to commentators on christianity by a template, and not just to christains. If they aren't being interpreted in this way then, then the template is just being used for namecalling, and I doubt that is your intent.--Silverback 00:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy would be an excellant example, if it were a template, unfortunately it is so big it is a portal. It lists people who just study the the philosophy of others and don't have philosophies themselves. In fact the western tradition of philosophy is more a critical tradition than a philosphy. I will look to see if there are some template examples as well.--Silverback 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[1] is a good example. Instead of just having a single category "figures", they separate practitioners from critics. If you want to seperate it "figures" into the criticized and the criticizers, or some similar clarification, I am receptive.--Silverback 00:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Harzard in Mount San Jacinto

You mentioned in the article that hikers and climbers die or are harmed every year in the mountain. I am curious that how often does one hiker die on the way to the peak of Mount San Jacitnto? Could you please refer me to the reference? Geographer 06:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response to the source for the harzard. For Tahquitz, I hiked all the way to the fire watch tower back in 2000, the view of Mount San Jacinto was amazing. I saw Coulter pine and stream fog for the first time in that trip. I always want to hike to the top of Mount San Jacinto, and always think about it is as easy as to top Mt. Baldy (summer) and neglect any potential risks. Although I have heard people do die for topping Mt. Mount San Gorgonio.

Please update with me for your hiking events, I am too busy with my work and study to join the strawberry trip. Meanwhile I just moved recently where the front yard view changed from Mount Baldy to Mount Wilson. Geographer 23:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Bhagwan Swaminarayan

Let me remind you that the www.Swaminarayan.info is part of the Swaminarayan Samprday and by being a member of the Swaminarayan Sampraday I am allowed to borow this from the site Raj - सनातन धर्म 08:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Drapetomania

Re: Category:Mental illness --> Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD.[2] Did Drapetomania ever make it into the DSM and ICD? I'd be surprised. -Will Beback 06:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No idea. I only saw that Category:Mental illness had become a hard redirect to Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD so I moved the few articles that were still there into the new cat. Note the comment in the latter category: "This is a merger of the categories Mental Illness and Psychiatric Disorders". Maybe something got screwed up? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding KSPC to Pomona College article

Hi--thanks for the new user's information, tutorial, etc. I just wrote an article for Pomona College's radio station KSPC and would like to have a link on the Pomona College website. Since the website is protected, could you add the link? Or do you think the article will be unprotected soon? Also, does my KSPC article look wikipedia-worthy? Thanks! RODQL08

Northmeister

Will Beback, can you please give Northmeister some space. He needs a chance to work on this without having to justify everything. That is reasonable, right.

He agrees to stay away from policy pages for now. Let's support this postive choice by giving him some space. FloNight ^talk 00:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fowlers

I've replied to your comment on my talk page. Could you please confirm/unconfirm it for me, as I won't have access to Fowler's for a while yet :) porges 08:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Will Beback/Revisions! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ordre St Jean

Thanks for eliminating this Chevalier character. User:Ordre St Jean is definitely his sock and a major nuisance too. I hope he will be blocked as well. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me again? Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Calvinist confederacy

If you have a moment, please lend your thoughts to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvinist confederacy. --Flex 01:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Westboro

I used the link because of the video, not the blog.

Coving

I'm a land development engineer. My first visit to Wikipedia was from a Google search for Coving. This site had the best definition for the term that I have seen since I first read about the method in C&E Magazine almost ten years ago. I have referred developers and city council members to your site to read that article. I was very disappointed when it was stripped of most of its text. Now the entire article is gone. It looks like you editors think this is some kind of game, but real people use these articles and we look like fools when we refer others to your site and all they see is a hole because some editor wanted to punish another editor. You can be part of the solution or you can be part of the problem.

Nobody in the real world cares about reindeer games; we just want the toys delivered. --Vista Delay 23:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that I have generated enough clout to edit one of the growing number of off-limit articles around here. Are you trying to get me banned? --Vista Delay 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect this is another Zephram Stark sockpuppet. I've asked Jayjg (who can use CheckUser) to check. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Destroying things of value will not help you win dominance over others. The path of hatred and destruction only leads to the disappointment, fear and anger of frustrated expectations. While nobody wants to see these articles destroyed, their value is certainly less than one's freedom. --Vista Delay 00:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet

You have blocked User:WhiskyWhiskers for indefinite but he seems to operate now as User:155.84.57.253 and keeps on adding "The King of Nines" to the Browning Hi-Power-article. --81.197.218.62 23:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Buchanan

I noticed your comments to the anon user on Buchanan's removal from the Irish category. This is all part of a larger discussion, the gist of which is going on at [Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Guidelines_for_Wikipedia_lists_of_ethnic_groups], as well as sub discussions on the Irish and Greek. Basically what we have is a confusing mess in trying to decide how these ethnicity lists that have sprung up should be organized - there's the proposal at the link I gave you, there are people who think some of the pages should be "Americans of something descent" as opposed to "something-Americans" (and that's part of the conflict on the Irish page, which was moved to List of Americans of Irish descent, and there is also the faction (SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and GraceNote) over at village pump that say a person can't be placed on any of these lists unless they are specifically described as, using this example, "Irish" or "Irish-American" (i.e. not even born in Ireland or having Irish parents, etc.), because it would be a violation of Original Research. I know you're a long-time administrator, so I'm asking you what do you think? Is it a violation of original research? Mad Jack O'Lantern 00:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

For clarification, I have commented only on the Jewish lists (i.e. that if someone is added as a Jew, a reliable publication must have described them as such), and I've specifically said I'm making no comment on any other lists, as I believe Jayjg also made clear. Jack O'Lantern is aware of that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note says that original Research policies are violated everywhere when someone is added to an ethnicity list who is not described as exactly that (i.e. "Greek" or "Greek Americans"). Obviously this is either true for all ethnicity lists, or it isn't the case for any of them. What I'm trying to clarify is if it is or not. Mad Jack O'Lantern 00:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Telltale Signs of a POV Crusade

I came across a problem at Billy Graham the other day, and after it persisted for a while I checked the offendor's user talk. I was rather unsettled to discover that you had clearly warned User:Rogerman about the same activities, and very soon after he registered. Originally it was my hope to explain to him in edit summaries and the discussion page that labelling the subject of a biography in its opening section with controversial viewpoints, or as being controversial, spins the article unduly toward that POV, but now that I have seen your messages to him, I realize that Rogerman has been on a mission to do just that, and in more than a couple articles. I see that this editor actually asked you later for assistance in winning battles that he had begun with his own POV inserts. I applaud you for responding to his requests as neutrally as possible, but be aware that some manipulation on his part might have been afoot. Please note his recent activity in the Billy Graham edit history, and perhaps check his user talk to see the pattern of POV complaints that his endeavors have elicited. I don't think that further reasoning with him about his agenda, or at least not by anybody other than an admin, will necessarily be a wise investment of time if he has demonstrated a lack of good faith in POV so far. Thanks for looking into this. Projection70 03:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Projection70, going around talking behind my back is not cool. If you have a problem with my edits, why didn't you come to me directly? That would have been the appropriate step if you indeed wanted to resolve an issue rather than causing trouble. That said, I am always willing to work with anyone, no matter how many conflicts I may of had with them in the past. Please contact me if you would like to make amends and work together for a better Wikipedia. -Rog Rogerman 04:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

• I raised my concerns about your behavior in the proper place, on the discussion page of the article. Indeed this was "the appropriate step." When you then continued your activity instead of checking or engaging the discussion page, I checked your user talk page and realized that you have been notified of the same infractions before, as you hop from page to page to interject your POV (in the name of NPOV) regarding public figures whom you dislike. This is when I took the next appropriate step, as it became clear that your pattern needed admin attention. I was aware that you could read the user pages on which I asked for admin attention, so it was not, per se, behind your back. Projection70 05:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, let's work to build concensus instead of arguing, okay? Rogerman 05:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

California History Hallmark

I see that someone has posted a special California History with poppy tag on several sites. The one on the History of Los Angeles is corrupted. Could you find out who that is and have it fixed? Magi Media 05:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Never mind!!! I fixed it myself! Magi Media 05:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

In refrence to LA History 1913-1941. It's not so much that I have a community allegiance nor that I consider LA City "the enemy." But I was born and raised in Altadena since the war, and I didn't much get into LA ever. A lot of times the place is foreign to me. Now my brother-in-law, City Councilman Tom LaBonge is a 3rd generation Angeleno with a lot of historical knowledge, if not too much of it is BS. He is particularly interested in LA bridges, the Hyperion Bridge in particular which btw has a WWI dedication chiseled into it. If you see many of my historical writings of local areas, you will notice I don't write much in this same period on anything. Either its boring, or not historical enough. If I were to give an inpression of LA history during this period, it would be all Red Car and urbanization. Maybe Hollywood. And then there's the aviation industry, big stuff. Before 1900 a visiting Henry Huntington predicted that LA would become an enterprise of real estate and transportation, not realizing he was foreseeing his own future. Look at the Kinney article and Venice. A lot of specific locations with independently interesting development. So what's in LA City like that? I'll have to give it thought. Thanks for asking Magi Media 13:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome! I was beginning to wonder when an admin would welcome me. ;) M P M 09:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

FLAGRANTE DELICTO

why do u keep deleting this law? here is where your response belongsDarkstar1st 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Your line

Hi, I liked your line "Better articles are our goal, not better policies" Do you mind if I use it with attribution to you? JoshuaZ 06:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Help

Will, since you were previously helping in editing the article Immigration to Mexico, I need your help. I organized the page in sections, and I explained myself in the talk page why I did it the way I did, but another user keeps ignoring my comments and keeps removing one of the sections and inserting the information at the top of the page. Mind you, it's the information said user originally inserted when the article was created. I explained myself yesterday and this is the second time this has happened. I don't want this to turn into an edit war so can you please help mediate. Thanks! M P M 07:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Union College

Hi. The anon that removed a lot of info from Union College complained about missing citations. He kinda has a point IMHO - a lot of that stuff could use some notes on where it came from. Just my two cents since I'm sensing an edit war brewing...  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Black Criminals

Er, excuse me, but you are removing categories that clearly apply, as they were both black and criminal. Legendary Steve 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And in reply to your specific question, he admitted the crimes. Legendary Steve 22:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What crimes? -Will Beback 22:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the article? More to the point, are you seriously arguing that neither Jesus nor Martin Luther King, Jr. were criminals? Legendary Steve 22:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What crimes did Blair commit? According to whom was Jesus black? -Will Beback 22:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Amongst other things, fraud and deception, as is made clear in the article. As for Jesus being black, well, for a start the Rastifarians claim that. Legendary Steve 22:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Writing a false newspaper article is journalistic fraud, but doesn't violate any law that I'm aware of. Do you think that the Rastafarians represent the consensus view on the race of Jesus? -Will Beback 22:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Submitting a false expenses claim certainly does. Of course I do not believe that the Rastafarians represent the consensus view on the race of Jesus; however part of the problem lies within the definition of black: If black is strictly to mean of Sub-Saharan African then it is indeed unlikely that Jesus was black, however this is a minority interpretation of the phrase. Legendary Steve 22:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Submitting false expense claims is a civil matter between Blaier and his employer, but it is not a criminal matter. Unless you are going to call all people with non-white skin "Black", Jesus does not belong. Please don't disrupt the project with this nonsense. -Will Beback 22:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not the case, it is fraud which is a criminal matter. For more information on the claims of Jesus being black, start here. Legendary Steve 22:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Will Beback, thank you for your persistent monitoring of Pedophilia activism, Lolicon and other related articles. Your calm and reasonable comments are much appreciated. : ) FloNight ^talk 22:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

James Hahn

Thank you for your concern regarding the James Hahn article. The only reason I deleted the info box was to try to figure out why his image was not working. I now understand that there was not proper licensing. Could you please help me how to find an image of Hahn that is appropriate for the site? In addition, I always had the full intention of placing the info box back, which I did.

Regarding the content of the article, everything that has been written comes from press releases of his office, speeches he has given, websites of his office or campaigns, websites of others, and articles that have appeared in local newspapers. All of the information is accurate, but I admit that it is biased in Hahn's favor.--Jfree8 08:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:69.225.158.113

They're requesting a unblock but I don't want to do it without asking you, I'm not 100% on what the vandalism was there, could you take a second look please -- Tawker 17:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

OGP and HWP

Are not Hahamonga Watershed Park and Oak Grove Park the same? --fpo 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

re Your "Original research" Section on my Talk page

Wow. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. I admit to a minimal, but (IMO) necessary, bending of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS in order to determine the fact of Ms. Devi's death. That does not mean that we should just flout those polices altogether by writing an original account of her death. It is well-researched, but original research is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Please post it in some other website. I am going to revert your contribution, and mention that there has been confusion over her death. This is nothing personal and I hope you appreciate that it is simply a matter of how this encyclopedia is put together. - Will Beback 08:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, too. In this particular case, I tend to disagree with your assessment. If I get you straight, that means that I would have to put up the information that I have rather painstakingly synthesized on another website and then quote/reference myself? I'd do that, but it would be a little hard for me to find a site willing to put up with that...unless you are saying that I should start a blog or something...which would then join the 3.5 billion other blogs that no one but their authors read :)

I tell you what: instead of reverting my text, which essentially just wiped it away forever, could you at least place it here on my talk page, so, if nothing else, I can admire my own handiwork? (and if it is considered inappropriate to repost this section from my own talk page here on your talk page as well, I apologize, but I don't have an idea if you were watching my talk page or not...so when you reply on my talk page, you can always delete this section from yours) -- Jalabi99 22:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

(a little later, after Will had added what I wanted to my Talk page)

Thanks, mate! :) -- Jalabi99 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Hyles

Would you please explain why you reverted the Jack Hyles page? Pooua 04:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, that you reverted several articles because they deleted sourced information without an edit summary. You may be unaware that the deleted sourced material in the Jack Hyles article is in violation of copyright. I have been in contact with the copyright holder to confirm this fact. I do not feel I need to take further action on this matter, because the copyright holder appears to be eager to do so.

Of course, the fact that the material is in violation of copyright is only a small part--though a part you won't be able to overlook--of all the problems with that article. Those "sourced items" should never have been in the article, not just because they violated copyright, but because they were sensationalized, speculative, one-sided accusations. They show shoddy research, interested only in heaping scorn on the subject without providing a true understanding of it. And, because the research was so shoddy, the article has now fallen victim to its own failures, by stealing Fox News' copyrighted material and passing it off as unattributed public domain news stories. Pooua 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Will, I provided most of the answers you ask on the Jack Hyles Discussion page. However, I will provide you with what I know of the subject.

The items that I have so far discovered in copyright violation (and I think they are the only ones for which the case could be made) are the external links to the articles, "Preying from the Pulpit." According to the Jack Hyles article, the source is "Detroit Michigan Eyewitness News," which tells us precisely nothing, though I did not notice that until I happened to run across the actual source recently. I spent Sunday reading through NWI Times archives on Jack Hyles, when I discovered that it was "Detroit television station WJBK-TV," a Fox News affiliate station, that produced the articles. I still did not recognize what I had found, until my opponent, Arbusto, challenged me to specify the articles my quotes were indicating. That's when I realized that he couldn't know, because the material was never properly referenced. Or, rather, he would have had to use deductive reasoning to figure it out, but I will give him a pass on that because I missed it the first first few times I looked at it.

The Wikipedia links to the "Preying from the Pulpit" series go to Jeri Massi's personal webpage. I have discoursed with Ms. Massi for more than a year, as she was a constant foil on the "Fightin' Fundamentalist Forum" (now since shut down). She never hesitates to heap scorn on any fundamentalist preacher who is not a Calvinist; in particular, she targets Jack Hyles, and anyone associated with Jack Hyles. But, she has gone too far, this time, in stealing that copyrighted material and publishing it on her Website without attribution.

I made a long distance phone call to WJBK this morning, and was put in contact with a woman named Pat. She asked me to e-mail her the details, which I did. She has thanked me for calling this matter to her attention.

I don't know all the material that was deleted, apart from the Jack Hyles page. The only other page that might be related to him that I have looked at so far is the new page Arbusto made for the "Preying from the Pulpit" series; no material was deleted from that page. Pooua 05:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Tag

Currently there is a dispute regarding the appropriate categorization of the NAMLBA article. Accordingly, I have added a disputed tag to that section of the article. Your insistence on duplicating the disputed tag in a way that throws the entire article into question is inappropriate, and violates wikipedia policy. Please refrain from doing this in the future, or I will report you for vandalism. Corax 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Aw Shucks

Thanks for noticing! Skywriter 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Pleae do not leave warnings regarding rules I haven't violated

I have responded to your reporting of the supposed 3RR violation. I feel confident that things will be decided in my favor. Corax 16:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive each other and move on.

Awww mate, that's mighty unfair.

I was blocked, without warning, after one revert, after waiting hours for a response, after being reverted myself "pending discussion," by an editor whom I've got a long history with and whom I was involved in a content dispute with. About this there has been (almost) no complaints from me. In fact, I've stated several times that I want only to concentrate on the actual issues of clerks' authority. I only mention it here because of your comment.

To suggest, as the statement above does, that I'm in need of forgiveness seems to be quite a stretch.

brenneman^{L} 08:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it was a mistake. Everyone agrees. Don't harp on what already happened. Bask in the private knowledge that you're right. I think you're trying to get Sidaway to apologize and it won't happen, nor will you apologize. So just drop the mutual recrimination. Fix the policy so it doesn't happen again. Lobby for limits on clerks, etc. Call an RfC if you think it necessary, but I hope it isn't. Wikipedia has too many important problems without our most valuable editors fighting. -Will Beback 08:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh... when you expand it like that, there's almost nothing I can't agree with. Except that I'm happy to say say that I am sorry that my reversion struck a nerve. I thought it in the category of "slightly provocative" also known as "small poke with unsharpened stick." Blech, those are terrible apologies, aren't they? Let me try again: I should have voiced my concerns in some public forum rather than escalating, and for this I do apologise.

Blessed are the peacemakers,

brenneman^{L} 23:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

BJU Societies

The current BJU catalog ('06-'07) says there are 48--and I trust the catalog more than the website.

John Foxe 13:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about we list them? -Will Beback 21:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, there are 48 societies: 22 for men, 24 for women, and 2 which are open for men or women over 23 years of age. The number of societies fluctuates a little every couple years, as some societies get disbanded for lack of membership, and new ones are occasionally created as the need arises. Chi Delta Chi, for instance, has under 20 members and may be disbanded next year. Barang 23:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Browser?

Hey there! I thought I should notify you that I have reverted your edit on ILovePlankton's talk page. It is really weird that the contents "was made invisible". Out of couriosity, what browser do you use? Because under Firefox it renders well. And the "trick" based on not closing the WikiTable is actually a very popular way of changing the style of a talk page without having to move any closing tags everytime a new comment is added (essentially because the whole page is then within a single cell). Your edit actually made the table of contents to escape offscreen to the right. For reference, you can also check my talk page as I'm using a very similar trick (only the opening of the table is in a custom template). Misza13 ^{T C} 22:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just kidding, but I can read it just fine. ILovEPlankton 15:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

good glad to help. ILovEPlankton 04:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Tancredo

You objected to the use of a blog as a source. The blog contains photographic evidence of dozens of Tancredo signs and students cheering at CPAC. Eye witness and photographic evidence supports that statement. If the CPAC section is included, I think the crowd response is noteable.-Jcmiller

I've responded at Talk:Tom Tancredo. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal?

I followed up on your note on the Talk: Asian fetish page about the same individual posting his wares to the Pedophile activism article. The individual concerned (IP 80.171.114.119) claims he is not the Virago vandal. His IP is different, (the Virago vandal was IP 80.138.189.15), although evidently from the same part of the world. Also, although he has the same tedious writing style, his material and his sources are different. Can we verify the IP? Let me know what you think. Sunray 21:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that the IP range was different. IPs can change, and people can move. I'm not sure that he is the Virago vandal, and I may be wrong. -Will Beback 21:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Bill Lawrence

I don't see my name in the edit histories of Bill Lawrence or any of the three articles it links to, nor in my contribution list, so I don't really know how to answer. Niteowlneils 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:AfD-List of religions once classed as cults...

Would you consider changing your vote to keep the information if it were merged with List of groups referred to as cults or expanded into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. If you can find scholarly sources which deal with the topic you are proposing then such an article could be written. But the existing sources are not sufficient to write about such a broad concept without getting into original research. -Will Beback 23:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting a change I made

I notice you reverted a change I made which included ASFAR in pedophile organizations, claiming that I was making a point. How is it that if I add an organization to the pedophile organizations category, when that organization meets at least one of the two criteria set down on the category's page, it is "making a point." But when you put NAMBLA in the category, on the basis that it meets at least one of the criteria on the category's page, it's a good edit? Please explain this inconsistency, or I will have to assume you're making edits in bad faith. Corax 02:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How many members of ASFAR have been arrested for sex crimes? How many have called each other "pedophiles?" The group does not fit the criteria of the category, and the only reason you haev added it is to make a point about NAMBLA, which you seem to think must not be called a pedophile organization. -Will Beback 03:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If a certain number of arrest of an organization's members for sex crimes is a criterion for inclusion of that organization in the category, then you need to list it. If a certain number of instances of members of an organization calling other members of that organization a "pedophile" is a criterion for inclusion of that organization in the category, then you need to list it. Adding articles to categories when those articles meet the criteria listed on that category's page is not making a WP:POINT. The case can be made, however, that reverting such edits is an instance of vandalism. Corax 03:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please make the case instead of making threats. -Will Beback 03:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made my case, and I have not made threats. Please respond to my case with one of your own so we can get the ball rolling on this. Corax 03:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What ball? Roll it on your own. -Will Beback 03:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The ball we've been trying to start rolling for the past week. The one that we can't start rolling until you come clean with the specific criteria you are using to determine the composition of the Pedophile organizations category. The ball is impossible for me to roll on my own because you have insisted on getting involved, and Wikipedia is a collective effort. Corax 03:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That category has had a criteriq since it was made. There's nothing to "come clean" about. -Will Beback 03:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please inform us hayseeds what a "criteriq" is. There apparently is something to come clean about when you remove an article from the category page, and those removed articles meet the criteria stated on the category page. Such actions make it appear that there are requirements for being listed that are not currently on the page, but which you are applying on your own. Corax 03:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a typo of "criteria". -Will Beback 03:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I don't see how the length of time for which a criterion or two criteria has existed has anything to do with my observations that you are making edits pertaining to the category which fall outside the scope of the listed criteria. Corax 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

redirect

I assure you I merged and cleaned it up thoroughly. I spent about a good 40 minutes to an hour doing it. I didn't miss anything. They are identical pages and I assure you the merger is good.

Cheers!

Are you sure?

I did read the talk page and it seemed to me the consensus was to merge the article into that one - the opposite of what was done. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 05:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was vandalism?! I simply reverted an incorrect indirect - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 05:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Los Angeles photo

I've got the same picture taken at 3pm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LA_from_mulholland_dr.JPG You can modify it if you want and if decide to use it as the featured pic instead of the nighttime pic, you're welcome.

OR

Hi Will. I am having a problem over at Media Matters for America, and I was wondering if you could have a look at it and inject some perspective.

Stanley011 (talk · contribs) added the following (the portion lower down the page). The non-neutral language aside, it looked to me like original research, and I added a {{fact}} which he has repeatedly removed.

In essence, the addition says that MMFA isn't holding true to their mission statement when they post Olbermann's criticisms of O'Reilly, and the like, and believes that links to a few of these posts counts as support for his assertion. I have, with no success, asked him to provide his source for the information, but all he has done is add more links to MMFA posts.

IMO, this isn't enough to support the assertion. To begin with, it's OR, since he appears to have come to his conclusion that they are not true to their mission statement by looking at the clips they post. While the OR problem associated with posting a non-controvertial synopsis of a TV episode or movie is trivial, I believe this is a bigger problem because it requires analysis (analysis of their posting history in the context of their mission statement) and it asserts a notability based on a handful of anecdotes. This should be left to an external source, not done by an editor (especially one who doesn't realise that calling things "rants" isn't exactly using neutral language).

Our converation on the matter is here and here (I believe that everything of importance is crossposted to both talk pages). Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Guettarda 15:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

*grumbles*

I'll try 132.241.246.111 04:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

advertising

Hi, just saw your comment. Wasn't advertising. Have noticed that many pornographic articles have links to useless external sites. Some are blatant advertising by the people the article is about. But those remain up. So, went through and linked to custom searches at an adult search engine I found useful. Should I use several ones instad of one? Stillmountain 05:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont' understand your point about several versus one. If you find useless external links, please delete them. Do not add more. If you continue to add commercial links you'll be blocked from editing. -Will Beback 05:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. I guess I wasn't clear about the several versus one. I was referring to the fact that I could care less about advertising and would be happy to add links from several sources. As for your second point, given the confusion I've caused, I don't feel qualified to go on a deleting spree. I guess what confused me is that many of the external links were commercial sites and they weren't deleted. Stillmountain 05:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

External links do not help the encyclopedia very much. When such links can provide substantial information to readers we allow them. Due to the popularity of Wikipedia, commercial spam has become a major problem. I remove at least a dozen links a day, on average, and I'm not even one of the special spam-patrollers. If you want to help the project, the way to do so would be to add the info that you think is important to the articles themselves. However multiple pictures of porn stars does not really qualify as "additional information". But other information, such as filmography, is useful. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Byck

I just thought that "Jewish Americans" was supposed to be the parent category, and I couldn't think of an appropriate sub-cat to move him to. It was probably a mistake - some people just belong in the parent cat and can't be categorized under a profession/etc. Mad Jack O'Lantern 07:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

please help

User:75.3.4.54 is at it again; it is unlikely to be a set of random people because nearly all the vandalism/POVism is in the same direction. This user recently vandalized my user page, can you consider a block again see his discussion page (to which I didn't add my complaint) to see a (partial) list of the mischief. Carlossuarez46 14:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I left him a note. Yes, it appears to be a single user. -Will Beback 21:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

edit to my talk page

You do not get to dictate the content of my discussion page. If you feel that another admin needs to know something about my past behavior, feel free to discuss it with him on his talk page, and provide him links there. Corax 04:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The many faces of Bill Lawrence

Ouch -- yeah, looks like that's a nasty dispute and they need to be politely told that there's no place for it here. I'd really suggest making the trademark article a redirect and pulling all of the trademark dispute into its own section (any that's properly referenced of course) and try a crash course in Wikipedia editing for the people involved. If it becomes a problem, you can always AfD the trademark article, since on its own, the trademark dispute doesn't appear to have notability or be encylopedic and you'll probably get a merge and redirect outcome for it. I'll be happy to watchlist the articles and see if I can't help a bit, but after the Shiloh experience, I'm fairly certain that with fueds, its best to just show them the door. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your post at Talk:Ballard High School (Louisville)

Was that a reply to my post or the original poster? Since you indented it from my reply, it looks as though you are replying to my post. --rogerd 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The best way do indent is:

Post1

Post 2: 1st reply to post1

Post 3: Reply to post 2

Post 4: 2nd reply to post1

That way, it is more clear.

And BTW, thanks for reverting that offensive reference. Mr. Crawford may still be living, and there is no need for that anon to post insults towards a living person, especially one who is not a public figure. --rogerd 23:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Scaife

Please defend the revert of the sublime edits of the Richard Mellon Scaife article.

The he-said/she-said pissing match between Scaife and the reporter is meaningless without access to the four or five-part series in the Columbia Journalism Review, which put the encounter in perspective and which is no longer online-- and that was stated in the deletion, contrary to your claim that that part of the edit was not explained. The information about the reporter is flat out wrong, as she occasionally wrote more than 25 years ago for The Nation, and moved on to other publications. Why is that still there?

More specifically, what does the paragraph about that chance encounter tell us about the subject of the article that his life story, which I added awhile back, not tell us? His relationships with his family members are much more revealing about his character than a chance encounter with a reporter whose four or five-part series we can no longer read. But maybe then Wikipedia is trying to out-Enquirer the National Enquirer in the area of titilating readers by throwing the word "cunt" around. Great!

Explain exactly what using the nickname --Dick-- in the middle of the article accomplishes? Exactly why did you put that back in? Please point to other articles where the subjects of articles are not referred to strictly by their last name. Why the sudden informality?

My edits made sense. Yours did not. Perhaps you will explain in detail what you did. Skywriter 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'll reply on the article talk page. -Will Beback 07:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Pwctoday

the forum is a very important asset to the pwc community, making a wiki article about it would be best. i ran into some troubles, and yes deleting it would be best right now. thank you.

Rename

You asked to be contacted if the user-rename limit was increased; it has been increased to 200,000 edits, so you may request a namechange if you wish. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well

I'm gettin tired so I should tap out in a few least I should get cranky. lol grazon 07:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Archetypes, etc.

Hi, I'm actually not spamming. I'm putting info about Archetype Work and how its evolved Method Acting training into an article about Method Acting. I think I have the right to do that. Please explain why the info is not correct or shouldn't be in there. Ucprof 21:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On most of the pages about acting, there are links to private acting schools, when its relevant to the subject. Since Jason Bennett article is copyrighted, and since that is where the article is, I'm putting the link there. Why discriminate only against Jason Bennett's work? Please leave it in there so people can read about the work. It isn't an advertisement disguised. It's useful work. Ucprof 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think Wikipedia policies require censorship of Jason Bennett's work, any more than it requires censorship of any other acting teacher. Your request is unreasonable. Jason Bennett evolved Archetype work, and deserves credit for it. Ucprof 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

See, I noticed you removed an article by Jason Bennett, but you left an article by a private acting school in St. Louis. Both articles are useful for people to read, and both articles have info about method acting. Please don't single out Jason Bennett's work for discrimination. That isn't right. Ucprof 21:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are several other private acting schools on the page that you left, and books by private acting teachers. Shall I go through and remove references to all private acting schools and teachers? It will cause Wikipedia pages about acting to be massively superficial and incomplete. That is where your logic will take us. Please tell me your view. Ucprof 21:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So I'm going to respectfully ask again for you to explain why you are against the information I'm putting in articles about acting being read by people. You continue to delete ONLy references to Archetype Work and the tools Jason Bennett created, while leaving other private schools web site and names all over Wikipedia. You selectively deleted a post in the Meisner article, and left the private school externals links to OTHER schools. Would you like me to clean ALL references to private teachers, methods and schools out? Or can Jason Bennett's work be disseminated in an EQUAL fashion. Please respond. So far, your agenda seems only to be to censor me... Ucprof 00:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Howard Zinn

Hello,

I noticed you protected the Howard Zinn article, and this was likely a wise choice. However, as for reaching a consensus on the isuse, I'm not quite sure what to do in that regard. I have explained the reasons why I believe the article is written in an inappropriate tone, and subsequently needs to be restructed to make it more encyclopedic. The only editor opposed, skywriter, has shown no interest in debating this point, or in reaching consensus on the issue, at least not as far as I can tell. Additionally, he has been generally abusive towards me and my attempts to improve the article, both on the talk page, and on my talk page. What are my options here? I believe I have consistently acted in good faith and to uphold Wikipedia standards, and I would like to continue to do so, so I'm at a loss here. To my knowledge, skywriter is the only editor opposed to the tag being there, so I'm not sure how to reach consensus with such an editor.

Thank you for any help or suggestions you can provide. Bibigon 00:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As another editor who has worked on the Howard Zinn article, I have to say that I don't agree with having tags placed on the article, though I do agree that there are problems with the article that need to be addressed and resolved. I believe the tags - and a number of reversions, etc. have inflamed the issue, provoking (the too-provocable) skywriter, and producing a lot of misdirected effort to deal with a growing edit war, rathern than the article itself. I still believe a more productive, consensual approach is possible. Pinkville 02:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct yourself

In regards to your latest attempt at correcting a situation, here is the quote I responded to "If you want me to find some minor clause that saves you, give up. My way is the spirit of the policy and that's what counts. (Besides, I doubt even the letter would support your argument). The point of talk pages is to talk. You being a dick." If that is not a personal attack, then I don't know what is. In the future I'd suggest you'd make more of a discernment as anyone who can read should be able to see so. I'd appreciate it as well if you'd subscribe to appropriate behavior set forth at Wikipedia. If someone calling the other person a "dick" isn't a personal attack at it's base you've surely lost a screw. --Redwolfb14 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Jason Bennett

You seem to not understand. Jason Bennett is a notable, respected acting teacher in New York City. Information about his work belongs in articles about acting, where relevant. You are selectively censoring info about his work, while leaving MANY other private school and teacher references in all kinds of acting articles. Why? Any unbiased observer can see this isn't what should happen. You do not make policy for all of Wikipedia. You can continue to block me, but you'll see that over time, others will come along to insert stuff about Jason Bennett's work, since the work is really important. Stanislavski invented emotional recall, Bennett invented Archetype Work and other stuff. See? Censoring Bennett's work isn't right. You can't keep blocking me just to censor information you don't like. The Archetype articles are copyrighted, and external links to them are as appropriate as any other external links to schools and books from acting articles. You don't seem interested in a dialogue to work this out. You are just issuing unfair commands to me. You can't do that. Ucprof 00:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem confused. The "community" of eight people voted that a page for Jason Bennett was not important enough to keep. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about now. The "community" of eight on Wikipedia don't know who is notable in the New York acting community, and frankly they were wrong to vote for deletion. If the poll had been among New York actors, of course it wouldn't have been deleted. But that has nothing to do with anything. The issue we are talking about isn't a page devoted to Jason Bennett. It's whether or not you will allow, as if you have the right to decide, any mention of the significant contributions Jason Bennett is making to actor training on pages where it's entirely relevant. I say it is allowed. And what you wrote isn't true anyway. I haven't put links "all over" WIkipedia. I put two, maybe three, on pages where it was entirely appropriate. And you don't have the right to censor true information about actor training on pages about those issues. It isn't right. You shouldn't have, and don't have, that kind of power. If everyone agrees none of Bennett's contributions should be allowed to be mentioned, then we'll have to go through and remove all the other current private teachers and schools in those pages, there are probably about 25. Tell me your criteria. Ucprof 00:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Watchfulness

Hi Will, Thanks for being so watchful regarding the Jason Bennett advertisers. Whoever this is occasionally attacks acting message boards too with spam. I occasionally do a sweep for Jason Bennett propaganda but I missed the round that started a few days ago. It is wonderful that you stuck to your guns - Jason Bennett is a not-yet-notable New York acting teacher whose greatest strength is vigorous public relations. I think that UCprof is a sock puppet for Sgactorny. I am uninformed about what I could do about this and would appreciate any advice that you might offer. Thanks again, you are my guardian angel. Tree Trimer 15:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Zinn

   * Re: Howard Zinn

Good edit conflicts result in more information, better sources, and greater neutrality. Bad edit conflicts result in blind reverts, contorted prose, and endless sniping. I suggest talking some more. Try to find out what they are expecting from the article, and share with them what your expectations are. Try to pin down the differences, and see if there is a compromise or a third way which will at least barely satisfy everybody. I'll go post the same adminition to the other editor to be fair. Please, let's have a good edit conflict. I don't want to get into the details of this dispute, but I know it's about a tag. Would it be possible to exchange the article-wide tag with a section tag? -Will Beback 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The dispute archived on the page accurately reflects the dilemma. Bibigon wants tags to stay on the page until someone comes along and restructures the page the way he'd like. He has stated he wants all of the biographical material to be separated from the political material. I have suggested he go ahead and do that, and if it doesn't work out, it can be reverted. Bibigon says he doesn't want to do the work. He wants someone else to do it but in the meantime, he wants tags to stay on the page. Bibigon has what he wants-- the page is tagged and can not be edited. He has no reason to pursue change. Cheers. Skywriter 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal Watercraft

Thanks for editing the articles, and the new catg. There is alot of editing to be done, and i am learning :)

erotica vs. sexual arts

sir, erotica is the more known term of the two. enjoy your day.

the plan is too streamline erotica and sexual arts

It's about time

User:Herschelkrustofsky...thank god, he was becoming to big of a problem to deal with.--Jersey Devil 02:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed.--Jersey Devil 10:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Carr

Sorry, I wasn't aware there was a revert war - my fault for not looking closer. I'd incorrectly assumed a change prior to mine was done in bad faith. I see that it's now been changed back to a redirect which is fine with me. Regards -- I@n ≡ talk 08:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Regards. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

far right

I certainly do not remove every far right term on wikipedia. I just feel that in most cases stating that someone is far right as a fact is inaccurate because it's really an opinion. The person is far right according to who? There is huge debate on what right and left exactly is and can not be 100 percent pinpointed and this is even stated on the far right page. It's inaccurate to state that people are far right and it should generally be left to desciptions for example:

David Duke is a far right politician --This is stating something that can be debated as a fact and is POV--

David Duke is a nationalist politician who is seen as far right and neo nazi by the ACLU, SPLC etc.

Then you can go on and present the facts below and the reader can determine if this person is far right or not. People do not come to wikipedia just to get a repeat of CNN. You don't need to feed them an opinion/generalization the information can speak for itself and this will greatly improve the quality of wikipedia as the reader will come to their own conclusions.

Jerry Jones 09:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I actually removed the term "far left" from the British National Party page and you can even verify this if you dont believe me. I think its stupid to use both terms and I definitely believe that the same standard should be applied to far left. I think both terms are ridiculuos. Who determines what far right and left are? Some group of elitist political anaylists? Should we just take everything they say as heart? Can we not think for ourselves anymore? There is a difference between liberal and conservative because these ideologies have a strong base to them which have been built upon for decades and there are many forms which can be confirmed and generally agreed upon by everybody. Nobody disagrees that paleoconservatives support small government, neoconservatives support an interventionist foreign policy, liberals generally support internationalist organizations etc. This is documented and can be verified, it's a fact. There is a difference between saying someone is a conservative, nazi, socialist, liberal etc then saying someone is far left or far right. Just the other day someone said Hitler was far right and it was debated because Hitler supported "National Socialism" which certainly isn't your traditional conservative policy. Communists also believed in Eugenics it wasn't only reserved to "conservatives". This stuff can be debated so for it to be stated as a fact violates wiki NPOV policy.

Jerry Jones 09:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• At the same time that you removed "far left" in regard to a socialist party you added, "The BNP is accused of being far right and neo fascist but they vehemently deny such accusations." I can find no mention of "far right" on the BNP website. On what basis did you add that assertion? -Will Beback 09:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I didnt add any socialist part I just removed the term far left from their page along with far right because both terms are retarded. I added this section to give people an idea of what I want them to do because I was nearly positive someone was going to revert my edits considering I removed a lot from that page so I did it to ensure that my edits would stay. I was hoping for it to be re written in a better way but I just put it there as a draft. The BNP denies being far right but pro British and if you just read their ideology they say this but they do not deny being Nazis and have ties to Nazis and many of their members are Nazis. I also didnt remove the evidence of racism down in the body of the article and other "far right" terms just as long as its not stated as a fact. I think its beneficial to leave the term far right in certain cases and that is why I havent removed every single one.

One primary reason why I believe that its important to remove "far right" from pages is 50-60 years ago you had many parties, ideologies, and organizations that were your standard conservative organizations. They were not considered extreme or far right in any sense. Yet as time progresses and people move away from certain beliefs people start to say this ideology or group is "far right" when it was not considered so 50-60 years ago. It's not good and it certainly doesnt conform to NPOV policy. Who determines what is far right and far left?

Jerry Jones 09:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am not a neocon and if you knew anything about neoconservatism you would know that nationalists groups are strongly opposed to it. Will, I only added that sentence as a temporary example because I didnt want to go into a huge edit war and I wanted someone to take a hint and use the format of the sentence and change it. I didnt expect it to stay up for more then a day. Yes, I can find a source but I dont care too. Take it down that wasnt the purpose of me putting it up. I only put it up so people wouldnt revert my other edits.

Jerry Jones 19:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• It wasn't innaccurate information they do deny being far right. In their minds they are not far right anything because everyone else is so far leftist. Its a POV. So are we pretty much done here?

Jerry Jones 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Corporate fascism

Will, I agree that the corporate fascism page should be as factual as possible and I want to move it in that direction.

However there is now a partisan called Rehpotsirhc who is reverting anything that contradicts his quasi-neocon viewpoint. This will complicate things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panem (talk • contribs) .

Sweden Democrats...

• Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) (SD), founded in 1988 by Leif Zeilon, is a far right Swedish political party. The party describes itself as a nationalist movement and dissociates itself from all forms of totalitarianism and racism. Most reputable observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right and anti-immigrant, including CNN [1], the BBC [2], the Expo Foundation [3], the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [4], and the Stephen Roth Institute [5].

This is from the sweden democrats article. I will show you the edit I made here:

• Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) (SD), founded in 1988 by Leif Zeilon, is a Swedish political party. The party describes itself as a nationalist movement and dissociates itself from all forms of totalitarianism and racism. Most reputable observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right and anti-immigrant, including CNN [1], the BBC [2], the Expo Foundation [3], the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [4], and the Stephen Roth Institute [5].

Note how I only removed one term of "far right" and left the other because one is accurate and the other isn't. They state they are far right yet the party denies it. How fair is that? Wikipedia is going to become a joke if this continues and is just going to get a bad reputation.

Jerry Jones 19:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Neo Nazis

I wouldnt need to if wikipedia did its job and delivered things from a NPOV. All I do is remove POV but I leave facts.

Jerry Jones 04:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

JJ is going though all far right organisations and individuals "clensing" them.--Michael Johnson 05:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thank you for the help with the Edit Summary: box with the article "Illegal immigration to the United States." I would have kept working on it, but it is passed 1:00 a.m. here. I will try and get back to it tomorrow and finish cleaning it up. Maybe it can be removed from the May clean up list.  :) Regards: ProfessorPaul 06:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills booster is back

Hi Will. Would you mind keeping an eye on the Anaheim Hills, California article again? The "Anaheim Hills is a city" guy is back and I've already reverted his changes to the article three times today. Also, he tried to remove the mention of his user account from the discussion page. Mike Dillon 02:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I got a nice note from Mr. Original Research on my talk page. I'm going to hold off for a bit before I respond as I don't think this guy has much perspective... He seems to think I wrote the version I keep having to revert to, or that I actually prefer it. In actual fact, I'm trying to preserve the status quo in the absence of properly sourced additions, for what it's worth. Mike Dillon 03:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw your note about the IFD. Thanks. I am thinking about reporting User:Ericsaindon2 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for repeated vandalism of my user page. Since there are already two admins (you and User:Zzyzx11) involved in the content dispute on Anaheim Hills, California, it may not be necessary. What do you think? Mike Dillon 02:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there is another copy of Image:Ahills.jpg at Image:Ahills65.jpg. I guess this guy doesn't understand that he isn't going to "win" here. Mike Dillon 02:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not done a darn thing wrong here. Everything is cited, and Mike Dillon keeps reverting it back to the way it was before. Just keep him away from the page, everything is, and has been varified. You can even email the city officials of Anaheim, they will verify all of it for you as for I work with the City of Anaheim as a major part of my day. I just am trying to perfect a page. I dont understand why I need to cite that there is a shopping center in Anaheim Hills when I drive by that shopping center everyday, thats like citing a birthdate or something. Can you and Mike Dillon just leave the article alone. I am sick of the insults and attacks you guys keep portraying on different talk pages. It reads no different from any other page, and has twice the number of citations as many other pages currently have. And I dont think it would be ethical to report me to the Wikipedia people because all I was doing to your page (referring to Mike Dillon) was exactly what you were doing to the page I created. If you call that vandalism, then it was done on both sides. Besides, most of my proof is through the work I do through the City of Anaheim, and verbal communications I have with the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Superintendents almost every day as part of the project I am currently pursuing with all the major governmental bodies in Orange County. You two are no experts on the Anaheim Hills area, I am.-Ericsaindon2

Personal information about a topic is not permitted in this encyclopedia. We can use our expertise to identify sources, judge contributions, balance different elements, but we should not put in any facts based only on our own personal knowledge or research. What we should do is verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. In this matter you appear to be insisting that Anaheim Hills is a city in its own right, yet you have not produced any sources for its independence. Nor have you even made reference to a secession movement which seeks cityhood. However, regardles of the facts or details of the article, you cannot simply revert other editors without discussing the issues. This is a collaboration and you need to seek a consensus about the material you want to add. -Will Beback 04:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like User:Ericsaindon2 created a new account after the block: User:Es92808. I noticed it while looking through related changes for List of neighborhoods and unincorporated communities in Orange County. Mike Dillon 02:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, it looks like User:Ericsaindon2 is reverting again from 207.200.116.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)... Mike Dillon 03:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Diebold

OK, I put in an explicit link to the DES messiness. If Diebold merged with Diehard.... Gzuckier 17:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

US Immigration articles

Thanks very much for your great attitude and help in improving these articles. wallie 22:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Anchor baby

Hi Will, I have been working on the Anchor baby page, and I noticed your change in the first paragraph.

From :

An anchor baby, sometimes jackpot baby, is a pejorative term referring to a child born in the US to illegal immigrants or non-citizens as a means for the parents to attain citizenship or residency rights.

To:

An anchor baby, sometimes jackpot baby, is a pejorative term referring to a child born in the US to illegal immigrants or non-citizens as a means for the child to attain citizenship or residency rights.

The idea is that the child acts as a means to place the parents at the head of the line for XYZ. The child is already guaranteed citizenship. So the first statement would fit the term Anchor Baby; however, the second would not. Or i.e.,

“Tancredo and others who advocate denying automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants describe them as "anchor children," saying that their citizenship enables them to draw generations of family members into the country through family reunification provisions in U.S. immigration policy.”

I am a fan of your work on articles that are inherently POV (as in how you are always the level headed one), just noticed that this one got flipped around a little. Thanks, Brimba 00:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I had never looked at the Anchor baby article until a couple of days ago. I had herd the term before, so I knew what it meant, but never put much thought into it until now. It seems the whole concept of Birthright Citizenship is being danced around in this section, as though the issues being talked about have no legal history, but just developed a few decades (years?) ago. Filling in some background will in itself probably flesh out the article pretty well. With that in mind, breaking off Birth tourism into a separate article would likely be a good thing. Thanks Brimba 01:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

Hey, thanks much for the barnstar - I try my best! Just trying to poke around and redeem school articles used for defamation and (re)write ones that are woefully inadequete (not just in California!) -- anyhow, thanks much for the barnstar, and more education-pertinent articles will follow. :) -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 03:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a present for you

I think you deserve one too, for trying to keep the articles factual at all times. Wallie 23:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first one

You should be. It's the first one I have ever given out. Wallie 23:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

Whats there to talk about? You are trying to shove POV down the readers throats then you accuse me of POV. I am just trying to make the article fair and non bias then you get your friends to come and stalk every edit I make. If you want wikipedia to be a joke by all means fine but I just think its sad you are destroying what other people tried to build by emulating what wikipedia is supposed to fight against.

Jerry Jones 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's POV to replace a line that says the Nazis were rascists with one that calls them patriots. -Will Beback 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

ANyway, the proper place it discuss it is on the article's talk page. Please don't restore your ideosyncratic edits until you've gotten a consensus. -Will Beback 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't make such a change. Please show me if you believe I did.

Jerry Jones 01:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Nazis

ORIGINAL ARTICLE:Nazi racial policy and the Nazi Nuremberg Laws represented some of the most explicit racist policies in Europe in the twentieth century, and culminated in the Holocaust, a systematic murdering of millions of Jews, Gypsies, disabled people and others "undesirables".

I didn't disagree with using the Nazis as an example of racism I disagreed saying carrying racial viewpoints specifically was the reason the holocaust happened. That is a MAJOR POV and this is probably the biggest example I have seen on wikipedia.

My change:Nazi ideology believed that Jews were controlling the German press and were not patriotic, and were subverting the German government with Bolshevism. takes the NAZI's from being rascists to being patriots. -Will Beback 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I made this edit because the whole article and all of the race articles on wikipedia for that matter just go on and on about racism agaisnt minorities like they are 100 percent innocent and never show the other side. I just tried to make it more balanced. This is hardly saying the Germans were patriots and I was only showing their viewpoint. Putting people in gas chambers even if they are communists is not acceptable. We are never going to learn from history if we hide information and sweep it under the rug. I dont see how adding this sentence is against wiki policy because it's factual and eliminating it would be censorship. Dont you think its strange that the media, schools and every single maintream news source NEVER shows the other side of the story on these types of issues? They only make it seem like one group is racist and other people are 100 percent innocent victims of evil racist oppression from terrible bigots who "hate" them for no other reason except for their skin color. I am just trying to make the article balanced and I would be more then happy to work to make it balanced with you so we can come to an agreement together. I do not have an agenda other then presenting all sides of the story regardless of their perceived radical or inflammatory state and that applies to everything.

Jerry Jones 08:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Racism. -Will Beback 08:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR

So its ok for you to ignore wikipedia NPOV policy, keep reverting my edits and then go and blame me for not following wiki policy? LOL.

Jerry Jones 01:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer RfC

I've filed a request request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irgendwer and your input would be appreciated. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 05:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Will!

Thank you! Hello, Will Beback/Revisions — The greatest Thank you for your support on my recent Nomination for Adminship. It succeeded with a final tally of 85/11/6 and I am now an administrator. Be sure to let me know how I can assist you. Bastique▼parlervoir 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User Page Talk Page

Thank you for your concern over the banned editor. I have archived his posts on my talk page for future reference. I reviewed them and he doesnt seem to be harrasing anyone or referencing any articles. The posts are also coming from an anon ip address and I was uninvoloved in the banning action against him. If it is the same person, and he wants to contact an admin about something, I see nothing wrong with that. Kindly cease remving his archived post from my talk page. Thank you. -Husnock 00:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your edit war on my talk page. I have no knowledge of this banned user of which you speak and have simple archived an old post. Your constantly removing it is borderline page vandalism. -Husnock 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have no knowledge of the matter then please defer to those of us who do. This is a serious matter and your cooperation would be appreciated. There is no need whatsoever to keep posted that message from Morrow, and there are plenty of reasons to not do so, including policy. Please give us the benefit of the doubt, assume our good faith, and allow us to remove that text from public pages. -Will Beback 01:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, it is okay for any user to delete any posts they want on thier talk page. Users typically clean up talk pages all the time, some archive, some do not. -Husnock 13:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy is clear and this particular incident also has Jimbo's backing. Amorrow may not post anywhere to Wikipedia, edit any Wikipedia article or otherwise assert his presence on Wikipedia. Anywhere. Anytime. It doesn't matter what the substance of those posts are, or whether they're on your or anyone else's talk page. While deference is generally given to users for what they wish to keep on their talk pages, nobody owns their userspace, not even administrators, especially when the information in question is potentially harmful to someone in real life. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to my removal of YOUR comment on my talk page. The other banned editor was removed by other editors and that is a closed issue. I saw you had reinserted several comments you made on the subject after the debate was closed and, after they were removed, had reverted the edit [3] to reinsert them. -Husnock 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

Thanks for the vandalism correction over at Child abuse. Who ever would have thought a website could cost someone so much in real-world negative karma? Thanks for bringing some yin to the table. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 05:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't give me too much credit. I usually revert undescribed deletions by anons, but in this case I did so with reluctance since the material is unsourced and poorly connected. If you're aware of any special problems with Child abuse (too yangy?) then I'd be happy to help you fix it up. Otherwise I'm just trying to keep it from getting worse. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, man! Tranquility Bay was founded by an American citizen, at great extra expense, in Jamaica merely so that it may escape all supervision because Jamaica has virtually no civil laws and is not a signatory of any U.N. resolutions prohibiting child abuse among other things. These parents will spend $10,000 in just transportation costs to send their children to these camps for 6 months and when you read the reviews on its website they will frequently say: "I thoroughly enjoyed my free time while my child was away" and "they came back completely different! Completely submissive!" Several younger adults have been killed, many have run away only to be trapped in a 3rd world country with no money, the vast majority come back reporting some form of trauma. Sorry if this is too POV even for a talk page :( It's really sick that parents will do stuff like this; pay top dollar for professional abuse and systematic demoralization/reprogramming. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 08:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

KP article RFC

You appear to have an interest in the Kaiser Permanente article. I have called an RFC on it and on User:Pansophia in relation to it. Please review it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pansophia Midgley 16:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a thanks. A guffaw, at the least, is of help in the midst of certain forms of madness, yes? I'm new at Wikipedia, and it doubtless shows, hence my particular thanks for shows of sanity, responsibility, and clarity. It speaks well, it would seem to me, as a new contributor, for the community at large. Fucyfre 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Dickstein

This is the category heading for "Soviet Spies":

This category lists people who were convicted of commiting espionage for the Soviet Union, were convicted of related crimes, confessed to spying, or were documented to the satisfaction of scholars such as Haynes and Klehr as being employed by Soviet intelligence apparatus in files revealed after the Cold War.

This is from the VENONA files. There is no getting around that he was a spy and I am merely complying with the directions of the category and you are accusing me of white washing. Perhaps you should be convicted of vandalizing and commie washing articles.

Jerry Jones 00:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is Talk:Samuel Dickstein (congressman). Thanks, -Will Beback 00:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

KKK: RE

moved to talk:Ku Klux Klan. -Will Beback 01:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Committee Business

Dear Fellow Mediators: I'm writing to all mediators listed as active to point out several emergent issues that require the immediate attention of all active mediators. The Committee has come to a place where we can neither provide the function we were created to provide (timely formal mediaton for the English Wikipedia community) nor correct matters to be able to provide that function. In specific, we cannot perform any mediations, because most mediators are no longer taking cases, and we cannot add new mediators, because mediators are no longer responding to requests to join the Committee. I am in a place where I continually accept new cases for the committee, only to see them go stale after several months because there is no mediator willing to take it, and where I deny candidates a place on the committee because no mediator will speak up in support of them. I ask that all mediators take ten minutes to look over the following matters: There are five requests to join the Mediation Committee, three with no comments whatsoever, and two that have been up for more than a month without sufficient commentary to determine a consensus on promotion. Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Master_of_Puppets Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Wisden17 Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Journalist Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Cadr Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#.5Edemon There are four unassigned mediation cases, and will likely be at least two additional ones within the week. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Merging of self-consciousness and self-awareness Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Netflix Links Section Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/A Bridge Too Far Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ken Mehlman I beg, beseech, and pray each Mediator to please take a few moments to at the very least comment on the five candidates, and to consider taking one of the open cases. We are at a place where we are literally relying on the kindness of strangers: Almost all cases are being taken by non-Commitee volunteers at this point. Putting the open tasks page (which only changes when we add a new case), and the main committee page on your watchlist so you will know when new nominations and cases are added, would go a long way to helping the Committee succeed. (If having the main page pop up on your watchlist every time someone else comments in a nomination is too annoying, I can move them to subpages like RFA, so that the page will only change when a new nomination is added.) Additionally, I ask that all mediators check that they have a current email address subscribed to the Mediation Committee mailing list, mediation-l, to avoid the need for future talk page messages of this sort. My apologies for having to air the committee's dirty laundry in this manner, but I fear it is the only way to get everyone together to bring the Committee back to life. For the convenience of those who simply cannot be involved due to time constraints, I will be listing those that do not participate in any Committee activities as mediators emeriti, so that we have a clearer picture of who exactly we have available to take cases. I am, by separate posting, asking all mediators emeriti to return to actively participating in the requests to join the commmittee. Yours respectfully, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Block

Dear Will; Thanks for the word on the blockage, I appreciate you looking it up and trying to help me. Curps is a good soldier and Im sure he makes it for the goodwill of the website.

That one last number I posted was the last of a series of numbers I found,. The person who Curps was blocking was someone who had a name like "Im the Motherfucka Mexican" or someting like that. Broke the naming rule.

Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio Rabbit out of the Hat Martin

• • Dear Will: Thanks for your kind words. I am glad too. At least now I will be able to give Angel Lopez the honor, if you will, of having his name on recent deaths. He designed the dress that helped make Deborah Carthy-Deu Puerto Rico's second Miss Universe winner. Died at 44 of a heart attack. Well, amigo thanks so much and God bless you! Hope to hear from you asap!. Sincerely yours Antonio Type Writing Machine Martin

• • • Dear Will: My condolences for your loss and I hope the services you will attend soon go as well as things can in these situations. As for me amd Mr. Lopez, he wasn't a personal loss, but rather a notable countryman of mine who achieved a level of importance so yeah I thought he shouldn't go unnoticed. The three deaths that made me real sad this week were that of Soraya, the Colombian singer who had apparently beateb Breast Cancer but later on was re-diagnosed, Jorge Porcel, the Argentine who was hilarious in his heyday, and Floyd Patterson, a gentleman like boxing had never seen before. He actually signed two items for me about 10 years ago. Well, God bless you! Your friend, Antonio Don Omar Martin

User:AmazingRacist

Hi, someone with Admin powers needs to take a look at this individuals editing. Probably a blocked user on a vandalism rampage. He/she knows the system, and knows enough to place comments into the Edit Summery box that makes the edits look legit at first glance. Anyway, the contributions when looked at speak for themselves. Sorry to dump it on you, but …:0 San Saba 11:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What the??? What pages have I vandalised? I'm currently trying to get the page which was at Missing Protestor unvandalised myself! I haven't the foggiest idea what is going on here. Can someone please look into what has happened to this page? --AmazingRacist 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Elijah Mohammad

Will Beback said: "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -Will Beback 03:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elijah_Mohammad"

Why did you revert my article....that was a legitimate article....what was wrong with it?

User:Elijah Mohammad

Will Beback said: "Our article concerns the famous Elijah Mohammad, not non-notable people by the same name. -Will Beback 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)"

There is no famous Elijah Mohammad (unless you think that the large volume of viewers of my internet sites makes me famous).....there is a famous Elijah Muhammad....but his name is spelled differently, with a "u" instead of an "o" and there is an article about him listed under the correct spelling of his name. Why should he get two pages with differently spelled names, where the incorrectly spelled version is only a link to the correctly spelled one?

If you're not famous then why should we have an article, or even a mention of you? Elijah Muhammad (thanks for the correction) is sufficiently famous, and the name is sufficiently rare among English-speakers, that he merits the a redirect from the misspelling. If there are other notable persons with the same or similar name then we should think about a dismbiguation notice or page. -Will Beback 07:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dante7777

No problem from me. --pgk^(talk) 09:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura/Bi-Digital O-Ring Test

This same adherent is now 'improving' the entry for both the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test and for Yoshiaki Omura, making them billboards, imho. Has Wikipedia any effective way of dealing with this sort of conduct by a lunatic fanatic? Yes, I'm new. Fucyfre 14:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Illegal Immigration in the US

I notice that you are cleaning up the article, and removing some of the unstructured waffle. Great stuff! It seems to be improving, and there are not to many edit wars, which is very good. 20:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing Protestor

Why did you delete this article? --222.117.17.200 12:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did you write it? -Will Beback 21:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you

The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails. Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales. If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate. For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate! ♫Bucketsofg✐♪

User:Jerry Jones//User:JJstroker

I'm getting tired of his Jew-obsession, Nazi-defending, and lying; what's the next step? Jayjg ^(talk)

EDIT RESOLVE PLEASE WITH JERRY JONES

You are really breaking NPOV policy by removing "far right" and "far left" from every article. Please read this: Courtesy of wiki NPOV "Under Examples"

Let the facts speak for themselves Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

This is the same exact thing for the word racist and breaks wiki NPOV policy. It takes away from the article to say "The KKK was a racist"

What I am telling you to do is not even state the word racist as a fact because no matter how obvious it might be its still a viewpoint. I have read a lot about KKK history and it was a mainstream political movement in history and not everyone was racist I assure you. What I am telling you is to show why they are racist with facts. I do not object to that. If you want to post prominent member quotes of using the N word and lynching people go ahead. I dont care because its valuable information. I just think it takes away from the article to say "The KKK was racist" and it makes it extremely amauter and removes content quality. The same thing goes for saying if something is "far right". What I object about that is on virtually all of the leftist group articles not one is listed as "far left" and "radical" or "extremist". Not even for the communist party USA but every single non mainstream right group is labeled as far right. You cant apply different standards to different articles. I want to resolve this once and for all.

1-You either let me remove far right and let information speak for itself like NPOV tells us to do, or I will go to every leftist article which I think is far left along with the populic opinion from conservative groups and label them far left. I really hope I dont have to do this because

1- Its retarded 2- It breaks wiki NPOV policy 3- It makes the articles seem amatuer 4- Its a viewpoint of mine and just because its common viewpoint among conservatives it doesnt mean its right. I would rather have the information speak for itself.

You are really breaking wiki NPOV policy. You accuse me of right washing articles but the only reason is because its not necessary to do it for leftist articles because its already been covered. Now I would appreciate if you follow NPOV and actually see what I am saying and no I am not right washing articles. If you want me to put far left on every single non mainstream left group determined by a group of conservatives I will but I really hope it wont have to come down to that because its stupid and breaks wiki rules on so many levels. You cant just pick what policy you want to follow for certain articles and ignore it for others. You either follow through with all articles or dont do it.

Jerry Jones 22:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

plagarism...

What did I plagarize? Care to point it out?

Jerry Jones 06:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nuerenger is cited in the disputed paragraph. If I tried to pass it off as my own I wouldnt have cited him or added the reference. Is that not allowed? I can put it in my own words but I didnt think it was a problem because I cited it as Nuerengers work and not my own.

Jerry Jones 07:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Disingenuosuly, you pretend not to know the answer to your question. Pinkville 00:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, the only question I asked was "Do you deny it?" I really did not know whether the editor would confirm, deny, or weasel around the question. As it happens, he chose the latter. -Will Beback 00:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of weasel and deny - you gotta two-for! Pinkville 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I interpret it as an admission that he copied the text, along with a weasel that the copying wasn't really plagiarism because the author himself had copied the original author. He does get points for advanced sophistry. -Will Beback 00:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not too many points, I hope. Pinkville 01:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you accuse me of plagarism when Nuerenger is cited in the disputed paragraph and I added Nuerenger as a reference? If I wanted to plagarize the work I wouldn't have cited Nuerenger or let alone add him as a reference. I don't see the problem.

Jerry Jones 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in re Omura/BDORT

Just wanted to say, thanks, for my part, for your efforts in the Omura/BDORT enry. Fucyfre 20:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

American System

The criteria you set up at the end of each sentence is based upon your limited view of "American System" pertaining to Clay's actual plan. Further, the criteria does not take into consideration that the "American System" was a continuation of the "Hamiltonian" or "American School" of economic thought that developed under Hamilton's, Raymond's, List's, Carey's (father and son) et. al. We are, I think, speaking of two different things. The observation about 'economic nationalism' however does open a possible solution over definition to suit the purpose of presenting facts pertaining to American economic history per the Hamiltonian wing of economic thought that competed with the Jeffersonian or British School/System advocated by the opposite party prior to and afte the Civil War. That "Hamiltonian"-"American School"-"American System"-"National System"-"German Historic School"-"Protective System" was embraced by Washington then Adams then Clay then Lincoln and the GOP until 1932 and reformed slightly by FDR and maintained afterward by his successors until the Free Market/Free Trade era began in 1973 according to Batra and others. I am willing to move the host of the material pertaining to the "American System" in its broad definition (also called National System and Protective System at times) to an "American School" page and leave there at the "American System" that which pertains to the narrow definition applying to Clay alone and his plan even if I disagree based on citations already given to nameing with your narrow definition. What are your thoughts? --Northmeister 01:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia in literature

Hi there

Just read your post on my additions to the page. I read the FAQ etc on original research and thought that I was in line with Wiki guidelines:

"An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments" : I'm certainly not putting foreward any ideas/arguments

" research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged" : All I have done is pull extracts from the articles on each book from Wikipedia. Nothing new is added.

"We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic." : I have naturally read all the books that I have referred to, and the statements are naturally all verifiable from the source books (all on Wikipaedia).

I did consider adding a couple of paragraphs to each book in the long list but thought it would be more helpful in an encycopaedia article to write it as I have.

over to you!!

Tony Sandel