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
• User talk:Will Beback/archive4 - April 2006

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 [1] 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)

plagiarism...

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)

There are eight instances of plagiarism that I've found. You've (sort of) explained one. But that doesn't explain why virtually the entire article, Immigration Act of 1924, is copied from other sources. -Will Beback 18:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

When you quote material (word-for-word) without using quotation marks you are passing the quoted material off as your own writing - even if you add a parenthetical citation. That is plagiarism. Pinkville 19:16, 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

Inhofe Amendment

There is a new special article on Inhofe Amendment. It seems to me biased supporting English-only and it makes to articles whcih critisize this point og view. It also lacks accurancy by not stating that an oppsite amendement was voted shortly after. I do not know enough about the categorization and the articles of the english wikipedia and I do not also have enough local knoledge to fix it , so I am asking you to take a look.--Michkalas 20:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please try this out

I am asking you to not edit American System (economic system) for a little while. Maybe a week? And not to directly or indirectly address Northmeister during that undetermined time period. I am not asking for anything other than simply give it a try, see what happens, talk to me on my talk page about what is or is not properly sourced on the article. While you watch rather than otherwise, I will work with Northmeister and see if progress can be made in making sure everything in the article is Verifyable, NPOV, and Not Original Research. My intent at this moment is that everything you find questionable is to go into some other article (I don't care which). So, do nothing. Watch. Let's try this out. Thanks. WAS 4.250 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's in your hands. Thanks for helping. -Will Beback 17:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Troubling patterns of edits and what to do about them

Hi, can you drop by my user talk page? User:ObsidianOrder and User:Omegatron are very upset over my recent activity correlating anon edits with each other and in some cases suggesting real life identities to explain a concern about possible conflicts of interest. Obsidian is threatening to ArbCom me and Omegatron seems to believe that I posted personal contact information which is absolutely not true. ---CH 22:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

David R. Hawkins

I found another source of dubious distinction that Hawkins is claiming (I put the note under the Hawkins discussion page). I think we should add something about these dubious sources of credibility - the Ph.D. being a diploma mill is noted, though there is nothing about the knighthood and "foremost teacher" claim still, as we have discussed before. Now I've found that his website is boldly claiming that he is so great, as backed up by his Marquis Who's Who entry, a bunk reference book. It seems this pattern could be pointed out in a proper way. It just seems endless - the more I find out, the more ridiculous his claims become. I do not know how to proceed, and you may not feel it is possible to add anything regarding this pattern of bogus claims, but wanted your opinion. It seems to me that if it could be added properly and with respect, it could be a public service. Thanks! --66.31.144.141 00:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, take a look at Narcissistic personality disorder, which cult experts believe Hawkins suffers from (once this information is made more formally known, I will add reference to it possibly, and certainly web links). The first of the criteria for NPD seems to fit pretty well: "has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)" Interesting, right? Take care, looking forward to hearing your response. Thanks!--66.31.144.141 01:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:198.31.189.120

Hi You previously blocked this user. I am not sure how to do it but they seem to be doing more of the same.Paul E. Ester 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage

Hi Will. I came across User talk:WBardwin#A New AOL/IP Autoblock while perusing Category:Requests for unblock. It looks like your block of User:Es92808 accidentally autoblocked a bunch of AOL IP addresses he had been using, causing other users to be affected. I think this was the source of the "unaffiliated user" being blocked that User:Ericsaindon2 was talking about. I don't know enough about "autoblocking" to know if that's the case. Mike Dillon 01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jones, et al

I may die, reading these and the related entries! Your composure and patience are most remarkable. Pinkville 03:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

SameachMusic Podcast

Hello Will. Sorry if this is stupid, but I changed your speedy to a prod, because a7 doesn't apply to programs does it?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake "read the bio"

Ooops, you're right, silly me. ---CH 22:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Persian sentiments

So we have quite an AfD debate for Anti-Persian sentiments. Do you think you could throw in your opinion or mediate? We need a big gun to come in and throw his weight around. Too many "fluffy" arguments. Thanks. Adambiswanger1 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Spam rollback

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.81.150.49 spammed a commercial link across many pages. Can you roll it back?--Paul E. Ester 13:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills:What a Controversial Page It has Been

This is used on another community page, Ladera Ranch, Mission Viejo, California, so why cant this little thing go on the Anaheim Hills page. Anaheim Hills has 10 times the people as Ladera Ranch, and the box is on a community page, not on a city page afterall. Plus it isnt clunky like the others were, its small, compact, and right to the point. --Ericsaindon2 02:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Because you promised not to addit without a consensus, that's why. -Will Beback 03:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• And cant we remove the protection thing at the top of the Anaheim Hills page? I mean the only person that you are trying to block the page from is me, and now that I am unblocked, there is no reason to block it from editing by forgein parties. --Ericsaindon2 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll remove the protection, but understand that we won't tolerate mischief. -Will Beback 03:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Compact ways of making my point

True. However, other times I've made similar headers, I've been unpleasantly suprised by people voicing support under them. Sometimes it's useful to give people space to say stupid things. - brenneman ^{L} 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that providing people with places to say stupid things helps the project. -Will Beback 23:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Because, in the vast majority of cases, once a person has commited to black photons something, then we can actually deal with that in a positive manner. If, to use this example, someone comes out and says, "Yes, I'd like to see a dead-cat at the end of this." Than we can talk about that. "How does this realate to 'cat powers", "Do we still believe that they are held to the much higher standard?" "We don't take away sysop that often and never over community outrage, would this be the start of that?" etc. It's better than the idiotic "vote over rhetoric" slugfest that passes for a normal RfC. - brenneman ^{L} 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills Request

Hey, Would you put the small infobox on the Anaheim Hills page with the picture (which is currently down by the Demographics page). I mean like where the picure of the map is within the infobox itself, and justified to the right, like city and community infoboxes exist now. I would greatly appreciate it (since I cant figure out how to do this). --Ericsaindon2 01:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the little one on the demographics portion as of now, similar to the one on the Ladera Ranch, Mission Viejo, California page. --Ericsaindon2 02:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Laough out loud about the editor of the month thingy. Its more of a joke because I am not seen as a "good editor" in Wikipedia, so I decided to appreciate myself since nobody else seems to. I want to see who Mike Dillon turns to so that he can laugh and make fun of me some more. --Ericsaindon2 03:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sock categories

I've tried to change {{sockpuppet}} but met some opposition. Conscious 09:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The only good thing I can think of is to use some bot to rename the categories quickly enough (so that not too many new cats are created), then change the template. Conscious 09:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You are my favorite Wikipedian

I don't know if any special status is needed to hand out barn stars but I wanted to show my appreciation for keeping Jason Bennett spam off Wikipedia. It appears that you caught the last round within minutes of its posting. You have shown wonderful patience and fairness through all of this. Thank you for being a fine Wikipedia role model. Tree Trimer 04:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This is the first barn star I ever gave out.

Dates On Tom Swift Page

While I agree that many of the links on the Tom Swift page are superfluose, the date links actually are helpful by allowing readers to put events in perspective.

Unsigned message left on your user page by 4.236.54.52 (talk · contribs) at 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC), and moved here by AnnH ♫ 11:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply

No problem. If you ever need anything, feel free to contact me. DGX 17:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

For the thorough presentation and analysis of your case study, I, Guettarda, present you with this Barnstar of Diligence

Quite simply, I have never seen anything like it in Wikipedia. Guettarda 20:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. FloNight ^talk 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And so do I. Now, how do we get Slim back? AnnH ♫ 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ericsaindon2

I think you should check out the move log from 00:23, 3 June 2006 UTC to 00:38, 3 June 2006 [2]. In an attempt to evade the result of the straw poll, he screwed up the edit history. I do not know if I can repair it. It seems that you might have to think about an RFC now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills, my side of the Story

According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Since NOBODY outside of Wikipedia uses the term Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California to refer to the community of Anaheim Hills, naming an article about it with this term is in direct violation of the primary Wikipedia naming convention. An alleged standard naming "convention" dreamed up by mildly autistic and/or O-C Wikipedia administrators for their own irrational need for perceived order is null and void because using that reason violates the naming convention too, which also is also stated as follows:

Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

The much simpler and more recognizable term of Anaheim Hills alone is what should be the article name here, regardless of what a handful of editors happen to vote for in a strawpoll.

This is breaking the rules, and why should it be protected on the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California page anyway? I wrote that article from top to bottom, shouldnt the way I want it, and the way it should be Anaheim Hills, California be the way it is? Why should it be locked on Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. If you have locked it on Anaheim Hills, California, you would have been in this same mess, with other editors that wanted it changed so they copied and pasted it to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, (which you failed to notice that they have been doing it all day). There are about 1% of all pages in California that are community pages that follow this convention, and why should they (your "chosen" editors) get the ultimate power to decide it is locked on Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. If you look at any other entry on the world wide web about Anaheim Hills, it doesnt state Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. You have no justification for blocking the movement of this page (expecially since I wrote 99.999999999% of this article). You have no Wikipedia rule that states that the code is community, city, state. In fact, my method is more commonly used, and is more appealing (and not to mention doesnt sound totally retarded). You really need to start looking at the whole picture before you just go locking pages from editing, because you are not following the Wikipedia rules when you do that, and you have no justification. And you cannot report me for disruption to make a point for changing articles, because that is what you people have been doing to the Anaheim Hills article all along in this page, moving it to where your "favorite" editors wanted it just to make a point that this is the convention you prefer. So you cant do upon others what you have done yourself, it would just not be ethical to report me for making a point when all that has happend on the Anaheim Hills page is switching the title of the article to make a point. Please respond. --Ericsaindon2 03:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Unification Church and Marknw

First of all, you do not revert another user's edits to their own talkpage. If you do not see the vandalism inherent in all of Marknw's edits thus far, then you are either not looking, or you yourself are a vandal. I have no desire to continue interacting with you, as your actions demonstrate incompetence and rudeness. KI 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

70.237.91.134

This is just a wild, extremely crazy, irrational guess, but could 70.237.91.134 be a sock puppet for Ericsaindon2? (The user has only made contributions to this article, seems well-versed with the operations of Wikipedia, and supports Eric's agenda. And then of course upon creating the straw poll Eric makes another edit 6 minutes later. Just a shot in the dark. Adambiswanger1 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pizza

User:ISTJester has delivered you a pizza! Pizzas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by sharing a pizza with someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!

Thank you

Thanks for the cleanup and for keeping watch as well. Regards, Sango123 22:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills

Would you vote on the Final Naming Poll on the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California page by Monday, June 6th at 11:00 pm pst. This is a collaborative effort to determine where the Anaheim Hills page will rest forever with no disputes. There are currently four choices to choose from, so go and check it out. --Ericsaindon2 21:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Correction. "we" have not come up with a consensus, "you" have come up with your own consensus. Now, lets see how your idea stacks up in a mini poll that is only set to last for 65 hours. I want EVERYONE ever involved on this page to choose a, b, c, or d, so I have notified all of the editors on the history page to vote. If people like your idea listed right above the Final Poll, then they can comment there, and choose that choice in the new poll. --Ericsaindon2 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My Comment at Anaheim Hills

My comment has just been removed again from the Anaheim Hills talk page, this time by an anonymous IP to avoid the 3RR. Can you please restore my comment so I don't violate the rule myself by continuously restoring my comment? Soltras 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills

Will you please put "Vote B" since that is the one you want. I know that you clearly support this vote, but for some people it is not good enough if it is not physically in the poll. Thanks. --Ericsaindon2 22:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I was wondering if you understood why I constructed this poll? --Ericsaindon2 22:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you? --Ericsaindon2 23:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am shaking my head in disbelief. Now everyone hates me again for agreeing with you, and I get no support from you what so ever. I dont know what kind of relationship you have with these people, but I cannot believe all day I have tried to back your comprimise up, and verify it thorugh a new poll, and defended your method, you wont talk to me because people you have selected the editors that matter more to you, or that are higher up in Wikipedia. Its a disgrace that because others are mad at me, you wont talk to me in any way shape or form. I really respected you in Wikipedia, probably mostso, and pretty soon that respect is going down the tubes. --Ericsaindon2 23:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Move It

Can you just move the page to your comprimised name. I cannot seem to get the point of the new poll through the heads of these deadbrains that you seem to support for some reason, so just move it already, or get it unblocked so it can be moved. --Ericsaindon2 23:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again

The cleverly named "Etton Smith" (ES92808) has picked up where his friend Ericsaindon2 left off. Just giving you a heads up on a possible infobox revert war. sigh. Adambiswanger1 05:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 has affirmed earlier that he actually is Es92808. From the Anaheim Hills talk page, he wrote "I use two names on Wikipedia, ES92808 and Ericsaindon2" and on Mike Dillon's talk page, he signed one of his comments with Ericsaindon2/Es92808. Today he is writing disapproving messages about himself with his sockpuppet. Just a guess, but this could be to create an illusion that they are two separate strangers. Soltras 16:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for bringing Wikipedia:Harassment policy to my attention. I was not aware of this policy and will study it carefully with clear intention to follow it. May I also suggest that you read this very same policy.

Any wikipedia editor is required to clearly follow the folowing policies WP:not (especially the part abouut soapbox, using it for political propeganda etc..) WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

Any attempt to take part in turnning wkipedia into a political soap box / propeganda tool is also a violation of WP:Point and I trust that you are aware of this policy as well.

The bottom line is that there are reason behind each of thise policies and we are all expected to follow them . I was not aware that wikipedia has so many policies but I will study each of them and act accordingly. Zeq 12:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2

I am nto sure I understand how the Rfc thing works. I dont see any signatures, and I dont understand what it is about. Could you explain it to me, and what consequences, etc. may be? --70.237.91.134 20:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (Ericsaindon2)

So Will, basically since you got the two people that support your viewpoint, there is nothing I can do to avoid the arboration committe. PS. I added a response, erhaps you could read it and comment at my talk page Ericsaindon2. --71.128.23.163 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I still dont understand how I was behaving in an inappropriate manner. Was it because I disagreed with everything that the majority of the votes said, or for supporting my strong beliefs. What was my additude problem, and how was it different from the personal attacks I had recieved from other editors who detrermined that they didnt like me from the beginning. Please explain this to me in more detail. I would appreciate it if I could have an explanation on what behavioral issues I have had that were so outrageous that I could be banned from using Wikipedia alltogether. --71.128.23.163 01:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

When I am always blocked it gets kinda hard to sign my name with user:ericsaindon2 so I have to use IP numbers to even communicate with you. Oh, and did you check out the community infobox, its official on that template:geography page! I am still working on the Communities Wikiproject Page, but I just put something up there for the sake of completion. I would appreciate it if you could improve the Wikipedia:WikiProject Communities page so that it looks a little more appealing. I would appreciate any professional help I could get on updating this Wikiproject page. Thanks. :) --Ericsaindon2 02:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So will you help by editing the page I listed above, it really needs a little help (but dont touch the infobox) --Ericsaindon2 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you add a source, like without it actually being in the infobox?

Can you tell me how to add a source without it actually being visible on the infobox like other infoboxes are? --Ericsaindon2 04:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can you not delete them tonight because I am getting a little tired and I promise to add sources tomorrow afternoon. --Ericsaindon2 04:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin

Thank you for adding the intelligent NPOV edit regarding "anchor baby" [3] Dcflyer 22:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for reminding me about 3RR. I hope that the information I've included on the Talk: page will be helpful in resolving this. Long Live the Wikipedia! --AStanhope 23:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rfc

When does this thingy go away? --71.128.23.163 01:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rfc

When does this thingy go away? --71.128.23.163 01:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Advise

[4] Haizum 02:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Well, I hope you do surpass me, then. It's not a war. Everyking 11:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How about you do enough for the both of us, and I'll take it easy. Everyking 11:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

SPLC, etc.

No problem. I'm not fond of the SPLC myself but the article has been in my watchlist for a long time so when it shot up and I saw the edits this guy was making, I realized I'd better check his other stuff too. --TJive 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Letting Sleeping Dogs Lie

Happy to do so within reason....but that dog ain't sleeping, especially elsewhere. I gave my statement and I'm content with that. Keepa rockin'--Sojambi Pinola 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with ya. Thanks. --Sojambi Pinola 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Err... Nonetheless, Fill_Your_Heart has been protected with an absurd false statement in view: "Fill Your Heart" is a song written by Academy Award winner Paul Williams in 1966 with added four bar melody by songwriter Biff Rose, widely perceived as lesser known than Williams. Whatevah. --Sojambi Pinola 17:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

re: YA-AFD on List of groups referred to as cults

(little bit of programmer humor in the header, "YA" often appears in acronym software titles to represent "Yet Another"...) Anyways, I had some questions that I thought maybe you could shed some light on:

1. Pjacobi (talk · contribs) talked about all the "previous nominations" that this list had been through under different titles and then listed seven "previous nominations" -- two of which were for articles that had never been spun out of or merged into List of groups referred to as cults. There's a third that I'm not sure about, List of deadly cults -- the history of that is very strange, so I can't tell whether it was ever merged into LOGRTAC. (If not, of course, it means that the very person who put LOGTRAC up for nomination as a poor list created a list of "previous nominations" of which 42.8% percent were actually for unconnected articles. Irony...)
2. I don't think anyone is fully happy with the criteria we use; every version of the list that I've seen seems to be using a set of criteria arrived at through grudging compromise (usually after open edit-warfare). But is there some reason we don't use the relatively simple criteria of "if there are sources sufficient to mention in the article that it is sometimes purported/alleged/referred to as as a cult, those sources are sufficient for the list"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

I appreciate your kind words for my constributions to the "Spanish missions" articles!--Lordkinbote 19:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Anne Norton

Hey Will, shouldn't we find a source before we mention Norton doesn't believe in the rumors? Or does she already mention it in the book?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page. -Will Beback 00:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks?

Please do not make false accusations on my Talk page. Saying that I use "personal attacks" implies that I've attacked someone personally. I haven't. I made a general statement clearly in jest about a group of people who share a particular behaviorial characteristic. That's not a personal attack. --Serge 03:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... Seriously, is mild autistic not a fair and reasonable descriptor for each member of a group of people who favors order/consistency in article names for the sake of order/consistency, even when doing so violates the most common principle of Wikipedia article naming (use the most commonly used/known name)? Anyway, if you really are taking this personally, I won't use it anymore. --Serge 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

4.19.93.2

Hi Will, Just thought I should pass on the troublesome edit pattern by this user, who has returned to blanking, vandalism, creating sock puppets, etc. Prepare to Block! Pinkville 18:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Communities

Hey, I was wondering if you would post the WIkiproject:Communities on a couple different bulletin boards, commmunity pages, improvement article pages, etc. so that it can be improved and get noticed. I would appreciate if you would assist me in doing that. Thanks. --Ericsaindon2 21:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, but you know as much as I do. -Will Beback 22:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you reverted last before me...

...I want to ask, was this legit, and does "NOR" apply to WP:space? Thanx 68.39.174.238 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's OK, by the time I saw it everything had worked out. The reason I ask is because the 71. editor of that section (Assumed to be A.M by others), keeps claiming that the comment about him possibly making a death threat violates NOR (I'm personally not buying it), so I asked about it. 68.39.174.238 02:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointless removal of my edit on Mount Whitney

The woman's name that Crooks Peak is named after is HULDA CROOKS. She was very well known in my home town of Loma Linda, California while I was growing up. You spelled it Hilda and that's wrong, so I corrected it. A one-letter correction that you felt compelled to undo for no apparant reason.

Doubt me? Check out her obit at [5]

What is the sense of making changes to someone's corrections if you don't know the facts first.

DKettering909 15:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)DKettering909

Endorsement of barnstar

Thanks for having faith in me. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:00 UTC (2006-06-11)

Infobox situation

I removed the community infobox in the infobox directory added by our good friend Ericsaindon2. Then he put it back. Should I proceed to remove it again, or should I just let sleeping dogs lie? Adambiswanger1 02:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Need to erase libel

Please see the last entry in User_talk:HopeSeekr_of_xMule labeled 'DID' [6]. The perpetrator has issued very libelous accusations while actively and deceptively initiating communications with a secondary victim named in the comment and basically cyberstalking them. Perpetrator is potentially related to User:Jonah Ayers, the only entity in which I have had a contentious encounter with on Wikipedia, ongoing since August 2005. I used to semi-jokingly state in semi-amicable conversations with this entity (taking place in wikipedia) that having a great many sock puppets may potentitally lead to multiple personality syndrome (aka Dissociative Identity Disorder aka DID). And User:Jon a air is phoenetically similar to Jonah Ayers.

This accusatory statement must be thoroughly stricken from the record and the matter investigated further; I specifically request the IP address of the assailant as I will be pressing libel charges if this ever pops up again; at the very minimum, I would like to know the state/country of origin. I have contacted User:Rangerdude, User:Sn0wflake and User:Will_Beback because all three of you have been involved with Jonah Anyers in the past and this quite serious matter needs very expediant results.

Thank you. — 68.89.175.242 06:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Primetime and Mahadeva

I blocked Primetime, but Mahadeva ins't the same user; I know about Mahadeva and isn't a sock puppet, is a good and active user, maybe in Mali commited a mistake. Regards. --Taichi 08:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Darkstar1st

Hi Will, It is your Immigration debate pal, Darkstar1st. My password no longer works, wiki says it emailed a new pw, but i didn't get it. help desk page no help.

I've replied at user talk:Darkstar1st. -Will Beback 23:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Primetime's talk page

Look, I think it's way past the point being useful to engage with this guy, so it's probably time to page-protect User talk:Primetime. Do I have to make a formal request someplace, or can an admin just do it upon request? If the latter, I'm making the request right now. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

David J. Silver

I was wondering if you thought this was worthy of a wikipedia page? This person (Harvardlaw) has attempted in the past (if you look at his user history) to insert himself into several sections of wikipedia. You've helped me in the past and I was just curious what someone else's opinion was. As fas as I can tell, this person's only notable quality is wresting in a tournament against more notable competitors. Thanks. AriGold 13:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. AriGold 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

JJstroker/Jerry Jones

Good eye! I wasn't able to find any new socks, but I've recorded these ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agoura High Image

I am the webmaster of AHS's site, its ok to use here.

Rogersville, Tennessee

It's not a big deal, but I'm curious as to why you deleted the local city guide in the Rogersville external links? Diezba 20:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Stewart Esposito

• Thank you for your formatting edits on article, Stewart Esposito. I was unsure of quite how to do the blockquote formatting.Smeelgova 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

copyright

Would using material from a press kit / press release — i.e., specifically intended for publication — be a copyright violation? It doesn't seem like it would be, but let me know what you think. Thanks. Squib 22:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, which certainly makes sense. Hopefully to reassure you, please note that I did make an attempt to NPOV the material, and I'll be conscious of that if I make a further edit as well. And the material I modified was my own. I mostly just expanded upon what was there now that more information is available. I'll try to re-work the bio section when I get a chance and reinstate the issues/references portion in the meantime. Thanks. Squib 23:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Elvis page and others

I don't appreciate you following me around and interjecting into my edit history. I've cordially stayed away from the "Illegal Immigration" stuff because I gave my word, please keep yours. Other editors, thankfully have reverted your incredible intervention into an article you've had no history with, and which you've followed me to, in order to interject into my affairs - called wiki-stalking. I've intentionally stayed away from your edits, where I may have an interest in editing. If you have anything positive to add to the Elvis Presley page, by all means do so. The stuff about racism was refuted by the actual edit itself, by Elvis, by Jet Magazine, and was erroneous. I am currently trying to fix up that article, hopefully with others help. I would love to see it become a feature article around his passing away in August if it can be done. I welcome all postive edits here, and maybe we can work together on this article since to improve it in collaboration as a joint project. Some of the material I remove, I may put back after cleaning it up, and that article is rather in need of that. Please respect my space, because of the history we've had, or accept my offer to cordially work together on that apolitical article to make it wiki-credible. --Northmeister 00:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, User:Northmeister is clearly pushing an agenda. On his user page, he says, "I've been a lifelong fan of Elvis Presley..." He has removed well-sourced material from the Elvis Presley article which is not in line with his personal opinion of the star. Among the sources I have used are several independent publications, among them important biographies on Elvis and a peer-reviewed study on Elvis's alleged racism published by an American university press. For Northmeister's deleting tactics, see [7], [8]. See also this discussion. May I ask you, Will, as an administrator, to keep a watchful eye on the activities of this user? Thank you. Onefortyone 11:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, I feel this article is chance for the two of us to work together on a common wikipedia goal - cleaning an article up and making it fit wikipedia standards. Although I am a fan by clear admittance, I do not have any objective here other than that. Let me know, your experience would be an added balance to the editing - in other words regardless of our history and as a show of good faith - I invite you to offer your wit and wisdom to this page. --Northmeister 01:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the corn flour is speaks in tongues.

A big hello to you Will Beback! As you may already know, user:Mavarin submitted a mediation request at the Mediation Cabal involving the articles disemvoweling and Barbara Bauer. Discussion will be taking place at talk:disemvoweling involving the conflict. I sincerely hope that everyone is happy with the end result of this discussion, and I personally will remain neutral and understanding of all opinions while we sort all of this out. Kindness and understanding, regardless of the situation, is always the best way to settle dispues, which can sometimes spawn meaness and grumpyness in its participants. :)

A message will be sent to all parties involved, so that everyone can work out an agreeable solution. As a general guideline for being nice, it's usually a good idea to assume good faith and keep a cool head while discussing such sticky situations. Thank you for your understanding. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 08:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply. If you want to check out the mediation request, check out Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16 Disemvoweling -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 09:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

American System

You wrote: When you do come back to Wikipedia, I'd appreciate getting a report on how the work progressed on the American System. As you recall, you asked to to stay away for a week so that you could work on removing the unsourced material, etc. Well, how'd it go? Were the problems that I raised about the article addressed? I'd be interested in hearing your view of how the article has been improved.

It went very well. I found Northmeister to be a joy to work with. He was also very able and willing to abide by No Original Research and Verifyability and Neutral Point of View. Details are of course available in the history of the article page and its talk page and the subpage I created for a scratch/sandbox/temp page. Blank/white distinctions and person/party versus person/party irrelevances were sufficiently removed to allow the article to reflect the realities of actual national economic policies and processes. As with any article, further improvement is possible; but I am satisfied that progress was made both in the article and in the social dynamics surrounding it. Agreed? WAS 4.250 13:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted images

Hi Will, I hope everything is well with you. We have run into some problems over at South Central Farm. An image uploaded for use on the page (Image:800px-South Central Farm 01.JPG) was tagged as a fair use magazine cover, but does not look anything like a magazine cover. The same image (or possibly a derivative thereof) was used to vandalize my page (Image:Lenin na tribune.jpg), and may need to be checked out as well. If you can point me in the right direction, I can take it from there. Gracias, --Rockero 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Will 8)--Rockero 18:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

David Horowitz

Might you be interested in a look at this page? It seemed to be in a bad way, but an anon reverted in some redundant and useless information, including uncited "self-hating Jew" stuff, Revolutionary Worker spam, and Chip Berlet material which I had kept in the article but moved elsewhere. General comments would be appreciated. --TJive 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sock of User:Jerry Jones

Thanks for the note. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Help with vandalism/PR on Mark Simone page

Several anon editors with extensive vandalism histories have tried to turn this page into an extensive PR campaign for the article subject (much as was previously done on the Mark Levin page). I've removed the PR/Press Release info, explained the reasons why in the Talk Page and article summaries, and the vandals are reverting at will. The same vandals are blanking the Talk page. Judging by their own Talk pages, they have a history of ignoring vandalism warnings. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Eleemosynary 15:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Divine Principle

"The quotations added to the article do not appear intended to convey the gist of the text, but rather to highlight certain views in order to reach a particular conclusion. As such, they do not conform to NPOV and so I suggest that we remove them. -Will Beback 05:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)"

Dear Will, I respectfully disagree with your judgement in this case. If you read the DP as a whole, the gist of it is to declare the coming of a new political age under a literal religious "King." It is common knowledge that Unificationists believe, and advocate for, Rev Moon as that King. (see "True Love King") Are not the political statements in the DP very relevant to any student trying to understand the gist? If you read The German Ideology would not the political vision for the future expressed there-in be the gist of it and everything else the rationalization for it? With regards and thanks Marknw 20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wolli_Kangron"

Dear Will, I added the rest of what I put on the Unification Church page also. I would appreciate your opinion on it. Regards Marknw 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wolli_Kangron"

Verifiable Sources

WARNING: You need Verifiable Sources to make an edit at the American System page - either to remove or to add material to that article due to your disruptive history. Any removal or insertion of material by yourself may be removed by any editor as Vandalism. You are further put on warning that violation of Wikipedia's STALKING and WP:DISRUPT have been recorded and will continue to be recorded as a case history - You are asked to cease and desist from further harassment of myself or any editor. --Northmeister 00:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Any removal or insertion of material by yourself may be removed by any editor as Vandalism.? Dude, chill out. Aside from posting the merge tags I haven't even edited that article in nearly a month. Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone, even me. -Will Beback 00:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That is true. I don't dispute any edits that help, I only dispute edits related to past disputes resolved. I appreciate your efforts at the Elvis page. My invitation to work there with me, to clean the article up, is open still. Further, if your sincere about 'chilling-out' I would ask that we work together on a couple of projects before returning to the American System page and that you apologize for your past accusations of my affiliations and state firmly for the record that you were in the wrong about what sort of editor I was. That step would do much to mend fences. I have email, you can email me with any concerns at anytime, as others have noted - I am not an unreasonable person and will work with anyone who assumes good faith towards me and has the interest of wikipedia in mind when editing. --Northmeister 01:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

North, I deleted your comments on my talk page and on the talk page of the article in question as not being useful and in my attempt to be helpful to you in your dispute with Will. If you want me to go away then I will. This is not fun for me. I originally found Will to be bullying. I now find you to be scary. Calm down, please, please, please. If you do not calm down I will choose to have nothing to do with you. Chill out dude!!! WAS 4.250 04:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what to think - I don't have any good options here. I will post nothing further on this. But, any changes to that article by Will Beback that are not backed by sources will be reverted as vandalism and disruption to make a point. --Northmeister 04:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's all just move forward with improving Wikipedia and the "American System" article. If we focus on the material it will be much easier. I have the best wishes for everybody and expect that we can all be civil. -Will Beback 04:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, maybe I did not do it right - but, I have requested that you officially apologize or acknowledge that you were wrong about my political affiliations and reasons for editing - namely all the LaRouche stuff - and that you commit yourself as I will - to a process of not making any further changes without discussion to that page. If I receive the above on my talk page, yours, and on the American System page - and if you can agree to working by a process I mentioned through WAS - then I will agree to remove (if you wish) any commentary that WAS already removed and to start anew towards working on that article. --Northmeister 04:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel comfortable apologizing for calling you a LaRouche editor because there are good reasons to think that that is a correct description. I do apologize for getting heated in previous discussions, and commit to remaining cool and civil, as I hope you will too. Wikipedia isn't about you or me, it's about writing an encyclopedia - let's keep our aim on that goal. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I accept the partial apology - although I never was nor am a LaRouche supporter or person and reject all such descriptions - but, anyway - I've made a proposal to WAS on his page and hope he and yourself will accept it. Enough said. --Northmeister 05:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Culture of Life

I think it's a tricky issue, but I've often seen it as "Culture of Life." Life by itself is not a proper noun, but together they seem to be. At least that's what I've often seen. Killua 14:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)