If you cannot look at this at least direct me to a third party administrator who can as this is gone way past ridiculous.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So Long, Farewell, Auf wiedersehen, Goodbye.[edit]
Will, just wanted to stop by, and say I'm going to step back from Wikipedia editing. The whole Santorum thing and the growing contentious feelings of editors at some of the articles where I'm editing just leave an unpleasant taste in my mouth. I am going to spend my time doing more pleasant things on the Internet and in real life. So for now, and possibly forever, I am retiring. I leave you with one last comment: You might consider why I'm leaving, and consider the effects that Wikipedia might have on your own happiness. May you have a pleasant time whatever you do. →StaniStani 16:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello -- the vandal is back on the Sahaj Marg page and posting on my page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AReneeholle&action=historysubmit&diff=432520299&oldid=350222208 I suspect it's one of the banned users who has used several socks as he's posting an old page. As you probably recall, several people worked together to create the page I restored the version to. I'm not opposed to changes and would be happy to discuss them; I just oppose vandals who constantly revert.
Thanks, ReneeRenee (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieving talk archives from redirected page?[edit]
Hi Will -- thanks for your message. Here is an important issue:
Is there anyway to do away with the redirect and go back to the original "Sahaj marg" page? This same IP, who now appears to have registered under yet another sock, cleverly redirected the page to "Sahaj Marg" -- effectively eliminating all of the discussions, agreements, and archives. It would be useful to have all of those as a record on the page.
Thanks for the information. I was just updating the original wiki link to my new blog host. The source data was the raw database of election results. I processed that db by hand and published the reports. So, as far as I know, there wasn't a break down per community with an exhaustive listing of each community for San Diego. The newspapers only published one or two top communities and the overall results - from the preliminary results and not from the actual finalized vote totals. I waited until all votes were counted before generating the reports (unlike the newspapers). So all of those percentages came from my site. If you need to remove that entire section, then I don't know of a good replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesewelch (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a heads up that Lgmagone is back and editing disruptively as an IP again. He is very possibly gearing up for an edit war at the Greg Mortenson article. See this, thisand this for evidence. Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The information I added was sourced, factual, and written from a neutral point of view. Don't see what the problem is.
Frankly, I'm tired on LHB. I make one tiny, small addition to the Greg Mortenson article that contains information about the subject, is neutral, and is sourced, and he all of a sudden gets into a edit war. Then, he runs to an admin and complains I am the one that is edit warring and my small, simple modification to the article is disruptive and unhelpful. I don't get it.
I'm not going to get into it with this user again. He is editing disruptively as well as using an IP address only again. He has a registered account that he needs to use. I will leave it up to you to deal with him. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what is disruptive about my editing. I added information to an article, and it is sourced information. 130.76.32.99 (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will, if you would, please see Fastily's talk page regarding more from this user. I am really sorry to pull you back into this mess, but you were there for the first mess and I thought maybe you could add some proper perspective. I know I don't have time for this kind of crap and I imagine you don't either. That said, I appreciate you taking the time. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've apologized on LHB1239's talk page for anything offensive that I might have said or done in the past, and asked him to allow me to contribute to the Greg Mortenson article now and then in the future without automatically reverting the edits. I've extended a sincere olive branch, and asked him to let everything in the past go. I don't think that any admin intervention is needed at this point, and hope both of us will move beyond the fights of the past. 98.203.237.77 (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Against my advice, the above user (formerly editing from the account Lgmagone) has created a new account and is now editing as WhereTimeStandsStill. I tried to explain to him that creating a new account could equate sockpuppetry in the eyes of some and that having his previous account name changed was a better course of action. He ignored my advice and is already editing with the new account. Since Fastily has been involved in this mess somewhat, I am also notifying him of this latest development. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Lhb1239's talk page. Message added 23:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Clearly an article that's completely unsourced can't just live on forever, so your prodding of "Plans and interiors of Mentmore" was reasonable enough. Still, I disagree. Had I noticed it, I'd have removed the prod notice in time; but I didn't notice it, and therefore ... well, please see this, which I hope seems constructive. -- Hoary (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Will Beback, I just wanted to thank you for your contributions on the Ross talk page. Your input is definitely appreciated! FWest2 (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Will Beback for removing TimidGuy's attempt to continue the Transcendental Meditation myth of a settlement in TM's libel suit against JAMA, Dr. George Lundberg, and me. Saying "the suit was dismissed without prejudice" says pretty much what the unnecessary text TimidGuy keeps trying to add. The suit could have been refiled at a later date if the plaintiff chose to. That's the meaning of "dismissed without prejudice." The lie that we had settled with the TM plaintiffs was perpetrated by Deepak Chopra's attorney falsely telling Newsweek that we had settled the suit for an undisclosed amount of money. I called the lawyer to complain only to be mocked, "What are you going to do about it? Sue us? Go ahead." Newsweek printed a retraction a couple of weeks later.
There was never a settlement, secret or otherwise. Not a penny was paid. Not a word of my articles on TM in JAMA or ScienceWriters was retracted. On the contrary, I continued to investigate and report the dishonest practices of the TM movement. Still, the TM movement keeps claiming, whenever the landmark expose in JAMA comes up, that they sued us and obtained a settlement.
searching for sources stating ron paul is a non-interventionalist[edit]
did you try to find a source before making the 4 post stating you would remove the sentence in talk/tea party? if so, where did you look? since the link i post was the second result for google, the 1st link you rejected even though the title was, The GOP, Ron Paul & Non-Interventionism. this is especially perplexing since you had been informed weeks ago ron paul made that very statement in the 2008 primary debate. even now, you still seem to resist removing an incorrect characterization of his as an isolationist. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice stuff on the GA review. I waded in and fixed a lot of problems.--andreasegde (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just polishing little bits here and there. Great work reorganising the 'Departures' and 'Tensions' sections.--andreasegde (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might wonder at some of the supposed 'polishing' I'm doing, but I've done quite a few GA articles, so I know what reviewers complain about the most. Having said that, they always come up with something that you didn't think needed working on, as they all have their own pet foibles or hates. :)--andreasegde (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are linked as they person that deleted the Wikipedia article for for Hans Rudolf Herren for "copyright" issues.
WHY ?
I work with Dr. Herren and have added new honors and description of the English language page. I was not aware of any copyright issues. If there were any, why delete the whole page ?
PLEASE restore this entry. I know little of Wikipedia protocol. Please contact me at A....com.
I started working up a combined draft of the points made by apparently like-minded people at User:Wnt/User_Faction/santorum#A_mutually_compatible_point_of_view. You're one of the 11 I think should be compatible. I'd like to get as many points as possible that everyone involved can agree on completely, so I'd much appreciate it if you could endorse the statement, and/or specify which points you reject or need reworked or explained. (and in all fairness there are a few I can see need work). Interested? Wnt (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Moray An Par's talk page. Message added 10:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
That's it? You make an article more like an attack page, against current discussions here and here, and you accuse me of stalking you? --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.
Recently, an unsourced statement was added to the Greg Mortenson article. As a BLP article, unsourced should be removed immediately. I've attempted to remove this material and am now accused on edit warring. Not sure how to proceed as I believe the unsourced information is original research and cannot be backed up by a reliable source. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts at the Mortenson articles, but what Lgmagone/WhereTimeStandsStill continues to do is, in my opinion, blatant edit warring and gaming the system. He's now playing the "I don't like it card". I'm done for the night and will not be reverting or editing them anymore until at least tomorrow (if not longer than that). My assume good faith is spent with him. Please talk to him, mentor him, something. He's not getting how to edit cooperatively at all. Blocking at this point would only seem punative to him (in my estimation) and bring him back with a vengeance when his block is up. Can't you or someone else take him under your wing for a while? Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem. I make a change - even one that is reasonable (like adding information about Mortenson's health) and it gets promptly revereted by the the other user. It's not one change - it's every change. And usually within 10 or 20 minutes. I think it's something like the last 10 or 12 contributions I've made to Wikipedia. There's no opportunity for constructive discussion and it doesn't stay on long enough for consensus to be built. If I want to add anything, I have to continually re-add it until an admin steps in to say to leave it there, otherwise, the other user reverts it continually until I give up and don't try to edit the article. Not sure exactly what to do.
If anything that any editing that I've done with this username has been disruptive, please let me know. I don't think it has - except for my determination to keep a change there for a day or two before it's been reverted. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you edited through protection, where you should have found consensus first. I have now reverted to the status quo as at when protection was placed, which happens to be the same as your edit. As TheKohser is blocked by ArbCom, and they made no determination over the state of the talkpage, please address any proposed change to them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere in the article we probably should deal with the Logan Act accusations if we can source it properly, which may be a problem, ie getting sources related to the BG explaining that the act doesn't cover the meetings. Dougweller (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will, would you care to chime in about the use of the spk title for Greg Mortenson? I think your insight would be beneficial. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were some superfluous (add obvious) additions to the *countries* assigned to the rajas (like: New York, Minnesota, New England) connected to irrelevant references, as well as irrelevant additions to the list of the Purusha Rajas, which I removed. ΕΜΦ (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main source of the list of the 26 rajas whose domains are the 192 member states of the UN is my post in the Fairfieldlife forum:
As far as I know, there is no other list of the 26 rajas on the internet, except in FairfieldLife and Wikileaks.
Some time ago I fist posted the list to Wikileaks, to replace an list posted by this same guy who made this silly additions, adding Minneapolis, California, New England, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, and Denver among the 192 countries, (as well as adding references that it does not take a nuclear scientist to understand that they are totally irrelevant to the subject). He is clearly making fun of both TM and Wikipedia. I am afraid he has intervened in other parts of the article, but for now I have restricted myself to the part that I happen to know best.
So please restore my changes to the list of the 26 rajas, though not those to the short list of the Purusha Rajas below for now, since I am currently researching the later and I can make any changes necessary when I am sure. Or let me know that I can remake the changes.
IMO, individuals like the one who interfered with the list should have their posts closely followed by those responsible. ΕΜΦ (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Thanks for your reply. I appreciate that you've tried to be diligent with your efforts to compile the lists. It is a complicated issue for several reasons. First, there have been changes to the domains over time."
True. The question is to what extend it is important that Wikipedia should attempt to trace the changes or emphasize the current situation.
"Second, Rajas have multiple domains and often they are addressed with only one of their domains, for example when giving a report on that country's administration. However there are some lists. Here's a brief list, with only a single domain each, from 2006.[1]"
It is clear that when one examines the lists each raja is assigned a relatively more significant (or base) country then the rest of his domain. I hadn't seen the a list of rajas with only that country mentioned, however. Now, I would tend to consider having that country first in the list.
"However there are some lists. Here's a brief list, with only a single domain each, from 2006.[1] You can see entries like "His Highness Dr John Konhaus Raja of California", "His Highness Dr Tom Stanley Raja of Denver", and other sub-national domains."
I see. I would tend to consider them temporary assignments before the list was finalized with the official 192 countries of the UN. In this particular list Raja Wynne is raja of America, while Hagelin is still Minister of Science and Technology.
"I believe were later replaced with national domains, but I haven't seen any source which says so."
I am afraid that for some reason such a official list does not exist, and this made me compile mine.
"This PDF from 2010 includes a eulogy from each raja, and gives each raja's complete set of domains.[2] For example, "Raja Felix Kägi: Raja of Invincible Switzerland, Raja of Invincible Slovenia, Invincible Serbia, Invincible Albania, Invincible Liechtenstein, Invincible Malawi, Invincible Djibouti" or "Raja John Bright: Purusha Raja with Universal Domain". It's the best source available, and it's reasonably recent (the material may be a reprint from an earlier publication, though obviously after Maharishi's passing)."
This may be considered the best source available only insofar as it is official. It is, however, incomplete: It contains only 18 of the 26 rajas of my list and only 123 of the 192 countries of the UN. So, lacking a complete official list, I still consider mine the best available. Maybe, though, a link to the FairfieldLife post would be indicated...
Possibly in an endnote it can be noted that in early stages some rajas were temporarily assigned sub-national domains, that there have been some other changes, and that occasionally only the relatively more significant country of a raja's domain is mentioned, with a couple of references. Personally I would consider that adequate, someone else, however, might want to expand further on the historical changes of the domains in endnotes. Personally I would prefer, however, that more details will be included in current or possible future articles for particular rajas.
BTW, I like to watch 10' of Maharishi Family Chats after TM (that is 140' or 2h 20'/w) to keep up with what they are doing, and I maintain a spreadsheet (where BTW I also have charts to follow at a glance the ups and downs of the Invincible America Assembly), so for the foreseeable future I expect to be able to maintain the list, or until the official organization publishes an official one.ΕΜΦ (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your comment on my talk page re the MSAE lede edit: "I didn't mention it at the time but I was concerned about this recent edit of yours which also deleted material for insufficient cause.[11] Will Beback talk 11:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)"
Wiki policy on the lede WP:Lede reads: “The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.”
Since the text that I removed from the lede “Ashley Deans is the Executive Director and Bevan Morris is Chairman of the Board of Trustees.”[2]] was not included anywhere in the body of the article, it seemed inappropriate to me that the text appear in the lede. This was my sole motivation for its deletion.
In a comment on my talk page you said: “That's a spurious and "peremptory" cause for deletion. There's no question about the veracity of the material. Your edit was disruptive to the project.”
How could an edit in line with Wiki guidelines be “spurious” and “preemptory”? How can a simple edit to bring the lede in line with Wiki guidelines be characterized as “disruptive to the project”? Your comments on my talk page are making a mountain out of a mole hill and a complete mischaracterization of my edit.
About 90 minutes later, you restored the text to the lede [3], which seems to me to be contrary to Wiki guidelines for the lede. --BweeB (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I want to remind you that the TM arbcom case specified that we assume good faith -
"2) Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the dispute ..." --BweeB (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Will, I’m concerned about your recent behavior on the various talk pages and noticeboards. Over the past month you have made a series of accusations about conflict of interest (COI) and asked editors to either “disclose” information about a possible personal relationship or “refrain from participating”. It appears to me that you have no evidence of a COI violation (per TM ArbCom) and that through your posts, you are attempting to create a narrative about COI, when in fact, no issue exists. This kind of behavior is disruptive to the talk page process and impedes overall progress, so I ask that you please consider correcting this pattern. To understand my point clearly please have a look at these diffs:
5/14/11 User:Spicemix talk page—“Aside from myself, the top nine editors are all apparently MMY followers"[4]
5/25/11 Transcendental Movement talk page—“Orme-Johnson may be known personally to a number of editors here, so there is a conflict of interest element.”[5]
5/28/11 Transcendental Movement talk page—“It is unseemly for friends or former colleagues of OJ's to press for special treatment of his self-published website, at least without acknowledging their COI.” [6]
6/1/11 Transcendental Movement talk page--“Speaking of relevant issues, editors have been failing to disclose any personal or professional connections to David Orme-Johnson.” [7]
6/1/11 RS Noticeboard--“Pushing the inclusion of a self-published, partisan source written by a friend or colleague is not conservative editing.” [8]
6/2/11 RS Noticeboard—“It's appropriate, when using this noticeboard to propose using a disputed source, to disclose one's connections to the source or subject.”[9]
6/9/11 Transcendental Movement talk page—“If editors are promoting the work of a colleague or friend without disclosing it then that's not something to be proud of.”[10]
6/11/11 TM-Sidhi talk page—“Chissano's children, plus some children of his associates, attended MUM in Fairfield in the mid-1990s. If any editors here knew them, or Chissano himself, they should either disclose that fact or refrain from participating”. [11]
6/11/11 TM-Sidhi talk page--“explain in what way it disrupts the editing of an article to disclose significant connections to people whose views are being promoted.”[12]
If you choose to respond, please post here as I have your talk page on my Watch List and I like to keep these discussions in one place. Thank you, — Keithbob • Talk • 10:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. As I posted at the top of my talk page, I always respond on the other editor's talk page. It's a habit.
Regarding the COI problems the TM topic, your list does show how hard it has been to resolve these problems. I really don't understand how folks are interpreting the COI guideline, but the impression I get is that no one involved in that topic believes it applies to them. May I ask you a purely hypothetical question? Do you think that the COI guideline applies to people writing about their employers, friends, colleagues, or spiritual leaders? Will Beback talk 10:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Looking at the diffs provided above it appears that the "problem" under discussion is your non-compliance with WP:COI which says:
"The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."
Are you willing to comply with this guideline? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keith, would you rather I bring up COI concerns on the talk pages of individual editors? Since there are a number of editors that'd lead to some repetition, but if you think that's what's necessary at this point then I'll willing to do that instead of leaving general questions. The editors on this topic have been to the noticeboards several times, do you expect a different result with a future posting? If you think that would help I can start another COIN thread. What I'm not willing to do is ignore the problem entirely, as that can't really be done. It's like a herd of (very calm) elephants in the room. :) Will Beback talk 11:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Again Will, the purpose of this thread is to encourage you to come into compliance with WP:COI which says: “Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.” As of yesterday you were still using your COI narrative on the Original Research Noticeboard when you said: "I'm the "other editor" in question, perhaps the only non-TM movement editor working on the topic now." [13] Such repeated attempts to poison the well and label other editors as somehow lesser than you, are disruptive and counter-productive to the project. I hope you will consider this carefully. Cheers,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I normally like to keep discussions together, but if you want to reply do it where you most feel comfortable.
Mr. BeBack; I've not been around in a while. We never had huge overlaps in areas of editing, but I'd like to think that there is some mutual respect. For lack of a more accurate phrase to describe a constructed person, I like you and have always valued your opinion. So I hope that I can say this in a way that's helpful: I think you're going too far. I like the simile above of the calm elephants, but I feel that you're trumpeting loudly enough that it's actually doing the opposite of what you're intending. (Wait, that made you one of the elephants, but, I, ahhh... damn rhetorical devices, how do they work?) Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me to update my email address... try again? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aww FFS, I really can not do anything right today. I've clicked the "confirm" link now in my email. I should have stayed in bed. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, on the PR talk page, I see that Alison reverted a banned user's input, but the input is only by an IP, how does she know that's a banned user, and if it's the banned user I would guess it is, and we/you/she/they/etc know who it is, does that mean we should point it out to whoever is in charge to have that user's ban reset (again) to start over, or at least log the infraction? -- Maelefique(talk) 15:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be referring to old David Rockefeller's biographical information, about him being an illuminatus? Well, I will be sure to add a reference to his own biography in which he admits it. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia solid. GeoffreyBernardo talk— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffreybernardo (talk • contribs) 08:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your request for clarification has been closed. The Arbitration Committee has indicated that User:Thekohser is community banned. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!
