User talk:Will Beback/archive72

Welcome to my user talk page. If you leave a message for me here I will reply to you on your own talk page.

Since you asked.

Hello Will, With respect to Steve's request to hold posts on the SPI page, I'll respond to your inquires here.

First I'll get straight to the heart of the matter. 1. No, BarkingMoon never gave me any indication as to "who" any previous names he had edited under were. 2. No, BarkingMoon has never told me that he was Rlevse (aka Vanished User.. some number).

Second, I'll apologize upfront for the tl;dr. I simply want to offer my views as fully and accurately as I can.

OK, now the history. Early in May I ran across BarkingMoon, and as it was evident that he had either edited as an IP, or an earlier username, I did ask outright if he had a previous identity. He admited that he did, but that he was in compliance with WP:CLEANSTART, and that he prefer to not reveal it. I accepted that. He also either said outright, or by implication, that he preferred not to just go back to the old name. My understanding is that s/he simply wanted to edit quietly, create articles, improve articles, and do some work in the DYK area. I respected his/her wish, and even looked over a few of the articles, suggested a hook here and there, and even worked on an article with him. As people came forward and constantly begged the question "who are you?", and then began trying to guess "who" this mystery person was - pleas were made (by both he and me) to simply allow the editor to edit in peace.

Not long ago, BarkingMoon made a comment on Jimbo's talk page in reference to Giano. Giano took offense to it, and responded. Assumptions were made about his identity, partly due some of the questions that were posed, where they were posed, and how they were posed. I was also unsure of the entire situation, and asked if there was any connection. I did that because while I was familiar with "name" Mattisse, I didn't know details about her editing history here other than the fact that there were problems in the past. Several folks jumped very hard at the idea that Mattisse was "WP:SOCKing", apparently because she had a history of doing that. It was found that it was indeed NOT Mattisse, and that there was no correlation between the BarkingMoon and Mattisse accounts. Almost immediately, there were accusations that the editor was then Rlevse. Since I had spoken to Rlevse at times back when he was a sitting Arb, I began to wonder why they would think that. At the time Rlevse stepped down, I was not actively editing WP. However, I just got a very different feel for BarkingMoon's conversational style, and the style that I remembered that Rlevse had. Continually trying to guess who someone "is", is in my oppinion, very bad form. I'm not fond of double dipping.

I fully admit that I am not an active searcher of socks. I simply try to treat each account as in individual, and human entity, and judge them on the merits of their editing. Even if BarkingMoon is or was Rlevse, I'm not convinced an immediate block would be in order. Yes, I've read through both the WP:CLEANSTART and WP:RTV pages, ... as well as WP:SOCK. I've also read through many of the pages in archives from Oct. through November of 2010. Rlevse by the very nature of his position at the Arbitration Committee would indeed have drawn his share of enemies. The fact that he contributed to resolutions that led to sanctions to other users would make him a prime target at any point where he made a mistake. Apparently, that's what happened. Rather than prolong any drama, Rlevse turned in all his tools, and walked away. I understand that this left a large number of the community with an empty feeling, and a lack of closure. Large groups of people often enjoy the spectacle of a public dressing down, followed by the always enjoyable tar and feathering. Personally I don't get my kicks as part of the pitch-fork and torches crowds.

I've also read through all this ... ummm.. "evidence" on Off2Riorob's page that the two of you have been collectivly working on. Several times actually. Everyone loves to solve a mystery. A few things do seem to be quite a conincidence, but much of it seems to be a real stretch. IMHO. I suppose it's possible, but, personally, I don't like jumping to conclusions.

Admittedly, I do have a history of throwing myself under the bus by my own accord. I've often stood in defense of folks that I thought were not getting a fair shake. Delta/Betacommand, CoM, Ottava, Law/Undertow, Lara, MZM, .. whatever. I assume that people are here because they want to make the site a better project. ALL people make mistakes. At the end of every post on WP is an actual living, breathing human being. One with feelings, passions, and ideas. I've also come to accept the fact that there are times in life where we will never know the full and complete truth about any given situation. People are always going to be looking for that gunman on the grassy knoll.

At this point in time, I'm content to know that the situation is under review. There are quite a number of folks who are aware of the situation, and have not made any public statements. The matter is under review, and I trust those in position to evaluate everything, to render a fair and just decission in the matter. Personally, I hope that there is no conclusive evidence to prove that BarkingMoon is Rlevse, and that BarkingMoon will be free to continue editing in peace. No, I can not say unequivocally that they are not one and the same. I don't think they are. However, even if they were, I would still stand in defense of Rlevse being allowed to edit in peace here as well. I suppose that an AN, AN/I, or RfC would generate a rather wide range of very different opinions on the matter, but I doubt we are really in need of that.

Simply put: If an editor is editing for the benefit of the project. It's my view that they be allowed to do so in peace without a constant barage of questions. There are real vandals out there to block. There are real BLP issues out there to resolve. There are real NFC issues out there that need fixed. All the "zOMG, who are you" stuff is in my opinion, just plain BS. The very nature and concept of Wikipedia allows for either completely anon. editing (IP), or psyeudonym style editing. Yes, I use my real name. There are others who do too. That's our choice ... but it's not a requirement.

I hope I've answered your questions, and you are certainly free to contact me at any time. Where I live we are headed into a holiday weekend. USA and 4th of July. But I'll try to check in where I can.

Kind Regards,

• — Ched :  ?  10:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

COI and Ownership issues

Thanks for your note. I've said all I need to say on my concerns for now. You are of course free to take the issues I raised to AE or a NB. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC))

Problem when trying to improve Manuel Noriega Article

I am a new user to wikipedia, and I am trying to make an improvement to the "Manuel Noriega" article, by changing a picture and adding other titles the man held while being de facto leader of Panama. I added the references from where I got the information, and this can be backed by the equivalent article in es.wikipedia, where all his titles are included plus the references from where they obtained the information. However, there has been a user that has been eliminating time after time the improvements and clarifications I did to the article, vandalizing my work. I am not sure if here is the place where to ask for help regarding this issue, if not please redirect me to where I should complaint. Thank you PD: This happened on July-01-2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajatty (talk • contribs) 01:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the hat placed by Dreadstar.

Please don't undo it. I have that page on my watchlist, and that argument is done, and undoing the hat does not reflect well. LHM 03:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RTV

Hi Will. As you have made a few recent comments regarding WP:RTV I have seen the guidelines abused before User:ChrisO abused it. I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#RTV is getting abused - suggest rewording - with the intension of tightening the policy and seeing where the community stands on this. There is also a related thread posted at Wikipedia review regarding another user and in the thread a few arbs comments there feelings about RTV and cleanstart. The review thread is part of the leaked emails. I won't post the link here but will provide for you if you require it. Feel free to comment in the thread I opened with suggestions for tweaking the guideline, or not as the case may be. No hurry, no worry, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

San Fernando Valley

On both articles, the percentages were incorrect and did match up, the San Fernand Valley article is just a estimate and rounding of the percentages, they are indeed correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICantBeTamed (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lewinsky_(neologism)

What is your take on this edit? And is there a guideline or policy stated somewhere that covers this?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not Will, but his talkpage recently became a part of my watchlist, and I think I've got it fixed there. At least I hope so... LHM 22:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias

A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Congratulations on your work with the former MOL page. Nice job. Thank you for persisting. 67.142.175.25 (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

diff

Hi Will - can you please add the diff to the place where you added this comment from me - "Osho as I know him probably could'nt have cared less about what was written on his entry paper he had his mind on spiritual matters." - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please add the diffs, you have added a second one now without a diff, please add them thanks. Please let me know idf you think I am wrong to ask you to please post the diffs when you quote me, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please add the diffs Will - you clearly need to calm down. Please do not add anymore quotes from me without the diff - and as I have requested please add the diffs to the quotes you have already posted, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, why would you add quotes without diffs? Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cirt

Please stop revert warring on this header, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Lewinsky AfD

It seems I misinterpreted your comment. My apologies. Have a good day. Protonk (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notification

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

BarkingMoon

Hi,
can I ask you not place a block on BarkingMoon before further discussion? Operating under the assumption that this is Rlevse, there still are many issues that we should be clear on: requirements of CLEANSTART, and where evading scrutiny begins, and how much overlap we accept as unavoidable if we want to allow a CLEANSTART. John Vandenberg wrote that "if BarkingMoon is Rlevse, they have done a fairly decent job of a clean start", so they seem to have a different opinion (although ArbCom might have a bias here).
Note that I have not looked into any edits of the account, and I am not privy to any discussions regarding that account; I am also "only" aware of problems with close paraphrasing/copyright, can you go into more detail regarding other "serious issues about his editing and participation which were discovered after his departure that were not discussed publicly out of respect for a vanished user" -- privately, if need be?
Bottom line, the simple question I'd like to see answered first is this: would a block at this point improve the encyclopedia?
Amalthea 08:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Update, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You asked if you can help. Yes, please don't put me in the Baroque liturgical music box, I came for living composers (another Finch there), smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your warning. Who is compared to a dog there? - One more to boxes: Messiah (Structure on the Main page) is Baroque but strictly not liturgical. Goodwill towards men, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Cult case request

Hi - you spelled ResidentAnthropologist ResidentApologist, could you please correct this - no one thinks it was deliberate, by the way, but he's mentioned it on the case request page. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wealth

thanks! ; ) --Semitransgenic (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit war?

Sorry to bother you. I'm not very savvy with Wikipedia, but I couldn't help but notice that this "Allah Condemns Homosexuality" guy undid both mine and your edits on the LGBT themes in horror page. I just removed the link for the movie "Make A Wish" because Wikipedia doesn't have the page for the specific movie and now I'm in an editing war? --SensibleOxymoron (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Will Beback. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

This is fun

Lovely to be given a barnstar; many thanks. User talk:Mx96 15:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

It's bubbly Negativecharge (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Harold Covington

Obviously I've also been keeping an eye on this page lately (trying to get Mr. Covington, if that's really him, to work with me, but he'd rather be disruptive). You know about the most recent attempt to delete posts. I see the 24 hour semi-protection. It won't be enough. Historically (mostly within 24 hours), the same deletion was also done by...

• this IP
• this IP twice - you reverted the first one of these two
• this IP (note this was before all the discussion he participated in under the same IP)
• Forky1138 (two successive edits combined here - that account was also confirmed to be a sock of User:NorthwestVolunteer and has not yet been blocked, I linked to the SPI at AN/I and no one's blocked it)
• NorthwestVolunteer (also here and here)

Further, he has made this statement, suggesting that as soon as protection expires, he's going to go right back into it and force us to babysit him again. To top it all off, he had an account under his own name where he made legal threats; the first indication was here and there is still one blatantly visible at the top of the page today. We now know of one sockpuppet that's been confirmed, and we don't even need an SPI to confirm the second one; I'd also argue to block NorthwestVolunteer because he admitted to being Harold Covington, who also posted under User:Haroldcovington.

I tried to get through to him multiple times, including on his article's talk page, but he's not listening to my efforts to work with him, and I'm done. I don't want to waste another iota of time with him. If he won't work with someone bending over backwards (almost breaking his back doing so), then we need to tell him we're not going to let him have his way here. Only 24 hours of semi-protection simply won't do it here; this needs at least a month, possibly an indef. Maybe once he sees he is not able to remove the content he will go through proper channels to try to do so. But since he seems to not be learning properly how to do this, I an guaranteeing he will still be back in a month after having already filed a legal case against WP. I say we ban this guy on sight from anywhere on the wiki for his actions and indef. the article and talk page. CycloneGU (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

C., Thanks for your note. I didn't think that the protection would solve the problem, just give a little breathing room to seek a better solution. That may take greater community involvement. I'm not as familiar with the issues as you are. Do you think you might be able to summarize the dispute and post a thread to BLPN?   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to take the above (and anything else I think of) and try to organize it from the beginning, including when it came to AN/I and I first jumped on board. I don't think I've posted at that noticeboard before, so I'll have to make sure I am clear on what I am posting before I go in and post something incomplete; that wouldn't help matters at all. I'll ponder it this evening and perhaps post there later. CycloneGU (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I copied your post here to reply to it; I like keeping discussion centralized where it started. I accept talkback templates instead. =) CycloneGU (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Harold Covington

You are welcome to participate having reverted a couple of these edits and having applied the protection. Any solution we can come up with would be better than letting the IPs back in 2morrow. CycloneGU (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Harold Covington/Archive 1

We have an archive now. In order to prevent IP edits to the archive (which will no doubt begin once he finds out about that page), can we indef. semi the archive since it shouldn't be edited NEway? CycloneGU (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Looks like Doug got to it already. CycloneGU (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

LittleJerry

Hey Will! Long time no see. You set me straight months ago when I was raising a ruckus over the Vision Stmt at WPRight. The gist was "what difference does it make?" Remember? I've been trying to help Jerry come to the same understanding regarding importance ratings but haven't been successful. Perhaps you could drop him a note before he gets blocked again. Thanks! – Lionel ^(talk) 01:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The next step?

Will, on the TM-Sidhi talk page you were pretty clear that sources used in the article should mention TM-Sidhi, Yogic Flying, or the Maharishi Effect. And there is strong support for this from several additional editors. So what's the next step? How can we accomplish this? There are as many as a dozen sources cited in the lead that don't meet this criterion. Is there any we can work together to clean this up? TimidGuy (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again

Hi, Will. I know this is going to sound like a wacky conspiracy theory, but hear me out. I've been watching your most recent exchange with North8000 on its talk page, and I've concluded that you are conversing with an automated 'bot' of some sort. The script has been tweaked a little, but is otherwise identical to the script I was fed back in late April when I, too, asked North to cease with the unsubstantiated personal attacks. With you, it's "axe to grind" and "tag-bombing", and with me it was "gaming the system to POV an article" a little ways up on that same talk page.

To you: "This was not arrived at hastily, it was drawn from a large amount of observation and analysis of a large amount of material."
To me: "sums up my opinion which was developed carefully and cautiously and after many months of observation and interaction" --North8000 (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To you: "what you are IMHO doing is common and does not rise to that level of an issue."
To me: "What you are IMHO doing is common practice in Wikipedia and not considered "serious"" --North8000 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To you: "I view everyone, including those where I have those IMHO-issues with to be a potential future friend."
To me: "I view and treat people who I have disagreements with (including Xenophrenic) as fellow human beings first and potential future friends..." --Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To you: "My efforts are always focused only on the article, rather than seeking any heavy duty review/action regarding the individual"
To me: "It is not a personal attack. It is a very low key description and critique of what you have been doing at the article" --North8000 (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You get the picture. Spooky, eh? For the longest time there, I really thought I was communicating with a live individual. I eventually had to drag the bot to WP:WQA, where it was eventually reprogrammed to run a personal-attack-redaction subroutine — but it was like pulling teeth. I wish you better luck. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Need for Correction of Inaccuracy in Dairy Management, Inc. Company Description

Hello – I am an employee of Dairy Management Inc. (DMI) and posted some requested edits to our company description last week. I was unfamiliar with the process for correcting inaccurate information so thank you for the input received last week. There is actually an inaccuracy in the opening sentence describing Dairy Management Inc. that we feel is important to remedy to properly describe our organization.

The opening currently reads "Dairy Management Inc. is an offshoot of the U.S. Department of Agriculture dedicated to promoting the role of American made dairy production."

DMI is actually not an offshoot of the USDA; and is actually funded solely by America’s dairy farm families. In addition DMI actually does not use any government or taxpayer dollars to promote dairy products.

Can we please change the opening line to reflect this proper description?

I would suggest the following:

"Dairy Management Inc.™ (DMI) is the nonprofit domestic and international planning and management organization responsible for increasing sales of and demand for U.S.-produced dairy products and ingredients on behalf of America’s dairy farmers. DMI is funded solely by America’s farm families."

Please advise as we would like to ensure that the accurate description of our organization is posted as soon as possible. Thank you very much.

RoseDMI (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The only rebuttals or information I can find that support that statement are from Dairy Management itself, including the item that may be mistaken as an article on PR Newswire. Do you have a reliable source for it? Also, sadly, you cannot directly use the copy verbatim from Dairy Management's press releases and website (even though you work for them) without proper permission being given by releasing it under the correct copyright or into the public domain. It would need to be treated as a copyright violation.

And coincidentally, I can find a dozen of secondary reliable sources of various sorts, from various dates that do indeed state that the USDA has provided funding to Dairy Management (Discovery.com, The Consumerist, and The NY Times as three examples). This[1] document, from the Federal Government, indicates some form of partnership, and implies some form of funding via cost shares, reduced costs for applicable things, and grants. Perhaps you can find secondary reliable sources that contradict the information elsewhere? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the citable "truth" may actually something inbetween the current text and what RoseDMI proposes. WillBe, I'm willing to do some digging and help out, if you two want. Bloomberg lists them as formed in 1915. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Kerry Bolton

I don't know if I ever had anything to do with OTRS. Probably not. I have deleted the content at Kerry Bolton because it was a whole chunk of stuff without a single valid source. I wouldn't object if you reinsert the material. I assume that you know about how to use primary sources, or opinion pieces. News articles from secondary, independent sources who build their reputation on accurate reporting are always best.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

I only reverted twice. Why did you warn me citing to the three revert rule?--WikiPolicyExpert (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Need administrator advice

Good day sir, Thank you for your welcome however I do not thank you for removing my posts regarding documentary Conspiracy of Silence about which I had hoped to initially gain some further information after stumbling across it a while back on line. However the Wiki page was redirected to the "Franklin child prostitution ring allegations" page. After this I went to the Boys Town (organisation) page to see if there was any mention or acknoweledgement of the documentary there. There wasn't. I then tried to research Lawrence "Larry" E King (one of the persons that the documentary (note; the documentary, not myself) did allege to have been centrally involved in child abuse. There was no page dedicated to this individual despite the fact that the documentary states this individual was given a lengthly custodial sentence for a multi million embezzlement purpetrated against the Franklin Community Credit Union. For this prominent or "rising star" of the Republican party during the 1980's, there is no dedicated page which considering the allegations and conviction against him, is an omission. The entry that exists for the aforementioned "Franklin child prostitution allegations" does not acknowledge or make any reference to the documentary "Conspiracy of Silence" even though it says it's a redirect. What concerns me is that at the beginning of this documentary, it is stated that the film was comissioned by the Discovery Channel and filmed for this channel by Yorkshire Television in 1993 and due to be aired on the 3rd May 1994. It was also stated that the film was listed in the TV listings magazines and newspaper supplements at that time. Despite this, the film was never broadcast and those involved in its production were reimbursed the production costs of approx 1/4 million dollars. Those involved in the production are not as I am sure you can agree, small scale operations prone to the sole entertainment of the paranoid or pandering to the fantasies of conspiracy theorists but, when a film is on the web that says it was effectively banned due to US congress pressure, I am going to attempt to research this further although this is difficult when there seems to be limited information about the whole affair from the mainstream press. So, Will Beback my questions to you are thus; (1) Please highlight or explain to me exactly what part of the information was defamatory considering that the information was not presented as a direct accusation / allegation made by myself about Lawrence "Larry" E King, the Boys Town Organisation and / or John Decamp. As I would like to repost my edits in a manner that is mutually agreeable. (2) Please explain why the "Franklin child prostitution ring allegations" page is locked from editing and is sparse of information regarding the subject matter, appears bias towards dismissing the scandal as a hoax without consideration to other aspects of the case and does not even mention Conspiracy of Silence let alone describe in any way the contents of the documentary. (3) Please confirm exactly which sources about this topic are considered "reliable". Would Wikipedia consider as unreliable the following;

www.beyondweird.com www.justice-integrity.org www.infowars.com http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com or the Thursday 29th June edition of the Washington Times (front page)?

I understand the pillar of assuming Good Faith however can you not see how the apparent supression of a subject might appear in this instance. So with respect please give me some pointers and justifications for your actions.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbero (talk • contribs)

"Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health" and "Andrew A Skolnick" biography

Subject/Heading: "Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health" and "Andrew A Skolnick" biography

Hi Will, I am puzzled as to why you are so adamant that the subject pages should not include what appears to be the actual outcome of "The Lancaster Foundation -v- Skolnick et al" case. According to court records the recorded outcome appears to have been "This cause of action is hereby dismissed without prejudice and with leave to reinstate if settlement is not effectuated. All pending motions are hereby moot".

The impression that I have from the exchanges that I have seen is that you are a lone voice wishing for that factual information to be hidden from others searching for facts relating to the Lancaster Foundation and Andrew Skolnick. So far I've found that TimidGuy and Keithbob wishing to retain it and only you and Andrew Skolnick wanting it removed, but I see no good reason given for hiding this recorded fact and isn’t that what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be a source of “ .. encyclopedia articles focus on factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands .. ” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia)?

Your comment on 14 May 2011 @ 23:05 is odd “Let's not even get into the question of why a Wikipedia editor has a copy of this document, which does not appear online”. Why shouldn’t an editor of Wikipedia (or anyone else for that matter) have a copy of any document in which they have an interest?

Maybe your persistent objections to Wikipedia presenting important facts without providing any convincing justification for doing so. “ .. leaves one concerned about POV pushing .. ”, as you suggested to TimidGuy on 16 May 2011 @ 11:09.

Best regards, Pete Ridley Pete Ridley (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and an apology

Good afternoon. Thank you for you advice regarding my queires about the Franklin child abuse scandal and the documentary "Conspiracy of Silence". I will endeavor to garner some further suggestions from the page you have suggested. I apologise that my initial communication with you was a rant, I was just somewhat annoyed about the deletion. Thanks once again. (Webbero (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC))

"Beware of Rabid Attack Dogs"

Hi Will, thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia and for the advice about WP:BLP (Biographies of living persons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP),WP:V(Verifiability - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V)and WP:NOR (No original research). BTW, please can you advise how I can insert links to WP:BLP, WO:V, etc. I tried the "insert" facility but couldn't find iany guidance.

I understand that you are an elected voluntary administrator of long-standing at Wikipedia. I draw your attention to the subject entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick) and respectfully suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for such comments. The unwary expect Wikipedia to be a source of reliable information, not petty arguments and there are plenty other places for comments of that nature, including one's own blog.

As it says in the footnote to each "new section" edit page "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view".

On that topic of being unbiased, isn't it unreasonable to expect the individual covered in a biography to be unbiased? I suggest that caution should always be excercised when changes a made by the individual in question. Where there is a contention between the individual and others then there is a need for unbiased arbitration over the validity of any edit to be clearly demonstrated. I am not convinced that this always applies.

Best regards, Pete Ridley (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ali Islami article

I am stating the facts. Not imposing my views. Even though this is wikipedia and known for controversies like this. With all due respect, You don't seem to know much about the Iranian history. This guy is not a member of the pahlavi family. Has been expelled from the royal court in 1974 after taking up arms against the royal family. His father's marriage was not recognized by the court either. Any one can claim royalty, It won't make them so.

Andrew Roberts (historian)

Most of the material in the last edit is from this article from The New Republic: http://www.tnr.com/article/white-man-the-job-bushs-imperial-historian.

I assume you got the link. You mentioned about posting your thoughts on the talk page, but did not speak about reverting the edits. The TNR link I sent is not just a collection of rants, but exposes racist streaks of Roberts which are severely lacking in the Wiki entry. I distilled only the facts from the TNR link, checked with other sources, and then included them in the edit. Does each and every statement require a citation or will the TNR article suffice?

Thanks for the tip. I'll keep that in mind.

Corapi

Sorry I broke the ref, I didn't realize it was used more than once. Thanks for fixing my mistake.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal comment copied from Talk:History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)

Will, why don't you actually help on these things instead of devoting so much energy to endless nitpicking, battling-in-disguise, verbal maneuvers, spinning to try to amplify every small small problem, and denigrate solutions, and verbal maneuvers trying to spin everything as negatively as possible?! This is getting old! !  ! North8000 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Gee, not a day goes by without a personal attack on me. For the convenience of editors, I've made this a section of its own. Let's try to keep these all in one place.   Will Beback  talk  02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, trying to falsely relabel a comment on your behavior there incorrectly as a "personal attack". It matters less now; I got disgusted and left the article. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've copied this here because personal remarks do not belong on article talk pages.   Will Beback  talk  03:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Immigration to Mexico

Do you remember our 1st meeting years ago? you were using wp:policy to delete an article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Immigration_to_Mexico, i authored. that same article is now rated High-importance and retained all of my original text. do you think in the past any of the policy enforcement was based on your own bias? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation standard reversed

The title is inherited. The one who disputed it and called for citation suggested that the titular inheritance may be in question because the child was born out of wedlock, however has cited no basis for such reasoning whatsoever. If every other descendent of this House is given such a title, why is there suddenly this double standard for this particular figure? brilliancetime (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For extraordinary tenacity and eloquence in defending the Wiki against misapplication of policy at David Ogden Stiers. Rivertorch (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)