User talk:Will Beback/archive72

Intervention

Hi! Could you please do something with the Template:UEFA Euro winners? There is only one editor so far who insists on his version and reverts all the other editors; he started an edit war that I was also (wrongly) involved in, but I don't want to do it anymore. I've aked a Third opinion but nobody has answered yet. I've started a discussion in the talk page but this user has not anwered. Could you help? Thanks! - Sthenel (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Today, in Macedonians (Greeks), User:Alex Makedon has started to make some dubious and unexplained edits, which I cannot revert all the time. I asked for help and the answer was that I broke the 3-revert rule, although at least the first of my four edits was not a reversion. If you look at his talk page, you'll see that this user has been accused of suckpuppetry and has been blocked several times in the past for his edits in Macedonia-related articles. What's next? - Sthenel (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing apparently. See Wikipedia:Ani#Dubious_edits. WP:DR was recommended. Toddst1 (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

History of the ice axe

Thanks for your feedback, Will. Glad you noticed. Jim Heaphy (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping

I sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

NRM essay/guideline

Will, thinking about your concerns – one way to help address the problems around our NRM articles might be to write an essay covering the most important dos and don'ts, and try to have it promoted to guideline status later on.

I imagine such an essay might cover things like the following:

1. Historical overview of past problems (in generic terms, i.e. without naming and shaming editors and movements; just number of arbitration cases, types of outcome etc.)
2. Review of sourcing standards, with particular emphasis on the following:
   • Encourage the use of reliably published third-party sources (scholars, press, etc.)
   • Discourage the use of movement primary sources, except as referenced by third-party sources
   • Discourage the use of movement and countermovement websites as sources
   • Copyright issues concerning press articles hosted on movement and countermovement websites (convenience links)
3. Review of due weight issues: prominent topics in self-published sources (movement and countermovement) may not be prominent in third-party sources
4. Potential abuse of Wikipedia for movement and countermovement advocacy
5. Advice for editors on COI issues
6. Religious tolerance; religious discrimination, real and imagined

If successful, we could add a link to the Guideline to the talk pages of problematic NRM articles; it would provide some better ground rules and might help editors of NRM topics orient themselves, especially SPAs who are contributing naively without much understanding of site principles.

Would you be interested in collaborating on something like this? Durova has in the past expressed an interest in finding ways to address problems in this area as well; perhaps she might have some ideas too (I'll drop her a note, and John Carter as well).

The biggest counterargument against the idea that I can see is WP:CREEP. (And that writing it might be a lot of work.) Thoughts? --JN466 14:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea so far. One thing that might work as well, beyond guidelines, would be to create an MoS for NRMs (I love acronyms, don't you?) Judaism has done that, and having something like that available might be helpful here as well. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Draft here if you're interested: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion/New_religious_movements_work_group/Manual_of_Style Cheers, --JN466 03:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

ME discussion

Hi, Will. I really appreciated your sincere and clearly articulated post yesterday or the day before in the discussion characterizing the larger issue. And I think you can see from Olive's post that she did, too -- even agreeing to delete the study. I think part of what we appreciated was the sense in your post that we're working together to try to resolve this. I want to follow up on your comments and see if we can come up with a solution to the larger issue you raised. (I'm trying very hard to limit myself to working on Wikipedia other than very early in the morning because I have deadlines, so I haven't checked to see if there's been further discussion regarding that since I was on earlier today. If nothing transpires, then I'll start a thread tomorrow or Monday.) Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Will. I really enjoyed your apt analogies. TimidGuy (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OUTING discussion

Will, could you stop using the name he's getting all up in arms about in the very same discussion?--Chaser (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi is the first editor to have mentioned "X" on Wikipedia, writing an entire article about the personality. He fought to have the article kept when it was nominated for deletion, twice. I really think he's being extremely hypocritical to file complaints about other editors for connecting him to that personality when he's admitted it himself in the past. There are 3 million articles on Wikipedia, yet he keeps coming back to those with which he has an apparent COI. Folks have tried more discrete ways of discussing the problem but he rebuffs them all. I think this problem is entirely of his own creation and he's blocking any resolution. It's not helping Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with any of what you say, but given that there is an oversight request outstanding or about to be made (and even though I expect it to be denied), it seems that the course of least drama would be simply not to use "X" in the ANI thread. That's why I'm asking.--Chaser (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ranchos of California

Thanks for you support from wiki day 1. Emargie (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not uninvolved

There are, like, a thousand admins. You don't need to do this. You are intimately involved in the subject matter, having actively quashed every mention of Bamabenek on WP for the past 3 years. Clearly, this article should not be unprotected, but you ought to let someone uninvolved handle this request to avoid the appearance of improproiety. Have you considered voluntarily placing yourself on article probation from certain topics? Please stop by my talk page if you would like to receive further mentorship. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summary notes

Hi Will, Nice copy edits on the MSAE article. I notice in your edits summaries you sometimes put the letters "ce". Just for future reference, what does this stand for? Thanks, -- — Kbob • Talk • 23:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, good, thanks for the glossary link. Good to know we have a universal standard for edit summary abrevs.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to watch

Jeffmaylortx (talk · contribs) whose edits seem to involved Jewish subjects and anything he sees as to the left. Southern Poverty Law Center and Franz Boas are good examples. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

as well .. a user you communicated w/before, but who has now made two more egregious blp edits ... User:69.201.166.168.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There's always something to do around here.   Will Beback  talk  10:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Too funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have a thing about adding 'Jewish' to biographies. I'm wondering about an ANI report. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This may affect COI and Sockpuppet conflicts now being resolved for Transcendental Meditation. A cooling-off period would be wonderful, since drama has taken priority over article improvements. Perhaps you can obtain strong page protections for all TM-related articles during the Dramaout so none of us can edit them? David Spector 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Gerald L. K. Smith

Hi, the entry at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#December_16.2C_2009 seems malformed - proposal for no change. Does it need some attention? PamD (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Article work

We don't always see eye to eye on things, but still, I wanted to thank you for all of the good work you've done on the TM related articles. I've noticed and very much appreciate, your efforts. (olive (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

I second the thanks. David Spector 19:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Mary Bono Mack

Were there 435 members on the House Judiciary Committee? 70.181.171.159 (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

James Ralph

Hi Will, and good holidays to you. I'll get to the references soon on the Jim Bevel page. Have you heard from James Ralph regarding the concerns you had? Tofu turkey and Silk Egg Nog to you and yours, Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm not surprised. Will do references soon, but not today, many miles to go and gifts to buy before I sleep. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I just had a long answer to this, and when I tried to post it 'edit conflict' came up and it was totally lost. Any way to retrieve something like that? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I did the back arrow, but it wasn't there, just before writing the above. I'll continue it on the Bevel talk page tomorrow, can you maybe archive the present page (I've never done that, there are many computer tricks I haven't learned as yet) before that, it's getting a bit long. Thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Posted on the Bevel talk page. This, by the way, is the first anniversary of Bevel's death, although he was not buried for ten days. Well, the holiday season arrives further into our presence daily, and again, good wishes for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And happy Fesitvus. Did you read my comment on the Bevel talk page? The paper in question would be the source of some of the most important information on the page, and is a summary of many years of research enlarging upon an already reliable source, the article in the Garrow book. Only when you have a few minutes, Christmas approaches. Thanks again, Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just courtesy

I believe it would have been a common courtesy that I would have expected from any neutral administrator to have notified the other editors on this article of this nomination. Or perhaps, hopefully, I'm missing the notification.[1] (olive (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Ok thanks. I guess we're even. :o) Its unfortunate that only one editor was aware of this move. I think there have been in the past discussion as to whether TM or TM movement was the "mother article", and other editors might have wanted input. Still, not your fault. (olive (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

I would have preferred that Transcendental Meditation had been chosen as the category name, since this would probably have been MMY's view if he had had to decide. Too late now; it's okay. David Spector 19:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 22:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

On City of Bogo, Cebu & City of Carcar, Cebu

I had difficulties moving those original articles to their shortest names as it was supposed to be (i.e. Bogo City & Carcar City). I also noticed that the Bogo talk page wasn't moved as well, whereas that talk page should've been moved too? Is there a way where the missing talk page would be integrated to the new Bogo article? Reyrefran (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed on Haagen Dazs

Hi, Lentower and I have some kind of irreconcilable differences here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:H%C3%A4agen-Dazs#local_management_mistake_not_encyclopedic . I suspect the issue boils down to the extent to which the controversy is a non-routine news event. From my perspective, I appear to absolutely right. However, I realize that I am new to Wikipedia and so room for misunderstanding is there. At this point, the dispute there seems to have got stuck and I don't see us moving towards consensus. Also, the discussion on whether to have the section is now many times larger than the section itself - and it's going nowhere. As a result, I suspect both Lentower and I are merely wasting our time there in a fruitless dispute. Do you think you could weigh in again on the issue again? Wwmargera (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Hello Will, you might like to look in on this page and learn how the subject's immaculately conceived birth was described by his mother and confirmed by the subject himself. It is kind of humorous, but I think the article really needs a RS kick in the butt. You will notice Andries hovering in the background, wringing his hands, but he is banned from the article and can't do anything. I don't have the time myself right now to really do it justice. Rumiton (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, given the recurrent sourcing problems in the Sathya Sai Baba article, we could compose a prominent, coloured WP:Editnotice for it, similar to this one, that quotes a few relevant lines from WP sourcing policy, eg:

"Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline demands that articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary-source material for themselves.
Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources, such as the websites of the Sai Baba movement or its critics.

I can't do it myself, as I don't have the required admin rights. But if you agree it might be useful, would you be so kind as to implement something along these lines?

Happy Christmas to you, Will. --JN466 18:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Event page wikilink

[2] There are no rules regarding how notable a topic needs to be to be listed on the date pages, only that it have its own article in Wikipedia, which this event does. Are you saying that you are willing and able to go through all 365 days and remove all event anniversaries that, in your opinion, aren't notable enough? Cla68 (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the main reason that there aren't more events listed, is not because of the question of notability, but because most people don't bother to do it. I always list the dates of the articles I write, even the on the more minor battles. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone bring up notability for listing event dates. So, tell me why again, if something is notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia, why it isn't notable enough to be listed in the event date page? Again, as an admin responsible for site maintenance, are you willing and able to go through every single day and make sure that there aren't any topics listed which don't meet your definition of notability? If so, better get busy. Cla68 (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You know that's a ridiculous argument to make. And it may be that we need to make more specifric guidelines, but having an article isn't (so far as I'm concerned) enough reason for it to be on an event page. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is up for deletion[3], yet Cla68 has been wikilinking it to at least a half dozen articles, in addition to the date wikilinking. Most of those dates were removed by myself and other editors. I think it's more prudent to wait until the AfD is decided. I agree about the date delinking even if this article survives AfD. If we had a date to link to every event in every article, we'd have 50,000 entries for every day on the calendar. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up proposal on Sathya Sai Baba article

Hi Will,

• I appreciate the clean up effort started by Rumiton. The article will definitely benefit from clean up proposal. The clean up has already started. There was a section called "Political Row" - which was not notable enough and hence was removed as part of the clean up effort. I have been involved in this article since Jan 2009. I will like to address a few things here.

• I saw the links posted in the talk page regarding the sourcing. The first section which uses the Primary sources mainly is the Biography and Beliefs and Practices of devotees section. This discussion about the usage of primary source in this article was already discussed in the reliable source board here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Reliable_Internet_Sources_for_Information_on_Sathya_Sai_Baba.

Please see GRBerry response: One other use to which official, but not devotional, sites can be used is to cite quotations from official documents that are posted on the site. An example of this in the UCC article is the section "Statements of doctrine and beliefs" contains a quotation from the organization's "Constitution and Bylaws", which is cited to that very document as hosted by the organization. To the extent that it is appropriate to cite such a primary source, the official site is the best possible host of an official document.

This is a religious article. There is a basic difference between religious article and other BLP articles in wikipedia. As I mentioned in the above discussion for instance please look at other religious articles like the "United_Church_of_Christ" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ. This has used references to all their official websites. Even may other religious topics use their official website links.

• The reason is that if we go with the Wikipedia rule that the article can use only third-party, published sources like newspapers then we won't be able to have even a Biography section in this article nor any other sections such as their beliefs etc as you will not find these information in a newspaper or third party sources. As per the RS discussion and resolution the 5 official websites could be allowed to be used in the article appropriately in a neutral way.

• www.sathyasai.org The original site for the Sathya Sai Organisation (1999-).
• www.srisathyasai.org.in The International Sai Organisation.
• www.sssbpt.org The Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust (recently renamed the Sri Sathya Sai Sadhana Trust Publications Division).
• www.radiosai.org Radio Sai Global Harmony.
• www.saicast.org Sai Global Harmony and the International Sai Organisation (for Streaming Videos).

I agree that we can get rid of other devotional websites sources which are not official such as www.saibaba.ws, www.saibabofindia.com, and sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com.

Another issue in the article which needs to be corrected other than sourcing is the style of writing in the Biography section. I will work with the other editors and see how this section could be re-written to be more encyclopedic and neutral in tone with out advocating any point of view.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Super Powers?

Will, just curious, how is it that you appeared on my new article Nancy Lonsdorf within an hour of its creation? Do you have super powers like ESPN for example?-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

ESPN has super powers? Woonpton (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK Will, good to know about the ESPN. I knew it was either that or your doctor prescribed transcendental medication.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Description of David Irving as a Holocaust denier

Hi Will,

I see you've been involved in a discussion on Talk:Jeremy Hammond recently. I'd appreciate it if you could give your view here: Talk:Jeremy Hammond#Description of David Irving as a Holocaust denier.

Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

dyk problem

Hi, in your dyk submission (here), I can not find the sourced hook in the article. Can you help me out? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bevan Morris

On December 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bevan Morris, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

New TM Editor

We have a new active editor on the TM talk page today. Just came out of nowhere and has made several comments. No info on the user page, TM article only. Sock puppet? --BwB (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what your comment about Olive and Timid had to do with this new editor. I just wanted to bring this new editor to your attention as an administrator. As you rightly say, we will see how things develop. Thanks for your attention on this. --BwB (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

TheSmokingGun.com

Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!--otherlleft 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Maharishi University of Management stabbing

On January 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maharishi University of Management stabbing, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Will Beback! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 699 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Martin Litton (pianist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mark Ellmore

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mark Ellmore. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ellmore (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo request

Sure. Next time I'm around there and the weather is reasonably clear, I'll get a photo of the Clarion Hotel.--ragesoss (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The weather was nice today so I took a little bike trip. Here are the shots I got of the Clarion Hotel building:

• File:Clarion Hotel building in Hartford, Connecticut, 2010-02-20.jpg
• File:Clarion Hotel building in Hartford, Connecticut 2, 2010-02-20.jpg
• File:Clarion Hotel building and environs in Hartford, Connecticut, 2010-02-20.jpg
• File:Clarion Hotel building and environs in Hartford, Connecticut 2, 2010-02-20.jpg

--ragesoss (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

You're discussion on the Canada study is very confusing. You began by asking to have the study shortened and moved which was done. You indicated Luke's edit was too long so I shortened it as much as I possibly could while still retaining the most basic information about the study. In between you have shifted the discussion to deal with whether the study is WP compliant, and now you are including all of the studies. You seem to be attempting to create a framework into which you can quickly slot in any study. I don't support that kind of editing.The Canada study is not particularly important to me but attempts to create a framework for all studies is, and is a concern. I don't know what your agenda is or why you have conflated al of these different issues but perhaps you could clarify.(olive (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Its not that I wouldn't say. I was involved in another discussion with you. You aggressively asserted I was saying the study was secondary source when I had said no such thing. As well your intent to focus on the single point of whether the study is a primary source is as far as I can see a way to support a superficial reading of the guideline, and I don 't feel that is a hole I want to be dragged down. I would simp[y take the study as a peer reviewed study and in one sentence outline it so it had some meaning, in so doing leaving out all of the attempts by multiple editors to discredit the study, the research, and much more on the TM pages including the editors. I don't play games Will, and I edit simply, because that's how I stay neutral in the face of implied criticisms. I don't have to answer questions when you come at me aggressively, and when I don't trust what you or some of the editors on the TM pages will do with that information. Is the Canada study a primary source? I might have said yes a day or so ago, but I find I am intrigued by Luke's reading of WP:Verifiable and will look at the policy and his statements more closely tomorrow. Its about trust. Nutshell: Perceive agenda? Look for traps. I don't play games, but I am aware that others do. Not you necessarily, but some editors do. (olive (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Will you misunderstand me. I have never said they are not primary information. WP:VERIFIABILITY "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made:..." We aren't making any claims. And if we were, we can't ignore that WP: Verifiability specifically says peer reviewed sources are good sources, and it is the policy. There is no simple fix for determining what is compliant. If we were using the studies to make a claim in an article like, as I said. the ME cures cancer then we would want multiple studies sourced to very good secondary publications. We are simply citing studies as ME effect studies without claiming anything. We do have to say where the studies came from, but they are not underpinning "claims" in the content of the article, a different matter. I am more of an inclusionist on the matter and would say if its very short, why not. That was your first position too as I remember.(olive (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

I think we are at cross purposes here. I know what primary sources are, and I am familiar with the policies. I have never said peer reviewed studies are either primary or secondary sources. However, I have a published, scientist friend who asserts that the actual data and paper are the primary sources while the publication in a journal becomes the secondary source. I haven't specified where I stand. WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR both say peer reviewed journals are reliable sources. Both are two "of three core content policies", and as such must be taken as dominant policies. WP:Verifiability says,"Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, and both Verifiability and NOR clearly say that peer reviewed studies are reliable sources. As an aside: WP:MEDRS says, "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles.", another place we have to be careful of. One wonders how reliable Randi or a popular press newspaper article is as a source for comment on medical related research.

Pigeon holing anything is in my mind a somewhat futile business, and in the case of medicine possibly a dangerous business, one of the very reason WP:MEDRS was created. The issues in such articles is the safety of the reader so a single study may not be the most authoritative source for something like cures for cancer, in which case, sources that cite multiple studies for example, are probably better. We can call these studies anything, even lollipops, but we have to discriminate rather than pigeon hole to use them . I am suggesting that if the studies are used as information about themselves, for example, the Maharishi Effect is only a meaningful topic if we lay out the ME studies, then single, peer-reviewed studies are not only acceptable, but are necessary. If we want to use a study to support a claim made in an article of some kind, especially a medical article where the information may affect a reader's health, and in claims made in an article beyond the boundaries of the study, then multiple studies and published comments in reliable sources are the best kind of sourcing per WP:MEDRS.

In adding studies on the Maharishi Effect the issue is not what we call the studies, but how we use them. They are descriptors of the study, and are not so-called sources used to make claims. The real concern is "weight" and if, we are using the best studies we have to describe the ME. (This looked a lot shorter before I saved it.) (16:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Prem Rawat changes his colours (again)

Just to let you know that the probationary articles on Elan Vital, Divine Light Mission, and Prem Rawat (inter alia) are in need of amending:

Elan Vital in the UK has changed its name, and the reference on that page now links to http://www.hdsk.org.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revera (talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just seen your response on my talkpage, Will. This might help clarify:

On WP's 'Elan Vital' page, the link to their UK site is given as http://elanvital.org.uk/ If you click on it, it redirects you to HDSK. Revera (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the proof of the pudding - official acceptance of name change by the UK Charity Commission - http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ShowCharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1016818&SubsidiaryNumber=0 Revera (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summary Comment

Hi Will, In response to your cmt on my User Page: The phrase "Tag team POV editing" was made in an Edit Summary. It was not a formal accusation or assertion, just a simple comment about a one-two punch edit by you and another editor that decimated my original entry which was a balanced quote and turned it into an out of context, one sided piece of text. That was probably not your intention but that is how it was perceived by me and so I described my feeling. As you know I also wrote in my Edit Summary that if my summary was not clear to "please start a talk page thread" so we could discuss it. On a related topic you have become, in my opinion quite overbearing and controlling in your editing style in regard to the TM and related articles in the past weeks and you are very quick to criticize, change and on occasion delete content. I am not accusing you of doing anything outside Wiki guidelines I'm just saying that the intensity and voracity with which you are editing has created an intimidating atmosphere on the articles and its not comfortable nor is it conducive to progress and harmony. This is just my subjective feeling and evaluation and something I am saying to you in what I hope is a gentle and constructive manner, not to start a debate. Today in particular, when I tried to be friendly and humorous with you on the talk page you reacted with a administrative reprimand and you perceived mal-intent in my playful comments, when there was none there. So, just to summarize. I am not accusing you of conspiratorial editing and in a friendly way I am suggesting to you that you slow down and lighten up a little bit and take a day off when you can. Relax, go for a hike. It will be good for you and all of us. Best Wishes, Peace!-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kbob, in the past three days you've made 51 edits to MUM, 33 edits to TM, 26 edits to MSV, 21 edits to MVC, 19 edits to Greer, 17 edits to TMM, 11 edits to talk:MUM, 10 edits to MVAH, and 10 to DLF, plus other related edits. And yet you're saying that I've been editing the TM topic too much recently. You deleted a properly sourced assertion, without using the talk page to explain it, yet you're accusing me of deleting material. You've made accusations against me and another editor of colluding and other malfeasance, and yet you say that I am creating an "intimidating atmosphere". And now you're telling me to go take a hike. I suggest again that you follow your own advice.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Settle down now Will. It was a friendly suggestion to take a day off and enjoy the outdoors. I took my own advice yesterday and I literally went for a hike, as I suggested for you. Just a friendly suggestion to take a break. I'm sorry you have taken it so defensively. All the best, -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

888chan

How is a short-lived chan (who is surpassed in Alexa ranking my many other chans that ARENT listed) almost entirely devoted to raids and restoring project chanology relevant enough to merit it's own section on imageboard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.161.15 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Service award update

Hello, Will Beback! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system. Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Articles and Independence/Other Issues

Will, I hope it's OK to add this new section. Please feel free to delete.

I just wanted to share a very preliminary beginning of the references in the TM-Sidhi program article, and their independence (esp. re: WP:FRINGE), along with other issues, like reliance on newspaper and other print articles for promotoing a non-mainstream, non-established fringe ideas. This is about half of them so far in the TM-Sidhi entry. I have not added all the magazine and newspaper entries. I'll add them all if this looks like a direction worth heading in.

Here's the summary table so far.[4]--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Will, as per previous agreed recommendation, I have compiled a list on the WP:FRINGE non-compliant references used in the TM-Sidhi entry and included it in the Talk page [[5]]. It seems best to do this on an entry-by-entry basis, rather than to compile one huge list.

Also, as per previous discussion and agreement, I remember you commenting that if these sub-standard entries were presented to some WP editorial process, the FRINGE references would likely not be tolerated. What was that process? How could that be helpful? Could it hinder in any way?

My serious concern is that this entry and other entries have been subject not only to biased protectionism, territorialism and edit warring for a long time, but the inclusion of so many non-compliant FRINGE refs. also makes me wonder as to the reliability of the editors who put them there.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In recent post on this page and on Kala's talk page we have references like "to biased protectionism, territorialism and edit warring for a long time", and "TM true believers". Any idea who she is referring to here? As a Wiki administrator, how would you classify these types of comments? And who are "TM true believers" anyway? Are they a class of Wiki editors? --BwB (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a term I'd have used. But Kala is not the first editor to express the same concern. In fact, there have been five separate threads at WP:COIN over the years about the involvement of members of the TM movement in editing the articles. Unfortunately, all of those complaints have been ignored. Since you've asked me about it, I'd advise you or an any editor with a significant commitment to the TMM (or to anti-TMM groups) to avoid editing those topics directly. Wikipedia does not exist to provide a platform for advocacy.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Posting this response from you here as I am not sure why you are raising this point as a response to my bringing you attention to Kala using derogatory language to describe other editors. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi BigweeBoy. A True Believer is defined as "one who is deeply, sometimes fanatically devoted to a cause, organization, or person". In the context of TM-related entries and their editing, it would refer to persons with an admitted COI who use edit warring and obsessive edit tactics to control, intimidate and manipulate the entry. Apparently some of these issues go way back on the TM-related entries. So it is a legitimate concern for many of us who are serious about not allowing bias, organizational control, and poor, primary sourcing to creep into entries. In the context of editing, such TM movement "true believers" are strongly advised per WP policy NOT to get involved in editing. Ignorance of this key warning has caused severe corruption of these entries. But it is avoidable. Unfortunately the only to curb it may be to somehow block the offending parties.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For continuity of the discussion and thread I am posting this copy of Will's reply to my comment above which Will posted on my talk page:

"Teacher, teacher - Johnny insulted me! He said I'm dirty."

"Well, Peter, you are covered in mud."

Are you complaining about the content of the statement or just about the way it was expressed? Will Beback talk 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD Renato M.E. Sabbatini

I'm asking everyone to take another look at [6] based on recent changes to the article. Upsala (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

James Bevel sources

Hi Will. I'll get to the sources request within the next few days, have had a very hectic and full time since mid-December. Slowing down a bit now. Thanks for the patience. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Rind et al

Hi Will. I don't think the PPA editor you reverted is taking the hint: [7] -Legitimus (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Will, Happy new year.

Please take a look and comment regarding the issue you posted at WP:PEDMEN. Thanks, --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

This is very ackward because of all the deletions of my own comments, this is the only one that has been met with any particular objections. I may have overstepped my bounds deleting an entirely unrelated comment I didn't write, but what I did write is not something I want around anymore and it is about a common misuse of a term which is no longer on that page. I delete my own comments all the time and frankly I am pretty shocked that anyone would claim I do not have the right to delete my own comments. However, the other comment, which was unrelated to mine anyway, could stay if it's that important. 01:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The reasons I give for my deletions are this: Since the subject I post about is no longer on the page, there is no particular reason to keep it because it is no longer relevant. This is hardly the first thing I've written which I have deleted for this reason. I was especially glad to delete this one, since I was always less ambivalent about the now-irrelevant (at least to the page) issue I raised than to the subject of the page itself, and time has done nothing to reverse this. I also believe that, whatever you or I is or is not officially allowed to do, simple civility and common decency demand that you allow me to edit comments I have made which do not interfere with others, as Wikipedia has done countless times before. By the way, if I have ever said anything in the past to you in some silly argument that perhaps fell outside of what "simple civility and common decency demand," I apologize and I would like to put that behind me. 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but what about my signature? 03:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up

And, if I may say so, it's about time. Thanks. I will be on my best behavior. Fladrif (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope you take this to arbitration. I have lots to say.(olive (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

COIN - BwB

Thanks Will. I am glad to see that you are concerned that the TM related articles are being edited in a neutral, NPOV, fair, non-biased way, adhering to all the best Wiki principles and guidelines. This is what one would expect from a respectable Wiki administrator. So I am grateful to you for that.

I can say wholeheartedly that my intentions are to abide by these Wiki ideals with every edit I make to any article on Wiki. I consider myself still a relative novice in Wiki and may make mistakes and am happy to be corrected when I do by more experienced and seasoned editors and administrators. This is the beauty of Wiki - the ability to participate as a novice and to learn from others in the process.

Once can see from my participation in Wiki that I have edited in a neutral manner. If I have doubts about edits, I bring them to the talk pages of the article first to get input from others (Beatles section of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as an example) and have participated on the talk pages, both to give my opinion and to learn how and when certain Wiki policies could/should be applied. I have been a strong advocate for keeping the focus of attention on the content (message) of the discussion, and away from the editor (messenger), and have expressed this directly on several occasions. This is not always how other editors behave, unfortunately.

Recently, when I brought some comments by another editor to your attention on your talk page, rather that address the specific situation, you instead began to advise me on COIN editing and implying some wrongdoing on my behalf. (You comments have been posted on your talk page) My request was a direct and genuine request for you, as an administrator, to address the growing tendency of Kala, a fairly new editor, to indulge in name calling and using an aggressive and dismissive tone in his approach to other editors. No doubt Kala has raised valid concerns that need to be addresses, but, in my opinion, the tone of the discussion has deteriorated since his arrival. You were not at all sympathetic to my request to do something about the name-calling, and in fact you trivialized by request to you and insulted me by implying I was acting like a child. This was a disappoint to me as I felt you were a mature and experienced administrator, from whom I had learned a great deal over the past 8-10 months.

Again, I reiterate that I have acted honorably in my editing of all Wiki articles and have done my best to adhere to Wiki policies for NPOV, neutrality, etc. Where I have made mistakes I have address the errors quickly and responsibly. I have engaged in the talk pages and sought advice from editors and administrators, and participated on the talk pages in a civil and respectful way. My editing record bares this out, I believe. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

Please. Your editing shows a bias toward fundamentalist Christianity (or the version adopted by the religious right in this country) and also a pattern of denial concerning GOP obstructionism, greed, theocracy and cronyism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.96.198 (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what this comment from 66.57.96.198 has to do with me? --BwB (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding five categories to which the article Aesthetic Realism belongs

Right now there are only two categories at the bottom of this article, and I believe this gives an incorrect impression. These categories are: "Aesthetic Realism | Changing sexuality"

Can we also have the following: Philosophy, American Philosophy, Aesthetics, The arts, and Education?

All these categories are relevant. Aesthetic Realism belongs to them. They are needed for people to search for this philosophy in the categories to which it actually belongs.

In fact, the matter of "Changing sexuality" is really long past, and should probably not even be there.

Thank you for considering these matters. B.K.S.J. (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)B.K.S.J. (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated page to include Aesthetics, Philosophy, and Education in the Categories list. American Philosophy and The Arts didn't seem to be categories, at least the macro didn't convert those to a link. LoreMariano (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we really need to start devoting our effort to getting secondary sources in the article and less time debating ideas. I like talking about the philsophic ideas but we need to regroup and get focused. LoreMariano (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Previous account

Will - I've never edited wiki entries in this particular field before. I have contributed to wikipedia on other topics, for which I (legitimately) use a different account for privacy reasons. All of my edits in this field have been, and always will be, under Psychword. Psychword (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Psychword

Tinyurl Blacklisted?

Will - Why is tinyurl not allowed on Wikipedia? Is there any way to compress a long url that's allowed? Thanks. LoreMariano (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to correct the way a reference link showed up in the footnote list. It's reference link "3" -- the long Google books link. In the body of the article, it's a superscript 3, in the Footnotes list, it's a long url. I guess it won't bother anyone. I just hate long links. LoreMariano (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing. Your request for more mainstream references is noted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael Lee Shaver, Jr.

An editor has nominated Michael Lee Shaver, Jr., an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lee Shaver, Jr. and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ludwig von Mises article

Hey! :) Could you please check the history of the article, and prevent the re-adding of the unbacked, unsubstatiated claims of von Mises sympathizing with fascism? It's simply not true. Many revisions ago, the IP who kept adding it linked to this as a source, I read it and nothing in it says anything about Mises supporting fascism. He noted that fascism arose as a responce to marxism, but expressed no favour towards or sympathy with fascism whatsoever: http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp

Furthermore, you should note this edit, it's quite insightful: 11:57, 12 January 2010 Closedmouth (talk | contribs) (26,375 bytes) (→Criticism: removing paragraph, this is a "criticism" section, not a description of his personal views; references are also vague concerning his actual belief in fascism and don't come from third-party sources) (undo)

Thanks! :)

-- Dark Apostrophe (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

email

I will, but how do I do it? B.K.S.J. (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors.
Message added 08:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–MuZemike 08:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David F. Haight

An article that you have been involved in editing, David F. Haight, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David F. Haight. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Will. I suggest you do not accuse me either. I do not have to deal with personal attacks from Kala. And if you want a clarification of the COI Notice Board ask me on my user page. I will be happy to give you a clear explanation although In have neither the time nor the desire for a discussion. I have a right to ask for civility. And if you want to compare that to a Notice Board were once again its a free for all of nasty and untrue comments, well sorry, just doesn't cut it. You attack. I defend. You make a comment that isn't right. I will clarify as I see it. I'm a civil editor but i'm a little tired of being attacked.(olive (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Littleolive Oil. I don't believe someone who has had so many factual examples of incivility [[8]] pointed out to them should go casting aspersions at others. I think you need to have a long, hard look in the mirror!--Kala Bethere (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Will, come on....a brand new lead has been posted on the Aesthetic Realism entry by someone who doesn't really know what he/she is talking about. It's not malicious, it's just not accurate. If the lead is going to be stubbed until there is a consensus, it should be stubbed. Can't it be locked down? LoreMariano (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am really upset but I'll work on a new shorter lead. I don't like the article as a whole at all and was always of the mind that a person wouldn't get past the lead anyway. Maybe we should start entirely from scratch and keep the whole article 4-5 paragraphs. LoreMariano (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm upset because the work we did over a period of months has been destroyed and it looks like it's open season for assault once again. I'm upset because people are slipping things in without discussion. I'm upset because there presently is a lead that was written by a person who summarized Aesthetic Realism in his/her own words without understanding what he/she was writing. I'm upset because I don't see an end to this. I want to know what the procedure is for having the article locked down or what it will take to get it locked down. LoreMariano (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you get my message? LoreMariano (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Did you get the second attempt sent last night? LoreMariano (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you know for Tony_Nader

Hello Will. Just have a couple of questions regarding your latest nomination at Did you know .... Kindly Calmer Waters 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Email

Sent.(olive (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread

I don't want to get involved in editing another walled garden, but since you've gotten involved in yet another contentious subject, you might want to check out these sources on one of your current projects. [9] [10] Almost all of them are Letters to the Editor at the Village Voice, and as such don't qualify as Reliable Sources. But, this LTE[11] probably qualifies as a reliable source for what how the inventor of the subject described it himself. And this one, which is not a LTE but an actual article,[12] is sufficient to dissuade me from getting any further involved, at least without getting an unlisted number first. Good luck.Fladrif (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It would appear to be a very localized NY art community thing, and very odd that the debate was played out 50 years ago almost entirely on the LTE page of the VV. That might be worth an article in and of itself, but perhaps not on Wikipedia. Good luck herding those cats.Fladrif (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I saw that you were interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks as you added a comment to the proposal discussion. I total agree that we really need to ignore the special cases and focus on something concrete... and this is in fact why I'm here! We have some policy text we are formulating here, would you be able to provide some feedback? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tony Nader

On February 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tony Nader, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing Content

Will,

Is there any way we can work in Word format when editing text collaboratively so that we can use track changes? I am finding it difficult to copy and paste the same text repeatedly, having to spend an inordinate amount of time cleaning up formatting.

Can we attach our suggested changes in a Word document with track changes turned on or in a redlined PDF document? Thanks for any advice on this subject. LoreMariano (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for info on WikEd! Can't wait to try it when I get some time.

Am I supposed to be doing something with respect to resolving dispute, outside of continuing efforts to edit on Drafts page? LoreMariano (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lindsay Ashford (activist)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Lindsay Ashford (activist). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Ashford (activist). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Primal Therapy

Done. Sure I need an hour or two with WP:MOS!. Thank you!. If you have time take also a look at the texts I added at Primal Therapy because English is my second language and sometimes I write (and talk) funny. Have a good day Randroide (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Gah... too much snark

Will, sorry about the snarky comment. I've apologised on the talk page also. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources Page/Talk

Dear Will--Sorry I'm new to this. Went through and cut one poetry review, but it is hard to cut more becuase: (1) principles of the philosophy that are expressed in the article have to be sourced, (2) these principles are implicit in the poetry, (3)reviews dealing with the poetry express an opinion of the person, his art, and the philosophy. I want to make this as clear as possible, but I think it would do a disservice to those referring to the source page for editing to remove more than I have. Is it absolutely necessary to create a separate page? Thanks in advance--D.Trouver. Trouver (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Religious movements founded since 1950

curious-- please explain on talk p. what's incorrect, and what it duplicates.--I think a chronological list would be useful

NRM MOS language proposal

Will,

I thought you might be interested in looking over a section draft I put together for the New Religious Movement manual of style (WP:NRMMOS). I added a section on Language; basically, it's just a compilation of existing wiki policies on using jargon, slang, technical terms, etc. applied to the NRM field. Let me know if you have any thoughts. 71.224.204.226 (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Now what?

CheckUser User:Dominic has now confirmed what everyone suspected about the Fairfield/MUM/TM Org sockdrawer. What's the next step?Fladrif (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation movement and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, –MuZemike 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Early political career of Sarah Palin

Did you mean to revert this edit of mine? I ask because I commented on both edits on the talk page but you only responded to the NYT related edit. Here is my talk page entry on the edit in question. Bonewah (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Warnborough College

There is no connection that I am aware of. My first edits at Wikipedia began in Feb 2008 at the Warnborough College article.[13] I spent a term there over 35 years ago when it was brand new. I have no idea whatsoever what TG's interest in that article is or was. About a year later I was curious what other articles the Warnborough editors like TG and Orlady were editing, and dipped a toe in a couple of them. My first comment on the TM article was on a talk page thread on whether a Neutrality Tag should be removed and opined, as a complete outsider with no axes to grind and no interest in either the subject matter or in editing the article, that the article did not appear to be neutral.[14] About a month later, I made the mistake of looking more closely at the substance of what was going on in the TM article, pointed out that there were some very serious problems with highly problematic and apparently coordinated editing to exclude reliable sources[15] and to misrepresent others[16] Within days I started up a new thread a COIN.[17] Perhaps I should have stuck with my first instinct that it wasn't an article that I had any interest in editing.Fladrif (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand

Hi, Will. You wrote this:

@Timidguy: Logged out edits show that some editors have used IPs registered directly to the Maharishi University of Management (MUM). Using the MUM network, and perhaps using MUM computers, while asserting that one has no conflict of interest regarding MUM strains credulity. Is it possible to be a member of the 57-person faculty of MUM and be neutral about it, its research, or its cause? That has yet to be proven. It's worth noting that LISCO, the ISP which supplies MUM and WP editors with their Internet access, is also owned by a TM practitioner.[92] Will Beback talk 09:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Where did I assert that I don't have a conflict of interest? Where in my statement did I speak about other editors? I simply explained why an IP assigned to me at some point might also have been assigned to another editor at some point by virtue of Lisco's DHCP server and the fact that there is a small pool of IP numbers for those who use Lisco. TimidGuy (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your reponsse:

TG, my comment was not limited to you, sorry if it gave that impression. Will Beback talk 19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You/re not giving an impression. You're explicitly attributing it this to me by saying "@TimidGuy." I have never edited Wikipedia from the MUM network. I have never asserted that no one has a conflict of interest. Your statement in unrelated to what I said in my statement or elsewhere. Please could you fix it? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You write:

TG, you gave an extended discussion of your IP usage, much of which I assume applies to other editors of the TM articles from Fairfield since they are all using the same networks. Since LISCO provides internet access to MUM, it isn't always clear which IPs are specifically registered to MUM versus the non-fixed IPs given out to dial-up, DSL, or cable modems. In any case, I said that "Logged out edits show that some editors have used IPs registered directly to the Maharishi University of Management (MUM)." That is true. "Using the MUM network, and perhaps using MUM computers, while asserting that one has no conflict of interest regarding MUM strains credulity." Do you think that's true or not? "Is it possible to be a member of the 57-person faculty of MUM and be neutral about it, its research, or its cause?" I know that you believe it is possible, even though you've deleted well-soured negative material and added poorly sourced positive material. It's hard to believe that the nine editors from Fairfield, at least a few of whom are on the faculty of MUM, do not know each other in real life, and it's apparent that there is off-Wiki communication related to the project. If I'm wrong please say so. Will Beback talk 10:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What I said applied to me. You have accused me of using a sock puppet or of being a sock puppet. I was explaining why the checkuser evidence against doesn't prove that. I wasn't talking about any of these other things. Why are you raising truth statements that are unrelated to my statement? Please can you fix this. Just remove "@TimidGuy" at the beginning so it doesn't say that I asserted these things. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You wrote:

I'd be quite happy to fix any errors, and I'm sorry that I don't see the error here. My recollection is that many, though not all, of the Fairfield TM editors have denied having a conflict of interest and/or have claimed to be neutral. Do you consider yourself neutral? If so then the message I wrote seems to apply. I recall you saying that there were no neutral editors on the topic, but I assume you were excepting yourself. Is that correct? Will Beback talk 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your error was addressing a comment specifically to me that didn't apply to me, since I've never asserted that I don't have a conflict of interest. You had a chance to correct the problem and you didn't. I feel like this is an example of dishonesty. I may use it as evidence in Arbocm. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

John Birch Society

I took a new stab at the first sentence with your suggestions in mind. I also left a note in the talk page. Take a look and tell me what you think.UberCryxic (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hi Will. I have a quick question regarding attaching PDFs to the talk page. Is it allowed? We are struggling with a finding an easy way to view hard coded cites and I thought maybe we could just PDF original text w/coded cites.....As you know, cites are being viewed on the article page; on the talk page; on the drafts page; back on the talk page; etc. It's driving me a little nuts. Can we just PDF? Thanks in advance for any advice. LoreMariano (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but adding the reflist didn't solve the problem. There was an original ref list that was copied and pasted more than once on the Talk page, and the original cite numbers were relisted as new numbers; then it was pasted on the Drafts page and I think they came through as numbers only, not actual links; then the new text + cites were pasted again on the Talk page....in summary, the numbers now are all wrong....I think IP 71 is right in saying that it's not such a big issue with this section, but in the future, we need to figure out a better way of moving text from page to page and retaining the cite numbers and corresponding list. LoreMariano (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC) PS: Can I put a link to this comment on IP 71's talk page? Sorry to be such a pain. LoreMariano (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks, we'll use that method in the future. LoreMariano (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

FUCKWIKIPEDOS.FU

Regarding your comment at WP:AN — how did they acquire your email address? Do you think I have any reason to worry about my email address being used this way? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; I'd expected that this was it, but I wanted to check. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Need look at Multi-level_marketing talk page

I am having an issue with an editor known as User:Insider201283 on the talk page and have noticed you and several other editors had called him on WP:COI issues regarding specific MLM and I seem to be having the same problem with him on MLMs in general. Since you are an administrator I would like you to take a look at his antics on the Talk:Multi-level marketing page as I am rapidly reaching my limit and he doesn't seem to do anything but put roadblocks up to actually improving the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism sources question

Will, things seem to be going well so far with the AR sections. Looking ahead to the cult sections, I'm curious if the statements of ex-members, published at Steven Hassan's Freedom of Mind website or Michael Bluejay's website would ever be suitable for use (obviously as primary sources)? I assume Wiki policy would discourage this, but there seems to be a moderate understanding between sides on the issue to reasonably accommodate clearly attributed primary sources.71.224.206.164 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Thank you for your advice, although I can only say sorry regarding my colour co-ordination. Tuckerj1976 ^talk 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Chaton0602

Thank you very much for your message. If it interests you, have a look on my user page on the French Wikipedia : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Chaton0602

Chaton0602 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Weekend

Looks like the gatekeeper (at SP) has given you the weekend off. Enjoy your freetime.--Buster7 (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC

If you have any thoughts on this matter, you might want to participate in this RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your accusation that my edits were to conform to the Movement manual of style

When this recently came up on the TM talk page, I pointed out that I was following what WP:TRADEMARK said in 2007 when I made these edits, which was this: "Avoid use of trademarks as a noun except where any other usage would be awkward." See[18]. Is there any chance you can delete that from your evidence? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You explicitly say in your evidence that these changes conflicted with the Wikipedia manual of style. That's false, since at the time the manual explicitly stated not to use a trademark as a noun. I'm alerting you to that false statement. Please address it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please strike. Thanks much. TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

MIA

Our joint editing seemed to be going well, but IP 71 was supposed to post editing of my last section on March 1 and I have heard nothing since. Do you know what has happened? Everyone seemed so anxious to proceed to the "exciting" parts (and I am probably the only one who felt the poetry section was the exciting part). Well, I'm ready to move on, but everyone's gone home. What's the protocol in this case?Trouver (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to No copying

Thanks Will, I found some other more objective sites (for example http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7359) and am re-adding the section. Armand Sağ (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence

Hello Will Beback. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 2800 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Will Beback/TM-Evidence

Hi Will. As you were still over the word count by 500 words, I've refactored the evidence that was over the limit and put it at User:Will Beback/TM-Evidence - I've also linked to it from your evidence page. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking for Neutral Editor

Hi Will. Just a note that I posted a request on Ludwigs2 talk page to ask if he would step in as a neutral editor. The delay caused by IP 71's absence is causing a lot of bad feeling. LoreMariano (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lexington pic

I could take a picture up there. I think you are talking about the Med Tech College building - what does it look like? There are several office buildings in that area, I think that one is the tallest

Censusdata (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about workshop

HI, Will. I see that you proposed a remedy for Fladrif's incivility but didn't also have a finding of fact in that regard. Is that an oversight, or isn't it necessary to have done a related finding of fact? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Linda Esther Gray

Will, I am hoping you maybe able to help me with the above article as I know so few admins on WIKI and your comments and knowledge seems extensive (and sensible) from the TM thing I really wish I had not got involved in!

I made the above article (Linda Esther Gray)last week, but alas in my haste, and due to time constraints, appear to have broken a copyright violation making large parts of my text to like text from the subjects own site (see the article for this). I am presently in the process of re-writing the offending section and would appreciate your feedback to see if I am going along the correct lines? (I will add the references once it is back in place). The re-write can be found here [19] I would really appreciate your thoughts if you get time. Thanks Tucker ^talk 08:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Will. Thank you for your response. I have added the references as you indicted. I think the original problem was purely to do with the similarities between what I had inserted and this site [[20]]. Unfortunately, apart from this, and her book there is very little on the net about her (making references look repetitive at best). It is an odd situation and adds to her "mystique" among those of us who have heard her, a story recounted here [[21]].A fact made odder by virtue of her recording of Tristan and Isolde under Goodall (the first digital recording thereof) having been deleted for so long and now selling for very large sums of cash [[22]] (I am lucky enough to own a copy). Again, I appreciate you are busy,but when ever you get the time (if you can). Tucker ^talk 09:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Will. Yes, I have read those but alas they are so short and "basic" as to be useless. Although, I suppose they would add some other references. Thank youTucker ^talk 11:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Will, thank you for help on this. I appreciate this not be your area of interest and that you have enough going on here at WIKI at the moment. Thanks Tucker ^talk 00:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

John Birch Society

I know that you're an involved admin in this dispute and so you can't take preventative measures against any of the other parties. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to notify other administrators and see if the article is ripe for protection until we resolve our disputes in the talk page. The version that should be protected is the one that had consensus prior to the latest hooplah.UBER ^(talk) 18:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about User:Will Beback/TM tables

Which articles are considered TM-related in these statistics? I have some editing data from the LISCO IP ranges, and I would like to compare them to these numbers. Cool Hand Luke 17:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is based on their top 100 most-edited articles? If so, I will make a similar table for all of the LISCO edits, then you can work out the percentages. I'll post the summary table for LISCO edits sometime this evening. Cool Hand Luke 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop/LISCO IPs. Cool Hand Luke 00:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse sources

I removed one source because it didn't support the point being made in the text - that some Catholics consider the media coverage excessive - and the other because it was a blog and therefore fails WP:RS. Haldraper (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: James Roberts, Jr.

The article was deleted per the PROD tag, but restored upon request (which is acceptable in accordance with the proposed deletion guidelines). After restoring, I removed the tag. Here is the request to restore, if you want to see it. Have a nice day. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And thanks

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For working tirelessly, with good humor, against great odds and using massive restraint, Much more restraint than I have been able to show

Blocked User

Hello, you recently blocked my user account at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SilenceSoLoud, and the reason stated was abusing sockpuppetry. This is absolutely outrageous, as I only have registered one other account on wikipedia and have not used it in over a year [23]. According to WP:SOCK#LEGIT, this is completely in the scope of appropriate uses of multiple accounts, especially given the controversiality of the subject I was working with. I am requesting that you rescind the ban immediately. 128.120.218.130 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Network 21

Will, could you please have a chat to User:Financeguy222 he keeps re-adding the WP:CORP delete tage, despite it explictly saying not to re-add it and an already existing notability tag, and he keeps deleting the sourced material on NOC. What's more he reported ME for disruptive editing for reverting his mass deletions when he wouldn't (at that stage) even discuss it on talk. He's making it impossible to focus on actually editing and improving the article as he simply keeps deleting everything. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I will stop adding the WP:CORP. I got the impression I was doing the right thing from Will's talk in the N21 talk page, that this was the process (AfD) this article should be defined as. I'm still getting used to all of WP's syntax and technical side...

However, in regards to the rest Insider, you or others have not been able to address that the philanthropic acts are a N21 business, and not a Dornan self interest venture, and the more sources provided such as CBM article point to this being the case. Amway/N21 makes you work on the weekend Insider?? :) Financeguy222 (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:ITT

Veecort has been editing disruptively on ITT Tech for a very long time. He has a very negative POV on that school. You can check his contributions and block log for more info. The stuff he has on User:Veecort/Sandbox was something he tried adding word for word to the article, and that was removed due to the negative POV slant and reliable sourcing issues. Linking to it on the talk page I thought was both disruptive and a violation of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TEND, and so it ought to be removed.

By the way if you're thinking I'm just trying to defend the school, I'm not. If you check the article, every one of the reliable sources Veecort has on that page is already in the article. He just feels that the controversies section isn't adequately negative. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)