User talk:Will Beback/Revisions: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:44, 12 November 2006

Richard Warman

There are a number of users that seem to be editing the Richard Warman wiki and constantly reverting the article. Information that I keep adding with sources keeps getting removed with no explanation at all. It seems there is either one guy with multiple sockpuppets or a group of people in concert. - Imstillhere 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkins and Grazia11

Hey, Will Beback. I am not as familiar with Wikipedia rules as you are. Grazia is being quite rude and challenging my integrity in editing the article without any evidence for doing so (like a happy Hawkins lap dog). Doesn't this violate a Wikipedia policy, if I recall correctly? I asked him to stick to the issues, but in lieu of factual evidence, he can only resort to attacking me and my integrity. Do you mind helping on this one? Thanks, --ArtAsLife 01:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belles-lettres

I just went back over my last 500 edits, and I failed to find one that wasn't labled minor. Am I missing something? I am curious why you felt the need to leave me that note. --evrik 04:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're right, and now i understand your point. I have minor listed a a preference. When I was a newby, it was suggested to me that I do that. It wasn't until today that someone has pointed out the discussion you posted on my talk page. --evrik 05:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk_Disemvoweling

That "back from the dead... hagiographer" remark has been followed by "shill", and now "freak", together with a threat to "seek internal action", all directed against me. From the records I've seen so far, this sort of behavior has been allowed to go on for over four months. As its present target, may I ask how much longer? -- SAJordan 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Old RfA

Hi. To me, it looks like you've done a fine job as a janitor. I don't see any particular areas that need improvement or problems. Regards, Merovingian ※ Talk 14:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cork

Frankly, I'm surprised at your vote, unless you're opposed simply because I made the move request. I hope that is not the case. It is true that last week's survey established that there was no consensus to move the article on the material cork to Cork. But if you consider the comments made by the opposing votes in that survey, there did appear to be considerable consensus to make the move I'm now requesting. I was just trying to facilitate what consensus seemed to want. I'm surprised there is so little support for this, including from you. I mean, if the ambiguity with the ubiquitious and universally notable material/plant cork is not sufficient to warrant moving this small city that happens to share the name, then when is it ever warranted? --Serge 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Cork (city) is a poor choice. I made that the default since that seemed to be the most popular choice cited in the last survey. My own vote indicates my personal preference for Cork, County Cork, just like yours does, and for the same reasons. As far as the "if it ain't broke ..." argument, what is broken currently by this article name is WP:D and WP:NC:CITY#Ireland, not to mention that anyone doing research on the material cork is sent inexplicably to the article about a small city in Ireland. That's a broken encyclopedia. --Serge 21:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional narratives

Thanks, Will Beback.

I'm moving the material into separate articles because one of the editors working on several of the main Native Californian articles persists in rearranging, garbling, and inserting bogus information into it.

I figured that using the Template and including it in the individual articles served the function of a Category pretty well. If you have suggestions for one or more additional Category, though, I'd be glad to start adding that. RhymeNotStutter 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Channel Islands

A while ago I found out which county each island's in through the USGS Geographic Names Database. It's really non-intuitive which island lies in which county. San Nicolas Island is in Ventura County, and San Clemente, far off the northern San Diego County coast, is part of Los Angeles County. That's about as weird as the census stats that show three or four people live on a few of the islands (I'm guessing they're National Park rangers and maybe some old ranching families). I posted links to each entry on Talk:Channel Islands of California. Hope this helps. szyslak (t, c, e) 04:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question - I hope!

Hi, Will! I need a quick bit of advice re Talk:Mickey Mouse Club. Someone posted airdate data (no source cited, of course) and gave it an offensive header. Is it appropriate to change or remove that header, or should I just live with it, and mildly ask the person at the IP to cite a source? Thanks in advance. Karen | Talk | contribs 04:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Will! I see you also restored a sig I missed when I reverted the blanking. Oops! I appreciate the help. Karen | Talk | contribs 09:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diebold and DES article edits

Hi - There appears to be a problem with some changes you made to recent edits of mine. I authored a short paragraph last night about the HBO documentary I was watching, and placed it in the main Diebold article underneath a group of other paragraphs specifically discussing Diebold electronic voting machines. You moved it to the DES article with a note to the effect that it belonged there.

The first problem is that it is not appearing in the DES article you moved it to, so it's completely gone. Also, the section that you attempted to move it to doesn't seem like the best choice, but whatever - I would simply like something I wrote that was very important and topical to appear somewhere rather than nowhere. Can you please fix this, either by reverting the change to the main Diebold article, or fixing the relocate? Thanks. Rblaster 18:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Indian reservations

Will: I'm quite happy to be contributing what I can. I generally stick to geographical matters, statistical data, etc. In matters also discussed above, I contributed some relevant items to most of the individual Channel Islands of California articles. Backspace 00:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

protect again?

Hello, I reckon the Omura page needs protecting again immediately - see just now history, etc.Richardmalter 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DISD

why did you take that school off of schools in SD?

RfC at Sahaja Yoga

Sfacets has started an RfC at Talk:Sahaja Yoga about whether or not the University of Virginia website is a valid source. I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to participate. --NovaSTL 03:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning citing web sites that require payment

Hi Will, I have a question, that maybe you can answer. Can you direct me to anything concerning citing web sites that require payment or require you to register before you can view the contents? It would seem that such a site would not normally meet WP:RS; but I can not find anything that would either affirm such a view, or that states the opposite. It is probably right in front of me, but I am not seeing anything, or maybe it is something that has not been worked out yet. If you’re unsure, don’t worry about it. Thanks, Brimba 08:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the timely answer. I was in fact thinking of the policy concerning external links, and that is where the confusion came from. I was faced with being in the position of someone citing a source that I was certain would not substantiate what the person was claiming, and not wanting to register and hand over my CC info, there was no way to easily confirm my suspicion. Fortunately it has been invalidated for other reasons. Many thanks, Brimba 05:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Disitrict

On August 24th, you deleted the Hollywood Disitrict page. However, it appears for some reason the Talk page was not deleted. Was it also intended to be deleted?--SirNuke 18:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will, there's a double-redirect now: Talk:Hollywood Disitrict → Talk:Hollywood, Portland, Oregon → Talk:Hollywood District. Was this intentional? -- SAJordan 00:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources - forums as sources about themselves etc.

hi will, feel free to follow the links in my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Citing_forums_in_articles_about_themselves - i think this may be similar to your concern regarding "reliable sources". Boud 22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User conduct rfc

Hi Will. I invite you to comment on User:Fix Bayonets! user conduct rfc, which I started today. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!. Thanks for any input you have. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dysgenics‎

A discussion related to one you had on Talk:Eugenics, [1] is occurring at Talk:Dysgenics. I'd be grateful if you could take a look. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page Hawkins

I'm not sure what you were intending to do, but it looks like you deleted some comments from the Talk:David R. Hawkins. Was that intentional? Do you need help restoring the deletions? -Will Beback 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi Will, just found out on your page that you are an admin in wiki. definitely i was not intending to delete parts of the discussion. my intention was to remove it from the archive (page 1) to the actual page 2. as i can see, all my entries (new and desplacements) are now gone. yes, please restore the lost parts. and let me know how one does correctly displace parts of the archive to the main page. have no idea what has happened. i could see my changes yesterday right after action though. rgds --Grazia11

Tks Will for restoring the lost parts. rgds --Grazia11 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ericsaindon2

Can't the size of this ban log be used as a case for permanent banishment? Wouldn't another user be banned permanently if they used sockpuppetry to this degree? Just curious... —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claire McCaskill Senate Box

Another user has restored the "Senate Box" which you had removed to the Claire McCaskill article. --TommyBoy 08:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood District

I notice that Serge has unilaterally moved Hollywood, Portland, Oregon to Hollywood District. Again. I guess it's good to have a hobby. Phiwum 19:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Governor Romney's seal

Hi Beback. Yes, I claim to have taken this picture. A family member was the Republican minority leader and I was invited to an event. I did not take the picture intending to photograph the seal, but the governor. This is the best I have but it clearly shows the passage that the Governor added. Your tone sounds unhappy and unfriendly. The image of a politicain, and how that is managed, carefully, consciously, or not, (in this case consciously) is a part of the individual's story. Especially if seeking he presidency. CApitol3 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image history shows blue goose to be a work of the U.S. government. I cropped the Romney photo to focus more on the seal, what I had of it. It is not a news photo. I find the the size you have reduced the images to be useless. Romney has an exploratory committee, Please assume good faith, that 'feels absent from my perspective. And please revert the image size. Thanks. CApitol3 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why 100 pixel?

Hi again. I have to say the reduction in size is now less than postage stamp. What wiki policy do you cite for this? If I made Mitt;s pic in the info box 100 px some might find it vandalism. Please revert so that the images serve to illustrate my discussion. Thanks. CApitol3 23:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will, the subject under discussion is a discussion page, not the article. I believe your take on this is either subjective, a high level of personal taste, or an outside chance your edits are political (I prefer to think not). As a compromise I have picked a size between my intial settng, and your reduction. the hardly affects the page depth. CApitol3 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I removed the last comment because it was already taken care of. All of the senator's pages are clearly marked that they will not take office until 2007. I hope this clears everything up.

Ridgecrest

I'm a bit confused how your edit, re-inserting unsourced comments about the types of students who attend Mesquite High, has to do with "removing gossip". Could you comment, and consider rv'ing your edit? Thanks, --ScottMainwaring 05:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Beback

What's this guy? (contribs) (not blocked). An imposter of yours? And your last name isn't Beback so I don't think Beback is even a real name. Oh and I suggest the services of Werdnabot for your talk page. Anomo 06:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disemvoweling again

Will, can I prevail upon you to review Marky48's latest edit to Disemvoweling in light of the recent discussions on the Talk page? I was under the impression that you found the source to be valid in this case, as long as the wording was "as early as" and did not claim to be definitely the first such use. As SAJordan pointed out at the time, the claim was only that the term and technique were used on that blog on that day, for which a link to that blog on that day should be a primary source. And of course it contributes to the article by showing an example of the forum moderation technique. Mark's objections seems to be that a blog should never be cited under any circumstances, particularly this one because of the history of this article and his belief about the motives or other editors. Will you please weigh in on whether the deleted text and citation are valid under Wikipedia guidelines? Goodness knows I don't want to fight yet another battle, but it would be good to have an admin's opinion on the substance of the content dispute, quite aside from the bickering over personalities and who-said-what. Thanks! (By the way, the IP editor on Mickey Mouse Club is apparently still being uncivil, but not on pages I watch other than his Talk, so I'm saying nothing further to him for now.) Karen | Talk | contribs 19:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Will. I think the context of his deletion brings motive into question: (in chronological order)
- 18:26, 10 November 2006 User talk:^demon (→Arbitration for Iran-Iraq War - Revenge of the editor)
- 18:30, 10 November 2006 Disemvoweling (Not a valid source: two sci-fi bloggers)
"Revenge of the editor", indeed. Yet he accuses others of bias and ulterior motives. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:36, 11 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Indeed I have no biases that I translate into articles, or ulterior motives except I won't stand by for a public lynching by partsians. This type dialogue is not helpful. It's a gang bang and bullying. Moreover, carrying this grudge over to an separate unrelated arbitration is a personal attack. Marky48 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Yeah, I often do if I can tell it's an established article, but sometimes it's hard to tell (or I'm just going so fast through Special:Uncategorizedpages, I accidentally skip something). Sorry, which one did I miss? --Elonka 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons in bio boxes

My views on this matter are expressed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Flag icons.

Thanks.

trezjr 02:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Webb

Why are you being selective about him and not other members-elect of the forthcoming US Congress (e.g., Jon Tester)? Is there actually a protocol here, or is it a free-for-all? Fishhead64 07:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops

The ut, because of decryption and typing delays, Embassy personnel failed to deliver the message at the specified time.

Cutting & pasting can be a hazard... As far as sources, I'm relying on about 25yr of reading in this area, not any one source at hand. User:trekphiler 10:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops revisited

This what it was supposed to look like:

"The last part arrived not long before the attack but, because of decryption and typing delays, and because Tokyo had neglected to inform them of the crucial necessity to deliver it on time, Embassy personnel failed to deliver the message at the specified time. The last part, breaking off negotiations ("Obviously it "

Obviously it got an extra bit pasted in error (or I got a bit too pasted ;)).... User:trekphiler 10:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment regarding David Duke

Why are you warning me alone about this edit conflict? Not only have I discussed changes to the page and defended my edits, I am the only one who has seriously discussed those changes on the talk page (DocFisherKing gave his typical spiel about my "vandalism"). Apparently another user reverts to an old edit, accusing me of vandalism, but I revert back and justify my reversion on the talk page, and I'm the bad guy in this scenario?! Quite honestly, that's ridiculous.

--Ryodox 10:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 157: / Line 157: @@
 :"The last part arrived not long before the attack but, because of decryption and typing delays, and because Tokyo had neglected to inform them of the crucial necessity to deliver it on time, Embassy personnel failed to deliver the message at the specified time. The last part, breaking off negotiations ("Obviously it "
 Obviously it got an extra bit pasted in error (or I got a bit too pasted ;))....  [[User:trekphiler]] 10:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
+== Your comment regarding [[David Duke]] ==
+Why are you warning me alone about this edit conflict? Not only have I discussed changes to the page and defended my edits, I am the '''only''' one who has seriously discussed those changes on the talk page ([[User:DocFisherKing|DocFisherKing]] gave his typical spiel about my "vandalism"). Apparently another user reverts to an old edit, accusing me of vandalism, but I revert back and justify my reversion on the talk page, and I'm the bad guy in this scenario?! Quite honestly, that's ridiculous.
+--[[User:Ryodox|Ryodox]] 10:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)