User talk:Will Beback/archive41

Re: per-article contribs

(Side question to bainer: I've been looking for such a tool. Is it public? Will Beback talk 09:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yep, here, just haven't added it to the lists of projects yet. Should be mostly bug-free. --bainer (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR

Hi Will, FYI: [1]. Given that you had dealings with Mattisse, I thought you might want to comment. Jayen 466 15:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I/P articles

Hi Will, I'd appreciate your views here if you have time. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Savage Best Sellers inaccuracy

Michael Savage (commentator)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator)

It used to say correctly that Savage has written 4 best sellers but someone deleted that and changed it to one.

Michael Savage has indeed authored four New York Times Best Sellers including one New York Times #1 Best Seller (The Savage Nation). I have put the book titles and sources in the discussion page.

The source cited saying Savage has one best seller is a list of #1 best sellers. This explains why the other three were not on that list.

If you have the authority to edit protected pages I would appreciate it if you would correct this inaccuracy. Thank you.

Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)AutumnalObelisk[reply]

Update: I have cited the NY Times Best Seller listing for each book. (hawes.com pdf's)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Savage_(commentator)

Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Missler (4th nomination). Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Bergman

Hi Will. My understanding is that on a BLP a controversy or negative material must have been mentioned by the news media, etc. Please discuss on talk page. BTW I rather dislike the guy myself. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue might soon be moot. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jerry Bergman

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DraperMan edits

I took another look at Wickliffe Draper, and reverted some other recent unsourced and sensationalistic edits of DraperMan:

Other editors have fixed:

He certainly has an agenda, doesn't he? --Sift&Winnow 22:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V-e-r-y interesting! So he was referring to himself in the Wickliffe Draper article: 'John Bevilaqua believes that this was a classic "white knight" bailout of …' The bio certainly explains his agenda. I came across this diagram of the "conspiracy" by going a couple of levels up in the URL you posted: Draper Diagram. --Sift&Winnow 00:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Weiss Page

Sir, you have locked the Jack Weiss page that contains the UNVERIFIED allegations. Can you please revert to the page that does not contain the unsourced materials. Please see the comments and the discussion page to understand what SloanLier has been doing. The runoff election is on May 19th, 2009.

Thank you

76.79.166.64 (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, regarding the "wrong" version. I urge you to check out the talk on Sloanlier's page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sloanlier Specifically scroll down to the bottom to read Kelapstick's reason's why Sloanlier's edits are in violation of the WP:BLP. I have copied and pasted his comments here:

Sloanlier

If I can step in here for a minute. The first comment that I have is about the material added about the untested rape kits. The source is from Human Rights Watch, which does not qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia policy (see WP:RS), and the website does not even mention him. Second, if Jack Weiss is a city councilman he does not have control over what the LAPD does with their workforce. He is also not mentioned in that article. The broken My Fox LA link that is sourcing negative material, and since it is broken it can not be used. You can not add unverified material to a living person's biography. What you are doing by adding that material is:.

1. Adding unsourced, defamatory material about a living person in violation of the biographies of living people giudeline 2. Using synthesis and original research to form a guilt by association of the councilman, which is also in violation of the BLP guideline.

You clearly do not understand Wikipedia's guidelines as you state above, if you think the article should be removed there are other means of going about it, but simply adding unsourced negative material of a living person is not allowed in Wikipedia. Period. You need to read and become familiar with the following policies before continuing to edit biographies of living people: WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V. If you continue to add negative material that is unsourced/original research/synthesis to a living person's biography you will be blocked. Please ask if you have any questions. --kelapstick (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you

--76.79.166.64 (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I will gladly point out the problems with the text. They are in the "Biography" and "Controversy" section.

Biography Section

"Weiss has been Chair of the Public Safety Committee, and serves on the Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Weiss, along with all couclimembers, worked with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Police Chief William Bratton to use an increase in the City's trash collection fees to recruit new police officers.[2] However, the City's Controller noted that the Police Department had assigned 400 officers to desk duty rather than to street patrol, where they could better protect the public.[3]"

The "However" sentence has nothing to do with the city's increasing the trash-collecting fees.

Controversy Section

"Although Weiss has been a member of the Los Angeles City Council since 2001, an October 2008 audit of the Los Angeles city crime lab revealed that the number of untested rape kits continued to grow in the years 2004 to 2008 despite nearly $4 million in federal grant money made available for DNA backlog reduction during the same period. Human Rights Watch's own review of federal DNA funding grant reports revealed that as of December 2007 the Police Department had not yet used all funds it had been awarded in 2004, and had used none of the available money from 2005 to 2007.[4]"

This paragraph seeks to link the rise in untested rape kits to Jack Weiss' tenure as council member. The entire paragraph, apart from the first clause of the first sentence talks about a police problem. In addition, the Human Rights source cited, mentions that Jack Weiss is the only LA Councilmember involved in the backlog kit. Thus, not only is this paragraph irrelevant, it is misleading.

"In 2007 residents in his council district started a campaign to recall Jack Weiss. According to the campaign website, the recall effort was in response to Weiss's support for high density development throughout the district, but most noticeably in Century City. The recall effort fell short of subscribing 28,500 signatures, however, it is claimed that as many as 20,000 signed the petition calling for the recall of Jack Weiss."

This paragraph refers to the recall jack weiss website. That website does indeed claim to have 20,000 signed people, however, that PDF isn't certified by any independent authority (i.e. the LA City Clerk's office). It's just posted by the website, and for all I know, could be a magical number. Yes, there was an effort to run a recall campaign, I don't know how big it was. It could have been just 5 people, in which case, it's not noteworthy.

"However, as of mid-May 2009, Los Angeles' Metropolitan News-Enterprise was reporting allegations that the Weiss campaign had yet to return any of the contributions from the illegal fundraiser. [9]"

This paragraph cites a news article. But the news article uses as it's source, the Campaign Manager of Jack Weiss' opposition candidate.

"On May 11, 2009, the Los Angeles Fox broadcast station affiliate reported that Weiss had recently attended a fundraiser hosted by a convicted felon. When the Fox reporter asked Weiss about the fundraiser, Weiss stated that he was learning of the felony conviction from the reporter at the time of the interview. Fox reported that the Weiss campaign subsequently contacted Fox and asserted that it had, in fact, known of the felony conviction prior to the televised interview with Weiss.[10]"

This paragraph makes a nasty allegation. The reference link is a dead-link. Thus, this harsh allegation is currently unverifiable.

Thank you --76.79.166.64 (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in, I think you made the right call with the paring down and protecting the page until the details can be ironed out. I had not gone through and checked every source for every claim (I was on my way out the door when I sent yesterdays message) but I did see the changes in this diff and saw that something was fishy, in particular the "guilt by association", I checked a couple of articles and saw they had nothing to do with him and that one was even sourced by the NGO Human Rights Watch, which isn't a reliable source (at least in my opinion, as by design, all NGOs have an agenda that they are pushing). I am not opposed to having a controversy section in an article about a politician (as there are few without controversy) provided the controversy is directly related to them and is properly sourced. Anyway the page is on my watch list and I will keep an eye on it the future. Cheers --kelapstick (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Mountaineering and Climbing Project

Hi, my name is Jarhed and I am an amateur rock climber and mountaineer. I recently reviewed some of the articles on these subjects, and I believe that they could use the attention of interested editors such as yourself. I have proposed a new project on these topics and I am interested in your opinion. You can find the proposal here: Mountaineering and Climbing Project Proposal. Thank you for your time, and have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court is Needed, Religion is Destroying America

The statements below are as far as I can tell absolute truths. I don't know how anybody with good sense could disagree with what is stated below. The souce documents are "Liberty and Tyranny", "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy", the constitution, "Religion vs. America", "Religion vs. Morality", and "Religion and Capitalism". What on earth are you talking about when you say it lacks proper sourcing? And which of these truths stated below could anyone find questionable?RHB100 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One chapter in Levin's book, "Liberty and Tyranny", pushes religion. It does not discuss the fact that the Bible is false because it is self-contradictory as pointed out in "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy" by C. Dennis McKinsey even if you overlook the scientific evidence against the Bible. Nor does Levin discuss the evidence for human evolution. Levin does not appear to believe the constitution means "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Levin's interpretation of the constitution does not rely on the exact words of the constitution with no consideration of the assumed intention of the writers. Levin instead interprets the constitution on what he thinks the writers intended. It is clear that Levin would like to cram religion down the throats of the citizens by using public property to display the Ten Commandments. We certainly need the Supreme Court to protect us from religious aggressors like Levin. Additional reasons for our need for protection from religion are pointed out in Religion vs. America, Religion and Capitalism Are Antithetical and Religion vs. Morality The Ayn Rand Center provides these publication. Ayn Rand was the brilliant, atheistic philosopher and novelist who wrote "Atlas Shrugged", many articles in "The Virtues of Selfishness", "The Fountainhead" and other publications.RHB100 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy this to the article talk page nd reply there. Will Beback talk 19:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder I was confused

You were impersonated here. Please forgive my not noticing: it did seem quite of place so I should've looked deeper! –xeno ^talk 18:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tracking that down. Will Beback talk 19:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Invitation

Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of White elephant

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is White elephant. 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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White elephant. 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, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AE thread

I've started an AE (arbitration enforcement) thread on recent editing at Teachings of Prem Rawat. Please see WP:AE. Thanks. JN 466 13:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are named at WP:AN section Pseudo edit war on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, moved here form ANI

--Gsmgm (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Menshikov deletion

Will, about the Stanislav Menshikov deletion, CSD G5 deletions are only supposed to happen where there haven't been substantial edits by others to the page. Just tracing the byte increases at the deleted page history (I looked at diffs, too) indicates this isn't true. Would you restore it? Given this has already escalated to ANI (although it should have hit your talk page first), I'll probably go on to deletion review if you don't want to restore it.--chaser (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the editing restriction imposed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2 by your edits [2] and [3] to Teachings of Prem Rawat, as per the WP:AE report. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also preemptively requested community review of the matter at WP:ANI#Prem Rawat enforcement action. Sandstein 16:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Will Beback (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe that Sandstein has miscounted the reverts. I first added text in following a discussion on the talk page.[4] That was not a revert. Several days later another editor, Pergamino, made significant changes to the text without discussion. I reverted the changes.[5] That was the only revert. The RFAR editing restriction prohibits more than one revert per week. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period...[6] Since I only reverted once I did not violate the prohibition. Further, I acted in good faith to avoid violating the prohibition, and if I did violate it then I did so unintentionally and with a misunderstanding of how the revert(s) are counted. I received no warning that I'd violated the prohibition, and I would have self-reverted if I had been warned. One revert per week is an unusual standard and I think that either Sandastein or I is not calculating it correctly. Will Beback talk 22:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below. Mango juice^talk 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I just want to point out that the arbcom case not only makes a 1 revert per week restriction but also adds that if any change is made and undone, that change may not be re-made within 7 days:

The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period. (emphasis mine)

This does appear to violate the arbcom sanctions under that clause. I am not particularly concerned that shortening the block would lead to further violations: I trust what you are saying. However, since this is, technically, a violation, and since Pergamino (the user reverting you) was also blocked for 24 hours, I am concerned that unblocking you would give an appearance of unfairness. I'm sorry. Mango juice^talk 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Will Beback (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sandstein did not specify which element of the remedy he thinks was violated. Mangojuice does not say that I violated the first element, the 1 revert per week restriction. He asserts that I did violate the second element, which says, Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period. However the change I made was not reverted. Instead, it was altered in an original way that was not a revert. So I did not violate the second element either. As for Pergamino, I do not believe that he violated the first element either. I believe that both of our accounts should be unblocked. Will Beback talk 03:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

1) The ANI discussion cited above by Sandstein shows no support for overturning his block. 2) The sanctions clearly state that you may not make the same edit twice within seven days. You did so. Your attempt to WP:WIKILAWYER out of this by debating what does or does not constitute a revert is pointless; I have reviewed the difs supplied by Sandstein and it seems clear that both the letter and spirit of the sanctions were violated in this case 3) Most important of all; you show no signs that you intend to cease the behavior which got you blocked. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks for your time. Regarding point #3, I have already expressed that I did not intend to violate any RFAR remedy and regret it if I've done so. I don't think it's fair to apply "wikilawyering" to trying to pin down which part of this novel remedy has been violated, if any. Following the expiration of the block I'll request a clarification from the ArbCom. Will Beback talk 05:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the sanction seems to place you on a 0RR/7 days restriction, that is you are not to repeat the same edit substantively within seven days of each other. Sandstein provided two difs which show you making substantively the same, or almost the same, edit to the affected articles in less than 5 days, which seems to violate the sanctions. Regarding my feelings on the matter, I am probably with Georgewilliamherbert (based on his comments at the ANI discussion), that is without regard for how I personally feel about the ArbCom sanction, it seems clear that the sanction has been violated in this case. It should be noted that I found it particularly hard to do anything except decline here given that, when I reviewed this case, there had been several admins who had supported the block, and I would not have been comfortable overturning a block under those conditions. Since I have declined, there have been new developments. It looks as though Durova is proposing a solution which would unblock both parties; perhaps that will gain some traction. Good luck, and perhaps ArbCom will revist the decision, if only to clarify exactly what they meant by it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your e-mail

I've only now found the time to read my e-mail, sorry. As explained by others above, you are not blocked for violating the 1RR/week restriction, but rather for violating the prohibition on re-inserting reverted content. I do not agree with your explanation above that you did not violate that restriction because you were not reverted. For edit-warring purposes, a revert is "any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part", as defined in WP:3RR. After you inserted the contested section with your first cited edit, other users removed that section, hence reverting you, even though not necessarily with a single edit. By reinserting the section with your second cited edit, you consequently violated the restriction against reinserting reverted content.

Because you have not yet indicated that you will stop reinserting that section if unblocked, I regret to have to tell you that the block appears to remain necessary to prevent continued violations of the restriction. (I do not address Pergamino's block because you lack standing - pardon the legalism - to request his unblock.) Sandstein 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-referentially invoking the universal-standing practice of buttinsky:

"because you lack standing ... to request his unblock" Standing? At Wikipedia? Let's see a cite for that.

Last time I observed, Wikipedia editors, even IPs, have universal standing to civilly request anything of anyone. Unless there's some new or unnoticed bureaucratic rule, "standing" is not a valid argument to deny a request from being considered on its merits. Milo 17:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein wrote:

After you inserted the contested section with your first cited edit, other users removed that section, hence reverting you, even though not necessarily with a single edit. By reinserting the section with your second cited edit, you consequently violated the restriction against reinserting reverted content.

Other users did not remove the section. Another editor made some changes to it that in no way reverted my edit. I'd like to see the diff of this purported revert, please. (It was later deleted entirely, but I didn't edit it after that so it isn't part of this equation.) And as for not doing it again, I told you in the email, and I've siad on this page, that I had not intention of vilating the remedy and would not have done so had if I thought I was. I regret (apparently) violating the remedy. You are entirely wrong and are assuming bad faith to think that I'd reinsert it again despite my comments to the contrary. Will Beback talk 18:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

I just saw Millennium '73 was promoted to FA! Congratulations, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I learned this trick from User:Brianboulton - watch the FA log for the month here, as it is the first place a promotion will be noted. COngrats again and glad to help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re MIllennium '73

You are most welcome, and congratulations! Cirt (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Discussion moved back to user talk:Tothwolf, since he wants to maintain threading.

I worked with the WP:SPI case on Tothwolf, and followed the links and such. I think a point needs to be made that Tothwolf has not done anything remotely disallowed by COI or really any major core policy. The dispute is over including the location of the help channel for eggdrop. The inclusion or exclusion of this information really does not involve COI in any manner as it is more of an editorial dispute then anything else. I think what has happened here is the editor tothwolf is working with on the article chose to bring COI to bear here to get their way in a content dispute moreso then an actual violation of COI (a guideline anyway). A second note, the two editors have not been getting along with each other over the last 2 days or so (see their edit histories). —— nix eagle^{email me} 01:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but look at what he is using the wiki to source please. I don't think that editor has any ill intent and has previously improved other articles drastically. I think you are coming on a bit too strongly on him given the history of the dispute between the two editors over the last 2 days. (it is not restricted to only eggdrop). And given the fact that tothwolf is not really a brand new editor and has not had COI problems in the past. Do note that tothwolf has done only one revert. —— nix eagle^{email me} 02:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should notice that he has not reverted again, my point is I think you are coming down a bit too hard over a guideline. I don't think this editor is the standard "trying to promote his crap" style editor and no other policies other then COI apply to this situation other then the editorial debate over inclusion of the wiki link to source where to get help with the program (and even if providing that information is within our mandate). —— nix eagle^{email me} 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Kinsella

The anon IP you recently reverted is Warren Kinsella himself; there's been an ongoing problem with him coming back every once in a while to arbitrarily and anonymously remove sourced content that he personally dislikes from the article. (What makes it doubly irritating is that there was previously a different anon, who was eventually outed as Mark Bourrie, persistently adding unsourced POV commentary to the same article — with the result that several of the Canadian administrators have pretty much washed our hands of even attempting to sort out anything beyond basic and obvious vandalism.)

So if you'd be willing to give the article a quick once-over from your fortuitously not-drowning-in-Kinsella-drama vantage point, we'd be most grateful — though I understand totally if you can't, or don't want to, or are thinking "oh, crap, what have I gotten into here?" :-) Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Talk:Huell_Howser.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I wanted to ping you so you knew I commented on your pop culture/trivia removal. No complaint against you, just wanted to give you a heads-up. tedder (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uragan class monitor

Thank you for your interest on the article on Uragan class monitors. I have however reverted your deletion of the English language reference. Your removal looks very much like a drive-by deletion, it seems that you have not read the source used. I am well aware of the restrictions on LaRouche sources. However, in this case I find the source reliable. It provides as its references an extensive list of 19th century contemporary sources and quotes heavily from them. The source also agrees with the large number of Russian language sources I have used.

I do not think the article should rely on Russian language sources alone. If you can propose alternative English language sources on the subject, I would be most happy to use them. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Francisco Reyes

Will, I know the article at Juan Francisco Reyes (soldier) has some problems ( - I am not sure how to fix). But my question is - It says "any editor" can remove the Delete Page tag. Can I do it without razing eye brows? I did respond with another section its Talk page ThanksEmargie (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and the fixes.Emargie (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old accounts

Hey there. If you want to "claim" this page, can you please re-register the account? Currently, it's possible for (presumably) anyone to come along and register the account, and suddenly their talk page would be filled with your content. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to register the account while logged in as an admin, you should be able to override any software restrictions against it. Of course, this obviously links the two accounts in the software logs, though I'm not sure that's a concern at this point for you. The reason the issue has come up is that a database report, specifically Wikipedia:Database reports/Ownerless pages in the user space, keeps listing the page (when it's not a redirect). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat clarification

It wrong to say that I reverted instead of discussing. On the contrary, I reverted the changes because the editor who made them didn't explain them or even leave accurate edit summaries. The talk page shows ample discussion on my part. Commenting without ascertainng the facts first isn't helpful

Will,

I promise that I did thoroughly review the evidence surrounding the complaint before commenting, and would apologise if you felt that I dishonoured your record as a quite reasonable and sensible editor.

Respectfully,

AGK 21:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

I am glad that the article is not as oddly crafted as the restriction on it <g>. Collect (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PROD Notification

Thanks for the reminder... much appreciated. Ryanthewebguy (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]