User talk:Will Beback/archive72

Problem IPs editing from Research in Motion (blackberry.net)

Hi Will, I notice that you have recently tangled with prank edits by one of these editors, 216.9.250.115, 216.9.250.39 and 216.9.250.96. Two of these IPs and some others are attacking the John Amos article by repeatedly adding a paragraph describing an interview on the Howard Stern show. [1] The paragraph as written violates all of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:SOURCE.

The Blackberry IPs have also been assisted by single-issue editors apparently based elsewhere: [2], [3], [4], [5].

Since these are all IPs, I don't know if it's appropriate to file a sockpuppet report. But looking at the edits coming in from blackberry.net, none seem to be constructive. I have tried to explain Wikipedia polices on the John Amos talk page, but they ignore the policy questions and accuse me of "elitist revisionism" or moralizing.

Could you give a suggestion on how to deal with this? betsythedevine (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Will, thanks so much for protecting John Amos. Could you extend that protection to Good Times? Yet another single-purpose IP has just added the material there. [6]. betsythedevine (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Will, for the protect on Good Times. BTW, I took your advice and also filed an ANI regarding these editors. betsythedevine (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair

The Yarrow article should be reverted back to the way it was on May 31st. Jkp is deliberately holding up the mediation process against the wishes of everyone else involved in the mediation. It is he who started this current edit war and you are inadvertently rewarding his bad behavior,: Albion moonlight (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Immaculate Heart articles

Thanks! I dropped out of Immaculate Heart High School (something I have in common with Heidi Fleiss) and I'm a fan of Corita's work, so I'm fascinated by the place and its history. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada listed at AFD

If you wish, please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada. Thanks! hike395 (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation or 3rd opinion at Nirmala Srivastava

Would you be willing to mediate at Nirmala Srivastava? --Simon D M (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps just offer a 3rd opinion? --Simon D M (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat Proposals

They're currently unreferenced, I need you to re-add the references to the proposals before they can be added to the article. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 09:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Will

for your support but i am a vandal in fact i am a sock puppet.

THROUGH?AWIKI?DARKLY (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Tom Tancredo

Sry, I will start using edit summaries. I will get in the habit of doing it. I am just cleaning up. The article has a lot of repetitive info or has sentences and paragraphs not in chronological order.

GordonUS (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Confederate page

Dear Will BeBack:

I am one of the editors of "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction," University of Texas Press, to be released Dec. 1, 2008.

The University of Texas Press has a web page for the book at:

http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exhagneo.html

The page has the table of contents for the book and the Introduction to the book online.

I am thinking of rewriting the whole entry. It doesn't actually give much information about Neo-Confederacy. You have a section on "Neo-Confederate as perjorative" but nothing on their Celtic Identity or concepts regarding religion.

However, I don't have time to write something and then see it unwritten or deal with long arguments over neo-Confederate claims.

I am about to sign another book contract and I am working on an article and also generally doing my research. I get inquiries from reporters and others.

I am thinking of devoting about an hour a week over the coming months to clean up this entry and rewrite most of it.

Edward H. Sebesta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtknight (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation process

This: [7] needs to be vetted by the mediator, as agreed with him. Please undo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You have another message on my talk page. I generally reply quite quickly, so if you haven't watchlisted it, now is probably a good time to do so. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 06:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, do you have IRC by any chance? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, that would be great. Jossi is on there too, as is Mael-Num. My nick is SteveCrossin, i'm in ##Steve .Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• My channel is a private channel, there is no concerns there :) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Currently discussing this, it's more to iron out some minor concerns and just discuss the content. Remember how I mentioned I might use alternate methods? Well, this is sort of one of them. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fight Dem Back

Thanks for your help, Will :) Schmoul Aschkenazi (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

-- Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fight_Dem_Back . The vandal says:

Don't worry anarchist shit, I'll be ready when the article is unprotected. --124.185.21.175 (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lyndon Larouche

Of COURSE I object: the category -- like any other category regarding occupation -- should accurately reflect the importance in the subject's life. Larouche is NOT a significant or influential political writer by any stretch. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of unjustified categories, Terrawatt seems to have burnt out on fighting the onslaught of British Intelligence on Wikipedia. John Nevard (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

FAIR Media Contact Info

The paragraph identifying FAIR's media director as the media contact for two organizations that were started by FAIR seems to be unnecessary detail. Currently, it is also incorrect in the case of one of the two organizations cited (CFAW). This level of detail is not necessary to get a better understanding of FAIR. Anyone interested in finding the YDSM media contact can go to its website. However, if your real point is that FAIR still provides material support for YDSM, then I would suggest revising to clarify. Also, the professional history of the media contact (Mehlman) seems really down in the weeds and is available on the FAIR website for anyone so interested. So you could boil this down to: "The media contact for You Don't Speak For Me is Ira Mehlman, who is also FAIR's media director." Ron (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy this to the article talk page for discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Late Late Show

Remind you of anyone?

IP4240207xx (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it should look like this, your edit. And relates to your edit here. Same pattern, same person. IP4240207xx (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Watson, I don't like to give everything away in the opening scene. IP4240207xx (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a tool that can show you the top editors for a certain article? You go to the tool, put in the article, or talk page name, and up pops a list of top 20 contributors? IP4240207xx (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You've been impersonated

See this edit. I responded with an immediate report at WP:AIV. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark Dice

Wow, talk about an embarrassing moment--I had no idea Dice was using Wikipedia to promote himself. Does he have any socks? If I'd known he'd had a history here, I'd have been a bit more wary about putting that in Michael Reagan. Blueboy96 14:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kevin B. MacDonald

I believe his German ancestry is mentioned in a magazine article about him.

Am I tracked?

With all due respect, but I ask myself why you track my records and edit all edits I make, and why you 'follow up' on me? Have I been assigned the special to-be-tracked status because I edited some controversial ("antisemitism") articles which do not fit into the 'democratic leadership' of Wikipedia's personal views? I am all about transparency, and I do not like to be followed and useful things to be deleted (e.g. the letter of Coughlin) from an article, just because it does not fit the Administrator's views. With all due respect for wikipedia and your hard task, please do not become a mainstream view censor removing other opinions.Smith2006 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Silver

Thanks for your kind words. Ericoides (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

John Birch Society

I noticed you deleted the updates to the John Birch Society wiki page written by Publiusohio. The parts you deleted had correct citations and factual data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitacore (talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

New American

If you thought the JBS article was bad, look at this one! Love the 'many of our articles' bit. AfD? Doug Weller (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, obvious copyvio. Didn't even list its current editor. I can't decide whether it should have its own article, but if it does, it needs to be NPOV, a concept not everyone understands. :-) Doug Weller (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

joining the ranks of the admins

Thanks for your participation in my successful RfA. When I posted that link to the seemingly ancient JJStroker AN/I it took me back to when we first crossed paths. Now I’m off to do some fixin'... Pinkville (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem

Will, I know we don't see eye to eye on many, or most of the issues related to the List of groups referred to as cults, but at least we agree about Chado :). Anyway, since I grew increasingly annoyed with the pointy disruption of a certain editor on the talk page I did some digging in the archives, and I'm convinced, as you suggested yourself, that Chee is in fact Cairoi. Please have a look at User talk:Chee Chahko#User:Cairoi. My instincts also say that more is going on here than simply Chee = Cairoi, but for now what can be done about this obvious connection?PelleSmith (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy

It seems Law Lord reverted your deletion of the "Unwanted results" section. Just great, now we really have an edit war :-/. LeonMT (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Trib Total Media move

I posted this under my message page, too, not realizing you'd never know it was there.

The company is the largest media company in Western Pennsylvania with seven daily papers, 14 weeklies, five magazines, many Web sites and more. The move signifies the company's rebranding efforts under the Trib Total Media name to reflect all of its products as one item. Given the company's attempt at creating one branding source, there wouldn't be enough content to warrant a page for each of its publications. In recent years, everything has fallen under the Trib Total Media name when referencing anything related to the newspaper company. I think it's a unique situation, unlike other regional newspaper publishing companies. --Write On 1983 (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Interesting this one didn't get spotted. It really is a bad idea to have 'anyone' editing encylopedias. Peter Damian (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"take appropriate permanent action"

If you have any suggestions on what "take appropriate permanent action" may entail I'd be happy to hear it. Until fingerprints are required for editng I don't see any "permanent" solution to sockpuppetry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Permanent" referred to blocking the IP address, not the person. My primary concern is... are we right? Is this user really Ericsaindon2, or is it someone who just made a horribly coincidental mistake? I'm sure you have more tools than I do to verify this, however if you're not 100% confident then I'd like to urge leniency on the basis that 1) we will easily be able to monitor edits coming from this IP address following the lifting of the block, and 2) it's a relatively simple matter to enact a permanent block against the IP address if the behavior persists. —  X  S  G  17:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, saying you're highly certain is enough for me. "Certain" implies 100% confidence, so the issue is over from my perspective, and thank goodness because he sure is a pain in the butt. —  X  S  G  17:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If blocking an IP would make him go away, he'd have been gone long ago. I think we've blocked about 70 IPs. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ericsaindon2. When I see an IP being used to evade a block I usually just block it for 3 days. The only times I've given long blocks (a month or longer) for evasion/sockpuppetry is when the IP appears to be fixed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. What about permanently restricting edit access to the articles in question only to editors with accounts older than three days? It seems like Eric has some sort of vested interest only in a few articles... —  X  S  G  17:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Your Trust

Will, I just wanted to apologize to you personally for abusing your trust. Read my comments here. Please carry on with some of the good things I tried to do. Once again, I am sorry. 4.240.165.59 (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

repeat in Mugabe article

Hi there, just to signal that there's a repeat in Robert Mugabe article that I'd rather not touch seeing that it needs adjustments in the text. As u've bn doing some editing of the same order even today, best signal it to you? Thanks. Basicdesign (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• pfff... First, thanks for saying about the points before the refs. Was told off a-while back for doing it, confusing. Would like to be sure... Secondly, I'm really sorry, getting lost in these edits. I can't see what's disappeared or got changed can't even reverse to before my first edit b/c others've been doing things on it, and I don't have enough free time that often either... prefer to abstain, with my apologies :-(Basicdesign (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

List of cults

How does G7 not apply? See this link where the creator of the redirect requested for it to be deleted. Cunard (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin RFAR

Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Orangemarlin. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements.. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ron and Fez

I was curious as to why you removed the "Stunts and Bets" section from the Ron and Fez article. It was fun, informative, and accurate. Everything on there was cited, true, and had happened on the show. I do not believe it is enough to edit something just because you did not like it. I did not see anything that violated wikipedia rules either. Feel free to answer me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.124.104 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Lyme disease

With all due respect (and I have a lot of respect for you), I disagree with the decision to fully protect Lyme disease. There is a clearly linked group of sock/meatpuppet agenda accounts warring to warp the article, employing personal attacks, incivility, disruption, and so forth. Wikipedia is being abused here, and administrative attention is needed to deal with the massive, abusive agenda-driven meatpuppetry. I don't think protecting the page is a step in the right direction, so I was wondering if I could ask you to reconsider. MastCell ^Talk 00:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dissapointed

WP:RETALIATION is a page that needs to be written, to highlight the perils of editors will face from time to time when involved in content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

AiV request

I've made an AiV request about the vandal. --Doug Weller (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

31 hour block.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Dice

There is a discussion about the relevancy of adding in Dice's name into the mention of Reagan's comments at Talk:Michael Reagan#Expansion of "death threats" comment. I would most likely be swayed by our input. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert: Diebold

I recently deleted a section on the Diebold page that showed they removed content from their own page. You reverted it, saying it was newsworthy. However, the article in question contains a sentence or two on it. I do not believe this is newsworth, and in fact libious. Although i cant cite policy at the moment, im very sure that for a section to be considered newsworthy, it must actually be the focus of the story. This is not. If im wrong here, please tell me so i don't make the same mistake in future. I shall wait for your reply before reverting again. Thank you! --Metagraph comment 23:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

Will, Thanks for your note. The answer is simple and I am sure you can help! Wikidās ॐ 13:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible return of Harvardlaw/David Jason Silver

Check out the recent edit history of the his favorite article and his other contributions, tell me what you think. Seems like his standard modus operandi... multiple edits done w/o preview, inclusion of info IRT Former Yugoslavia, adding redlinks in the article, IP addy in the range of that which he has used in the past.

I hate to sound like I'm being paranoid, but, knowing HOW MUCH DAMAGE the cat can do to articles if not put in check... maybe my suspicions are warranted?

Just let me know, thanks!

Supersquid (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even look at the IP geolocation. I will keep that in mind next time. I have seen his IMDB profile... something about that pic and his incessant self-aggrandizement just screams "serial rapist" in my mind. Not to be judgmental, that is. And the posts on his message board... ROFL! I don't know if I should feel pity, disgust, or embarrassment for the cat.

Supersquid (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal sandboxes

... are better kept under your talk namespace. If you want to provide sources for evaluation, do not WP:COATRACK them, and add them to existing sandbox pages for scholars or journalists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You should stop in trying to pass a personal collection of sources and careful selected "quotes" from scholars and others as a sandbox page for that article. Why don't you add these sources to /scholars and /journalism instead? Why? Uh? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you and Francis up to? Total chaos and disruption? What good is it to have two pages with the same material? What good is to to delete material that I added to the sources? Beats me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply shameful. Don't ever ask me to assume good faith on your comments, or edits. No way I or anyone else can extend you that privilege given your attitude. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What are you blaming me for this time? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusing me of edit warring, not telling Francis to stop the shenanigans, and then doing this edit [8]. Enough said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider self reverting ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am still waiting, but my patience is not endless. Please self-revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: LAPD

I removed Category:Municipal police departments of the United States from Category:Los Angeles Police Department because the LAPD category and its contents are not a subset of Municipal police departments. Yes, LAPD is a municipal department. But the contents of the LAPD category are not articles pertaining to municipal departments. Therefore, the LAPD category is not a proper subcategory of Category:Municipal police departments of the United States. An appropriate subcategory would contain a proper subset of the parent category. Wizmo (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PR bibliography

Thanks, yes I saw it. It's probably a good idea, but I'm no expert at such conversions (if you mean: automatic conversion, ie by bot). A few of them wouldn't have worked that way, like e.g. the Schnabel one I did this morning. Doing manually also allows to check & update where necessary (which of course could/should also be done after a bot operation).

Did you see I added "doubtful" at the bottom of the Raw list for those entries I'm not sure about? If you have any help there, would be welcomed! --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dandelion Luv

What did you mean by the comment on my page? I didn't say anything bad and there are references. Did you have to delete the whole thing? The whole thing couldn't have been that bad? dandelion luv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion Luv (talk • contribs) 04:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see the problem - nothing said contradicted the link you sent, IMHO. Just deleting a whole section seems pretty contrary to me. Do you do this type of thing often like the other person indicated on my discussion page? dandelion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion Luv (talk • contribs) 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Let see you applying the same standards

..for this comment: [9]

or seriously consider reading about the subject of cognitive dissonance. It is now my turn to ask you who has inhe past have commented about this type of language, to tell the editor above to refactor the obvious personal attack, and to remind her that these pages are under probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Outing

Contrary to Wiki policy against harassment (Posting another person's personal information is harassment) John Brauns continues to use "Derek" when referring to me. I have removed the references twice and WillBeback once [10] [11][12]and asked Brauns to stop doing it [13][14]. But he continues to do it [15]. Brauns has already threatened to blackmail people on Wiki [16]so this harassment is serious, deliberate and sustained. I expect the admins involved in this discussion to ban Brauns indefinitely, if not permanently.Momento (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-controversial edits

It doesn't look like there is much hope for a serious discussion of Views of Lyndon LaRouche, but if you would make the edits you called non-controversial, I would appreciate it. --Polly Hedra (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to edit protected page - Sahaja Yoga

Hi Will, under the heading of "Belgian court ruling" there are two suggestions which seem to be agreed on. One is to the introduction section and the other is an addition to the "Cult allegations" section. Could you please implement those changes? Freelion (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached. Freelion (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Will, we have two more editprotected requests which have been agreed to, if you wouldn't mind doing the changes. They are the insertion of the HRWF reference to the end of the "cult allegations" section and a rewritten version of the 3rd paragraph in "The term" section. Both of these have consensus. Freelion (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection of Illegal immigration to the United States

I have requested semi-protection for the Illegal immigration to the United States article. A question came up in the discussion on the talk page about the multiple IP addresses you reported to be owned by User:Psychohistorian. I would appreciate your input. Terjen (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian lawyer's opinion

See User_talk:Jossi#Emancipation_of_Minors ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And then read the newspaper source about what the judge said. Clearly he was assessing maturity and financial independence to grant emancipation for the purpose of marriage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Will, even if this is a chicken and egg thing, there is still the interesting premise within Colorado's higher education guidelines, fostered by the Colorado Legislative Council in 1972, stating that "the marriage of a minor results in his emancipation." [17] As an example of this put into practice, one finds Colorado State Statues Classification of Students for Tuition Purposes Title 23, Article 7, Section 103 Presumptions and rules for determination of status, (2)(j): "The marriage of a minor results in his emancipation."[18]

Although there doesn't appear to be a statutorily defined emancipation process in Colorado, I personally think Colorado Code 19-1-103 (Definitions) speaks volumes: "The term may include...any such juvenile...who is married". So that, coupled with the rules within Colorado education, would lead to the conclusion that a minor who is married is thereby considered by the State of Colorado to be emancipated. The quote from 1974 does not appear to state that the minor had to go through a petition to grant emancipation first; merely that the minor obtained a court order to allow marriage. That court order may indeed have included whatever persuasive arguments and evidence needed for the minor to secure a positive outcome from the judge - but that doesn't constitute an emancipation proclamation, especially in a state without a defined process. I would therefore conclude that your take on this is correct.

Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My autobiography

I can't wait to write one, because I am sooo going to refer to my mother as "the individual responsible mainly for my travel planning for the first 16 or so years of my life", ya, I'm sure that's the most accurate way to describe her... I might throw in that she was my personal nutritional overseer too. :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Six Sigma

Will, could I ask you to have a quick look at Six Sigma? There's an IP/new user who keeps inserting his (private, and mistaken) "Opposing viewpoint". I think I'm out of reverts. Cheers, Jayen466 17:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Six Sigma

Hope I'm doing this right...

I was not aware of the 3 reverts rule. Sorry.

I believe I am the one being frivolously edited here. Jayen has posted a mathematical absurdity and has set himself up as the ultimate authority on this topic, editing and removing content he doesn't like, but which is as legitmate as what he has posted.

Do we really need a citation to support 4th grade math?

denton (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Eric Arthur B.

I'm curious as to why I get a talk page "just to know it's official" note for inadvertently posting this guys identity on another website, yet you've seen no reason to say anything to him when he repeatedly posted my name and other personal details in the main text of a wikipedia article? More details in the response on my talk --Insider201283 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I posted a further reply re "outing" on my talk. Main point was there is nothing for "oversight" to do with regard my commentary. The discussion with knervma was in regard to a post on my blog, not wikipedia, where as part of a larger article I mentioned the EAB posts and who he was. I edited it once I was aware of the potential problem with Wikipedia rules, I never once "outed" him on this site, unlike his repeated attempts in the main Amway article. In addition I think EAB's latest post on Talk:Amway is heading into the realm of harassment. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Conservative Democrat

I find it easy to believe that the Sacramento Bee would talk about LaRouche's policy overlapping with Reagan's, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that they would say that LaRouche was "labeled an ultraconservative Democrat by some, and a nut by others." I suspect that this was an editor's personal formulation, which is why I am requesting a quote. I'm sure another, more verifiable source can be found if this one is unavailable or nonexistent. --Niels Gade (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sepulveda

Move back if you so wish. Cheers. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP

This is not the question; the bot run is removing the "Date of birth missing" cat from individuals who are unquestionably public figures, such as John Yoo. In addition, articles for individuals whose year of birth says "born ca. 1970" have also had the "Date of birth missing" cat removed. These edits were wrong and the bot operator needs to go back now, by hand, through all the edits and reverse the mistaken ones. Badagnani (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that the individual is a highly public figure and we don't know his birth date. Regardless whether you believe it should be included or not, the "Date of birth missing" cat was properly placed, and improperly removed. Further, many articles for individuals whose year of birth says "born ca. 1970" also had the "Date of birth missing" cat removed entirely, and not moved anywhere. These edits were wrong and the bot operator needs to go back now, by hand, through all the edits and reverse the mistaken ones. It's not helpful to our project to cover for a bot operator who refuses to go back and clean up after his/her mistakes; that is really unacceptable. Badagnani (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The bot operator did not move the category to the talk page, s/he blanked it. That shows a lack of initiative to actually fix problems that is unfortunately often shown by bot operators, preferring to blank a problem rather than actually fix it properly. I see that the bot operator has not gone back and fixed any of his/her mistakes (as I have rarely see any bot operator do when informed of his/her mistakes; they generally prefer to leave it to whichever non-bot operator noticed the error, and ask them to do it by hand, so that they can get on to their next bot task). Badagnani (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

I must object. You deleted this edit:[19], but you left this one intact:[20]. Please either restore my edit, or remove Cberlet's. --Polly Hedra (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking My IP Address

Um, hi, I didn't edit anything with this IP address and you blocked me, I have an account, so I use that, but I had NEVER vandalism or edited the pages that "69.224.32.79" apparently did. I think this is a mistake or someone is using my IP address. I am VERY SURE that no one uses my computer other than myself, so I think this is a mistake. Anyways, I hope that people won't like come to my house and accuse me of vandalisming on Wikipedia. Thanks. 69.224.32.79 (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)69.224.32.79

Michael Savage

Hey, good on you for spotting that last bit of silliness and removing it. Very sneaky of the guy to slip it into the middle of the quote, where I missed it! Btw, were you aware that (last year) we had somebody -- possibly Mr. Savage himself -- editing under the name MichaelSavageConservative? He terrorized several articles until I joined forces with another editor to put a stop to it. Cgingold (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sexual identities template

hi - reasoning for removing ex-gay from the navbox was at the time i figured it wasn't actually a sexual identity (more like the rejecting of a former sexual identity (gay)). I guess it could though, depending on your perspective. User529 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted ex-gay back into template per your suggestion and rv'd template back into article. also cmt'ed on template talk page. thx, User529 (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Chip Berlet

Please unprotect the page Chip Berlet and notice it for the request for deletion list. Thank you. Sorry. Just not worth the effort any longer. Nothing is changing. Waste of time.--Cberlet (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I rally appreciate your efforts, but if RFD is not a good idea, then I request that the entry be deleted, just like Dan Brandt's entry was deleted. Fair is fair. And please delete my Wikipedia user account. Been a pleasure working with you. I'm leaving.--Cberlet (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)