User talk:Will Beback/archive72

Re:Torpedo Protection

Spotted your message on the Montana-class battleship talk page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I should be able to resurrect the links by the end of the day. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the links should be working again in both the Iowa-class battleship and Montana-class battleship articles. If you still can not access the cited material please let me know though so I can try fixing the links again. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Amended complaint filed regarding Prem rawat

FYI re your Prem Rawat editing.[1]Momento (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I thread

Please note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outing.3F, related to the thread on Terrymacro's talk page. Thanks, JN466 16:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Been thinking about this since I saw this last night. I considered offering my services again. I realise that last year's mediation didn't quite go to plan, but I've learnt a lot since then, and as a mediator, I don't think anyone else would know the subject better than me. What's your thoughts? Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Steve Crossin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied again. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bohemian Club members category for deletion

I mentioned you in the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_4#Category:Bohemian_Club_members. I invite you to add your views regarding whether the category deserves a Keep or a Delete. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Your input might be helpful here. Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

JFK assassination

Can I solicit your opinion in an editing debate: Text: John_F._Kennedy_assassination#Assassination. Debate: Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination#Jackie_Kennedy_and_climbing_onto_limousine. — Walloon (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		In recognition of the undoubted integrity, conscientiousness and fundamental goodwill of an editor I have often disagreed with. JN466 12:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

Hi. I have been working on the Harold Pinter article (you previously commented on the proposed ban of NYScholar from that article). If you are interested in the article or willing to help out, your input would be most welcome. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I've been trying to put the references into a more typical Wikipedia style, which has been a big job. Also, I have been trying to reduce redundancy, overlinking and the other problems with the article that have been identified in the past. I have gone through the entire article once, and made a lot of changes, and done some minor reorganization. If you look at NYScholar's talk page, he is basically disagreeing with everything I am doing. So, I would be pleased if you would review (at least some of) the article. Feel free to do some copy editing, and you think the changes have helped the readability of the text and the usefulness of the footnotes, I'd appreciate some positive feedback on the Harold Pinter talk page. On the other hand, feel free to suggest a different editing strategy. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

hi Will, you might remember me. In around april you sent me a message with some very useful links in it. It has helped me greatly with getting to grips with using Wikipedia. Thanks. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Will u adopt me?--TheCommunityWave (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

me too, please.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to be adopted as well.--The Fat Man Who Left but Returned a Short While Later (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is some background you might not have seen and should be aware of; the user in question has and did removed sourced content that consensus has continually re-inserted after its removal, he/she deleted sourced material, deleted sources and reinserted content that we decided to remove on the talk page. All of this was done without a word of discussion, this is not the first time this was done. With that in mind I am totally confident in classifying that edit as vandalism. - Schrandit (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi Will! You said I haven't looked into Promethean's allegations, but I can report simialr behavior. I participated in a discussion about content created by Thekohser during or prior to his ban. Upon your further comments, I now see that I was misreading your statement: the discussion was after the ban was lifted. If I may give feedback on your presentation, when you said "I haven't looking into Promethean's allegations", my attention decreased a notch, and when "prior to his ban" appeared, you lost me. Sorry for that. Nonetheless, Sandstein is exactly correct that this matter can't be resolved at WP:AE. Feel free to address issues directly to ArbCom. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of X Committee

The problem with the "X Committee" material is that there are no secondary sources referencing it. LaRouche has a million ideas, but unless they've been reported in secondary sources then there's no indication that they're notable. The Views of Lyndon LaRouche article has been a dumping ground for merging in articles on some of these minor ideas. That's kept clutter off the overall encyclopedia, but it's resulted in an incoherent and poorly sourced article. If there are any secondary sources available for this material then please add them. If none can be found I'll delete the section and the redirect.   Will Beback  talk  17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading about it in a fairly obscure French-language newsletter. [2] There are also various second-hand sources in English that talk about a similar organization. [3] [4] [5] ADM (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Sculleywr

I am unsure which edits you were talking about. I have only been able to log in occasionally due to difficulty getting internet access until just recently. Since it isn't on the article I spend the most time on (I checked the revision history on Audism), I don't know which you are talking about. If you could provide a link to which one's you were referring to, I would be better able to revise my methods, since I am still getting used to the Wikipedia system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sculleywr (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Why was I blocked indefinitely by admins who don't know about the context of what just happened? My block should be reduced from indefinite to like 6 months, a time in which I can heal. My latest block happened after I inhaled too much Spray Fixative during a phase where I was still dealing with evil done unto me by some evil ****. I feel better now, the spray effects are completely gone, but I'm still dealing with some past events from 2007. I guess that's how it works, abusive evil people abuse me (off of this website, at another website), make me go almost crazy, I come back to Wikipedia to work it out, but what they did to me was so horrible that more than a year later I had some outburts and p-attacked some editors. I would like my block reduced in the future because I was abused by evil people and I use this website to improve the information and also to heal. 76.208.174.243 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. However you don't say which account was blocked. Do you remember the account name?   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It was User:Alex contributing. A 6 month block does seem warranted, even a year, but not idefinitely. At User talk:Dahn#What happened I explain some more about what happened, and even Dahn at my talk page acknowledged that the Spray inhalation was the last straw that made me literally flip out. I know I need therapy after the way I was abused, but I mostly avoid therapy and I try to do it myself by taking walks, editing Wikipedia, and all my other hobbies. I can link more of the information relating to this latest block like the entry at WP:ANI; User talk:Alex contributing and that secton at User talk:Dahn shows how the stress and madness built up and exploded. I wouldn't have been so irritable if some maniacs hadn't abused me in 2007 and almost drove me to suicide. I did get a lot better in the past year (mid 2008-mid 2009), and I will get even better as more time elapses from 2007. 76.208.174.243 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't even care about the argument that set it off anymore, it was about some categories. Now that weeks have gone by, that was not even really about the categories, just a build up of stress and poison, topped off by an accidental spray inhalation. I was abused by nutcases in myspace (they used various profiles to attack me) in 2007 and they almost drove me crazy, and this outburst over the categories shows that they did abuse me a lot, but I'm getting over it. You know, a girl **** was driven to suicide by maniacs in myspace, and that's what they tried to do to me in 2007, so you can imagine that I have a lot of stress and rage, but I was doing very well and being productive and then I flipped out. But indefinitely blocking me when I'm trying to improve and am willing to listen and listen, and I really want to continue to contribute positively as I have been aside from when I flipped out in late June? 76.208.174.243 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking for admins to consider reducing/defining my ban to one year. Or should I just come back in 6 months and ask for a reconsideration? It should be taken into consideration that my previous ban was not because of an attack on any person: last time I was banned I was banned for disruptive edit summaries which were unconnected to any editor, I was expressing a distaste back then in July 2006 for my experience with Wikipedia. A look at what happened in July 2006 verifies that, you can look at Admin noticeboards from back then and no one was being attacked. This latest ban was because of PA's against specific editors (see User talk:Alex contributing), I slung terms at them because I just had to relieve some of my hurt, including physical hurt from the nasty spray that came my way. It was nightmare, just too much at once.[Special:Contributions/76.208.174.243|76.208.174.243]] (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear of your difficulties. It sounds like you may still be working through issues and I wish you well. Wikipedia is not therapy though, so it'd be better to get it out of your system for a while before coming back. If Wiki-ing is just irresistible, you might consider working on one of the sister projects for a while, like Simple English, Romanian, or Wikiquote. Solid, unproblematic work in one of those would be persuasive here. If you stay away for six months (no socking), I'll put in a good word for you in a request for an unblock.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I won't start another account, but I may edit with IPs occasionally. I can't write in Romanian with any ease, I was brought to the U.S. when I was a one year old (Charles Bukowski was brought to the U.S. when he was 4 years old), and I only taught myself (with a little help from others) to read Romanian better in my teens. I can read Romanian well now and I speak Romanian fairly well but I can't write in Romanian without help from someone with native Romanian writing skills, Romanian has a complex grammar having retained a complex grammar from Latin, while Italian, French etc. have simpler inflections. Simple English is no fun. So I may be at the English Wiktionary sometimes, where I have an account. Alright, thanks, and later on. 76.208.174.243 (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

By "socking" I mean evading your ban. Any IP that's identifiably "you" is blockable. Just go away for awhile. Maybe in six months Wikipedia will seem irrelevant.   Will Beback  talk  09:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can leave just yet. It's like I feel the need to wrap things up here. Maybe in 6 months Wikipedia will be irrelevant to me, and I will have moved on. I erased the name of that girl who was harassed and driven to suicide, because I don't want to see that. If I had never used Wikipedia or MySpace, I probably would've been a lot healthier. At least Wikipedia is safer than MySpace, we have so many Admins here on watch. Later, take care, I won't be using Wiki much anonymously and I won't start a new account. 76.208.170.29 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Just dropping you a note to say I fixed a link you left. I hope you don't mind. As for the topic at hand, I think it's been a long time in coming. There have been a number of AN/I sections, but nothing has ever been done. The WP:TE has been going on for months. Enigma^msg 22:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Mark Ellmore

Hello Will Beback, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Mark Ellmore has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - although failed candidates are often non-notable, this one appears to be based on national coverage of his run including this interview in CA: http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/60782)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 00:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism

I'm very new to wikipedia and am writing you because I got your "welcome" message after posting edits on the entry on Aesthetic Realism. My edits were undone twice within a couple of hours, accompanied by very nasty remarks.

I do not want to get into a name-calling or editing war online.

Can I ask you a technical question? Are you not supposed to link to an external site in the first paragraph? That was one of the objections, which is fine if that is the rule...however, I felt it was just wrong to link to a site which says Aesthetic Realism is a cult as the very first link in the article! I also tried to clean up someone's very sloppy paraphrase in the bulleted principles as well as adding some external links (objected to as "advertising"). Yikes. I would like to know how to proceed without getting into an online war. Do I give my reasoning for my edits on the discussion page? Thanks for any advice or links about disputes which you can pass on. LoreMariano 03:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your speedy reply. It looks much better. Would it be appropriate to link to the foundation's website as a reference in this sentence: "The philosophy is taught at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation [create link] in New York City." That would then be the first link in the entry, not the POV link. Thanks again for your help. LoreMariano 17:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

Thanks for adding the first reference link. When you get a chance, can you please check my most recent edit? I changed the opening principles so that they are a direct quote. I tried to use the block quote style but had problems dividing the 3 points so I instead used something that looks like a block quote (::). My concern is that I don't want it to be paraphrased again. As I previously noted, the original paraphrase was sloppy; then a second paraphrase was entered which was even worse than the first. In my reasons for editing, I quoted the format you stated, ie, entity should first be described in terms it would use for itself. I also added a citation. Thank you. LoreMariano 17:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

My changes were blocked again, on the basis that there are "absolutely" no quotes allowed in opening. I viewed one in the entry on existentialism. The edited paraphrase does not accurately reflect the principles. It is not how the entity would describe them and it is not right that a person with a POV can make up a definition and change it to suit himself. I am feeling very frustrated. Please tell me how to escalate this. I don't want to go back and forth with edits. LoreMariano 03:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

Got your message re: okay to use quote but secondary source is better. But what about my problem that every time I make the change, it is undone? Where will it lead? My change will just continue to be undone. Thanks for all the links, they're really helpful. LoreMariano 17:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the information about consensus. I will start a thread later this week after I've had time to read WP:Con page + links.

Here is a really stupid question: Why are all my comments signed "preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMarian"? Why isn't it just showing the date stamp/sig? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs) 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, signing with 4 tildes. LoreMariano 19:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

I think restoring preferences worked. Thank you. LoreMariano (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Kludgey appearance: can you please look at my latest post (very bottom of talk page) and tell me why Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, is not formatting correctly in the saved view? The italics are skipping over the word "Criticism" and italicizing part of the next phrase. Thanks. LoreMariano (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will. I'm fine with calling the 2 RfCs a done deal. I thought the editors who looked at the style page might have more specialized knowledge as to lead formatting but I gather from your comment that's not true. I'm not sure what to do next. I think the whole push to have a concise opening is so that people can get to the second and third paragraphs as soon as possible. My 2-paragraph prose attempt clearly falls into Wikipedia guidelines but it was rejected. I still maintain that the "allegations of cult" para should go under a category called Criticism. That is also a Wikipedia standard. To say the article's integrity needs to be protected is hard to swallow as the article so clearly lacks cohesion throughout. Well, anyway, we're basically at a stalemate. Is there some kind of note that can be put at the top of the article that says this is a controversial article? Thanks for any advice. LoreMariano (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to a philosophy article (or articles) drawn from secondary sources so that I can better understand what the aim is. I am troubled by the equation Wikipedia seems to make of a secondary source being a "good" source. I can point to good and bad secondary sources, just because they're secondary doesn't make them reliable. The most important thing is what the purpose is, to see a thing truly or twist it to suit oneself. I really don't want to stubbify the article and start from scratch, let's just get through the opening and leave it for now. It would be a full time job to start over. LoreMariano (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Error

Sorry it was an error in the typing, it should have said "shouldn't have post WWII" . On the talk just about every message says that a list of terrorist groups from after WWII should not feature in the same list as WWII resistence movements, thus rendering it a pointless article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Victorville, California notable residents

Will: Could I get your administrator input on this? User:Hawarren insists on adding what I consider to be non-notables, such as a local high school coach "who is the winningest High School Basketball Coach in San Bernadino County and SCIBCA Hall of Fame member." I have been reverted several times by this user and do not wish to get in a revert war with him. Thanks a million for any help you can give me. --Manway (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Appreciate you looking in. --Manway (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Humour

You are right of course WILL - it's this confounded flu I think. My apologies The7thdr (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi ... a question on a subject you've considered generally. A baseball player is mentioned as being Jewish in three different articles, one by a senior editor for the primary publication for major league baseball. Jewish refers (as Wikipedia tells us) not only to a religion, but to the Jewish people/nation/ethnicity. An editor deletes the material, citing to WP:BLPCAT, saying that because none of the articles quote him as saying he is Jewish, he cannot be listed as such. But [6] suggests that no such quote is needed, and the three citations should be enough. Thoughts?--Ethelh (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, its not resolved ... it just resulted in edit warring and an ANI complaint by the editor in question (see [7]). The editor maintains that the BLPCAT guidance supports his deleting text in the body, that is supported by the indicated citations.--Ethelh (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment about me

You commented on the AN/I thread: In a quick glance, I see that he appears to be promoting a pro-Russian POV. For example: rv - this is georgian and american opinion, not the truth, and we have agreed not to include this kind of blame game stuff in the lead.

I disagree with your assessment about me. I'm not here to promote anything. I try to help where I can and create new content and improve readability of articles. I also try to make articles neutral. This includes "fixing bias", especially in Russia-related articles, where there often is a lot of it (maybe reflecting the bias of anglophone media, which is heavily used as a source in WP, or the bias of the editors themselves.) I am confident that most of my edits have been for the better, although I do make mistakes (like edit warring). You mentioned this edit[8] as an "example." But the edit can be explained: we have indeed made an agreement on the talk page of that article not to include any "blame game" stuff in the lead (you can ask there if you don't believe me), and only use 100% sure facts which everyone can agree with. This is because adding blame game material (such as Russia's or Georgia's opinion on who is responsible for the war, etc.) would open Pandora's box and every editor will start inserting more POV-stuff in the intro, which would lead to edit wars. Offliner (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not responding? You made an accusation against me, so I think you should. Offliner (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

First Thanks for cleaning the writing up and i will use the talk page more in the future, i do own the rights to the photo i was the one who took the photo its on there site for i uploaded it on there photo book. Thanks Philip14 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians

Hello! Please could you have a look at Ancient Macedonians and my edits in the last few days? My edits have been slight, moderate and have not changed the content of the article. I made them for cleaning-up reasons and I just rewrite small parts in order to be more accurate to the sources provided. For one more time User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, who happens to be an administrator, started an edit war at the beginning without any obvious reason and after that he put a pov tag. It always happens in articles that he patronizes and are of special interest for the Greek community in wikipedia. Even if there is not any other objection, he acts like he owns the articles, preventing members from editing. His actions are stamped from his strong anti-Greek position which has caused a lot of troubles, and I am one of the (several) editors who always have problems with him. Please I need your help because I'm one step from leaving wikipedia, like many others have done in the past because of him. I don't know what I should do. - Sthenel (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A discussion has been started since yesterday in the talk page of the article and the general idea it's that the article should be improved but nobody says that a POV-tag is justified. I want to remove it but I'm sure my edit will be reverted soon. What about my edit in the Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia and the immediate eversion by the same administrator? See also his excuse. Is it another pure, unselfish and totally reasonable action of such an experienced user? - Sthenel (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The introduction of the article was "Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia are a minority population in the northern part of Greece." I changed it to "Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia are a population group in the northern part of Greece" because the majority of them identifies as Greeks, most articles about linguistic or religious minorities do not use this term referring to them, and this is too provocative since FYROM wants to name them as a Macedonian minority in Greece. FP reverted it and insists on minority population. - Sthenel (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I told you exactly what happened. If you don't have time it's OK. - Sthenel (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read everything in your comments but I haven't understood what you are waiting for. In the ancient Macedonians, I told you that I'd like to remove the pov-tag, but this is gonna result in another conflict between me and FP. For the second article I wrote above the change I made and what his reaction was. It's so simple. - Sthenel (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! bb! - Sthenel (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anwar Robinson

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Anwar Robinson. 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/Anwar Robinson. 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) 02:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Support?

Do you support this non consensus large deletion of content?(156.34.45.217 (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC))Sorry OJ material.(Olive... can't log in here)

Thanks for your reply. I posted here feeling the question was off the "topic line" on the talk page.(olive (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

Bishzilla

Given that it was disclosed at the outset - the Deleted revision of User:Bishzilla (as of 25 October 2006, at 03:11) by Bishzilla states: This is an alternative account of Bishonen. and given that Bishonen had her Admin rights transferred to Bishzilla for some time, I'm thinking you'd have to be fairly dense indeed to not know Bishzilla is Bishonen. Its not even remotely an "undisclosed sock". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Good edit[9] at least others won't fall prey to the same misunderstanding I had. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are wrong; I think you were wrong and obnoxious to object to Bishzilla and Lady de Burgh in the first place; and I think ArbCom should tell you so, if necessary. I trust that position appears coherent. With luck, ArbCom will also clear up the wording of the Privatemusings case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, abusive socks are a large problem. Bishzilla and any non-abusive alt accountw which are just editing are diversions from that problem. As for which would have to be corrected: probably both. Policy should not quote ArbCom, just as ArbCom should not set policy; but when it does, disputing the policy will provoke the (vacuous) response "but Arbcom said so". Therefore both ends need to be fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ridgecrest, California article

If you want the Ridgecrest, California article to be a B=class article then add back all of the stuff you and others deleted. Another thing, Don’t come to me trying to be my friend sending me a welcome message. What go's around comes around, 5 times worse. --71.105.39.114 (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

The IP editor above put up a new AN section involving you, FYI. Obviously I've commented there. I don't know the full backstory here and it's a bit difficult to see exactly what's going on in terms of the disputed content, but probably you should not have protected since this seems to be at least partially a content dispute rather than pure vandalism (even if you're 100% right about the content issues). Maybe I'm missing something though and regardless you should probably weigh in at AN. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for taking off the Semi-protection on the Ridgecrest, California article. You did the right thing, Because I don’t think its far for the other IP address... Just because we been having a dispute. I want others to be able to edit it. --71.105.39.45 (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Username

I would make a user name but, I cant, because a user on here will think I am a block user. HERE is a good example. Look what User:Synchronism put. O yea. User:Montpelier Vermont put it as resolved and then User:Synchronism Undid it. SEEN HERE I never made a user name and I am not a block user. --71.105.181.222 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Proxies

If User:209.44.123.1 is an open proxy, then it should be blocked indef instead of just for 24 hours. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I thought you were just blocking and walking away. If you will revisit after a checkuser or whatever is put into play, then that works. Have a chat with Luna Santin, he is a checkuser and does pretty quick work. Should be online sometime soon or on IRC. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If we're checking for proxies, also check the 95.154.214.0/28 range. It was rangeblocked for a month because Michael was using it, but the block will soon expire. Shubinator (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jules Eichorn

Thank you for the positive feedback abut the Jules Eichorn article. This is my 2nd article, so I have a lot to learn. Would you be able to help me learn about more attractive formatting, and also about adding images to articles?Cullen328 (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the additional suggestions, which I am incorporating. I do have a photo of Jules Eichorn that I took on a Sierra Club mountaineering trip in about 1978, but now I have to dig it up. I also have some photos I've taken of the Minarets. I am thinking of contacting some of his friends in the Loma Preita chapter of the Sierra Club for other photos.Cullen328 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Blogs

Does Wikipedia have a "no rule" towards blogs? Because on my main edit page, United States House of Representatives elections, 2010, I sometimes pick up sources from blogs announcing a candidate has decided to run. No one has ever reverted me. For example, would the CNN Political Ticker or Glenn Thrush's Politico Blog be considered legitimate sources? BrianY (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for many other pages. Many users know policy. So what you are saying is even if the only sources that pick up information are blogs (sometimes that is true for more minor candidates running) we still can't include them in articles? We have a habit of including minor and major candidates in the US Senate and House pages, but we can't source them if they from blogs? Or on biography articles when they announce their intent? (sometimes it is only picked up by blogs in the relevant area, such as Virginia for Ellmore) That makes no sense at all. BrianY (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So...if someone makes a statement of candidacy for an election (National news rarely cover House races this early in the cycle) it is ideal to use one's own blog announcing the run rather than another announcing it? BrianY (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No they aren't. Take this for example. Do you see primary election results from District 2? John Jacobson] lost to Jeff Morris in the DEM primary by 170 votes. Is his name included on Wikipedia? No. And he did have news surrounding his campaign: [10] There are others. So, in response to your comment, minor candidates are not always included in the election results. BrianY (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added the book Ellmore wrote. Is Amazon or Ebay an adequate reference to link to? I don't think so. But I can't find any other sources for the book expect his main website. (which is an external link) BrianY (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Clitoral damage?

Until I read that, I was holding out some hope...now...not so much. Good call! It does warm the cockles of my jaded heart to turn around a problem user though. Hope springs eternal, or something... Keep up the good work Will. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

hahah. It was funny without context, and funnier with it. tedder (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

China Youth Daily

Ju Hui (鞠辉) - China Youth Daily American Journalist. Jim101 (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind, in fact I'm trying to find a way to clean that place out. Jim101 (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

现行的世界金融体系已经无可救药 - The Current World Finacial System is Unsalvageable. You can swap the word current with present. As for the word Unsavlageable, it is a keyword in the article, thus I have to keep it consistent. Jim101 (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Realist Think-tanks

The sources? The sources are the think-tanks themselves. Some describe themselves as realist, in others much of its staff considers itself realist. - MiguelNS 3 August 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

Civility is a requirement

Please have a look at WP:NPA, where it describes various forms of personal attacks, including Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. In light of this, I'd like to request that you stop referring to other editors as "LaRouche accounts." And please don't try to justify this behavior with allegations of sockpuppetry, unless you are prepared to provide credible evidence. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging my attempt to solve the problem. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your inquiry

Replied. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

quick FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maelefique#Rumiton --Maelefique ^(talk) 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RS/N thread

Please have a look whether this summary is okay. Thanks. --JN466 19:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Block

Hi Will. I am hoping you can help it seems both my ip (which I have obviously changed) and my "matriarchal" account - have been blocked by the admin below for the reasons stated:

You have been blocked for continued edit warring on the TM article after being warned. Plus your account is only three days old and you're already making threats and and personal attacks. Use this 72 hours to figure out how to edit constructively in a consensus based environment. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was never "warned" and I am struggling to see the personal attacks - except those made to me repeatedly. You are also aware, I think, that edit waring was being done by the others - and the original edit was done as part of the being bold editing process. The removal of the primary sources was of course correct under med referencing guidelines, the users were told in advance and the person really involved in the edit war agreed with their removal!!.

I suspect, that the admin in question has not even bothered to read the page - they certainly didn't notice an admin around or the the page was being monitored as part of informal arbitration, or that LB is my second login!

Anyway, I was hoping - if of course you agree with me - that you might have a "whisper in their ear like" and explain the background of the situation.

I think, as can be clearly seen how, without trying, I can circumnavigate the IP ban, that if I had wished to truly be a "disruptive influence" it would not be very difficult.

Anyway, if you think it is worth pursuing on my behalf please do and if not, well at least it may get them doing something constructive with the article.

During the "ban" I will not - although I easily could, do anymore editing - indeed I may simply not bother fullstop.

Namaste The7thdr (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly impressed by the utter absurdity of this ban. How is it that the disruptive members of the TM Cabal escape this treatment. How is it that olive still manages to post on the TM articles despite the decisions at COI? How is it that the new sockpuppet/meatpuppet 76.76 from beautiful downtown Fairfield comes into an article cold and starts reverting repeatedly? I could go on, but I won't.Fladrif (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Its the7thdr

Sorry, due to an error in the template that i used that admin has now banned the7thdr. I will only be able to respond briefly on this user account —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyouandhim (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Herchel socks

Go ahead and send me any pertinent info; a SPI might be appropriate, but I'll duck test as appropriate... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Betsy McCaughey

Will, I hate to bother a busy guy, but would you care to offer your perspective on the discussion at Talk:Betsy McCaughey? I've never known you to be shy about telling me when you think I am wrong, so I'd really like input on the issues discussed at that talk page. Am I off the reservation on this one? Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Confederate entry in Wikipedia

I see that you let a neo-Confederate nearly rewrite the entry from a neo-Confederate point of view. Yes, Liz Michaels is sympathetic to neo-Confederacy, even is she isn't actually one. I have seen her here and there online.

I spent a fair amount of time digging up sources and footnoting them for this entry. I see there is no editorial responsibility in Wikipedia. I won't be making any further edits.

HOWEVER, I do think parents should be warned that white nationalists write a lot of Wikipedia and that their children will be subjected to white nationalists propaganda, and that Wikipedia doesn't care whether white nationalists use Wikipedia as a vehicle for their agenda. Parents who are concerned that their children aren't subject to being propagandized by white nationalists should avoid Wikipedia.

I am sure the management of Wikipedia will make some commentary denying it, but I don't think it will be very convincing. The comedy paper, "The Onion," has already done a comedy piece on Wikipedia and its inaccuracies. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

I can only imagine what the contents for the entry for President Obama contain. Does Wikipedia have him born in Kenya? Does Wikipedia claim that he is Muslim.

I have printed out versions of the Wikipedia entry for neo-Confederate over the years and the slanderous Ed Sebesta page which I think documents very well what goes on in Wikipedia.

Other historians have notices some of the Wikipedia entrys related to the Confederacy are written by neo-Confederates.

Newtknight (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the OP, there needs to be some watch into articles that attract fringe believes, or people "of the cause" trying to edit their page themselves, skewing it in their own favor. We've seen it happen with The Political Cesspool, and Stormfront. Feel free to watch the CofCC, Amren, White Separatism, White Nationalism pages as well if you want. Rock8591 (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Newtknight (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I am not going to monitor anything. I spent a lot of time on Neo-Confederacy, and the page is now junk. I think the thing to do is to warn people that white supremacist write a lot of Wikipedia and Wikipedia is negligent about doing anything about it.

TM articles - 76.76 and olive

I've taken up the anon IP editor from Fairfield [11]as well as olive [12]at COIN. I'm convinced that 76.76 has to be a TM-org employee, and is probably a sockpuppet as well, but (i) I don't really know how to put together a SPI complaint, and (ii) I'm not sure who 76.76 is a sockpuppet of - though timidguy is my best guess. I wasn't going to bother further about olive at COIN until she threatened you on my talk page. That changed my mind.Fladrif (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif. Will is an experienced admin., who knows very well all about what he should and should not do on an article. Nothing I said can be news to him or threatening. The information I gave was for you since you seem to misunderstand the influence admins have and where they can operate.(olive (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

My understanding was that a ban on my editing would have to come from arbitration. I am not waving this in anybodies face, I'm just trying to address your comments with my understanding, wrong or right.(olive (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Communist media

Practicing what I preach, I just used a report from a PRC newspaper in an aticle- [13]. Cla68 (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You are consistent. Though I wonder why you identify it as "PRC media" rather than by name. Why is that? Would that be an appropriate characterization of the source for other articles too? IIRC, HK's accounts were strongly opposed to linking the paper to the Communist Party because that would be "red baiting". Is he right - are you red baiting or are you giving a reasonable description of the source to inform readers?   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This makes it fairly clear that that source is a state-controlled media outlet. It's a reliable source, but it's also tied to the Communist government, exactly how much, however, is probably open to debate. Again, it's up to the reader to decide on their own how true the information is after seeing what the source is. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Note about categories

Thanks for your feedback about my insertion of tags into certain categories. I left you a reply on my talk page. -shirulashem^(talk) 13:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Loretta Sanchez blogs

The fact that a public figure is subject of persistent rumors, which affect her career is a significant piece of information. Your ham-handed application of the blog rule is intellectually dishonest, inconsistent and irresponsible. By deleting my edit to the Sanchez page you have made a serious logical error. I did not assert an opinion about Sanchez or about her alleged adultery with Mr. Einwechter. Rather, I asserted that she has been the subject of persistent rumors on that point and my cited source materials clearly demonstrate the truth of that fact. Moreover, not all blogs are created equal, and the sources cited by me contain better source material and intrinsically important facts than the so-called "mainstream media." How many times have the New York Times and CBS News been exposed as total frauds? The point of the Latinopoliticsblog story, which is based on verifiable facts, is that there are serious substantiated allegations against Sanchez. How can that be an inferior source to TMZ, for example? The TMZ sources cited in the Sanchez article pose questions about Sanchez's use of drugs or alcohol and a possible illicit relationship with Hefner. Yet you allow those to stand. On what grounds? NOT THAT THEY ARE TRUE! Rather, the fact of her appearance in the media, even as an object of ridicule by TMZ, is the fact which you allow. My point is that she is also the object of serious allegations, which she has refused to talk to the media about. That is a fact and you should not suppress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4GRANTED (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rep. Sanchez allegations are TRUE

By the way, Beback, the widespread and persistent allegations about Sanchez and her adultery are completely true. I have direct personal knowledge, but I can't really cite myself, can I? (Although I really don't know why not, given the informality of the Wikipedia knowledge base.) Sanchez hasn't, won't and can't sue anyone for libel about the adultery allegations (which are just as egregious as those made recently against Gov. Sanford and SEN Ensign) because they are true. That's also why she refuses to talk to the media--blogs and "mainstream." So, you aid and abet her cover up by refusing to even acknowledge that the allegations exist. That is a mockery of even Wiki-credibility. Shame on you and the rest of the censors. You have no integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4GRANTED (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

UserCompare

Your access key for the usercompare tool has been set, enjoy and please dont do anything stupid like compare Cydebot and Clue Bot. ♀ β^_command 00:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Posting Name

Now who isn't practicing censorship and hiding behind anonymity, cynic. Once someone finds out who you are your whole pretense at neutrality and lacking your own non NPOV becomes transparent and gets blown away. RichardBond (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem

Your veiled assumptions that I am in some way COI at WP:Paid are uncivil and, of course, unwelcome. I think you'd be quite surprised at what I actually think on the issues but I hope you'll allow the page to be accurate and discussion kept on contributions not contributors. Injecting our own POV to declare all paid editors are COI is just as unhelpful as declaring all green animals as lizards; it's certainly not accurate, it's unhelpful and evidently unproductive. -- Banjeboi 00:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cult

Hi Will. Working on various pages about religious movements I stumbled on Cult and I was suprised at the bad state in which it was. It has serious POV problems since it unquestioningly adopts the popular negative definition of the term and the sociological viewpoint on the topic has largely been relegated to the spinoff article New Religious Movement (in my opinion a POV fork). It also has serious issues with coherence, style, tone and referencing. Reading the archive I realized that these things had been discussed before and that you had shown an interest in the article. In order to improve the problems with the article I am trying to invite all editors who have previously edited the article or otherwise shown interest in the topic to come to Talk:Cult and discuss how we can best improve the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Informal Mediation of LaRouche movement articles

Hello, in response to a mediation request I've opened up a topic here, your input is appreciated. Thanks! -- Atama^chat 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tender heart

Vis-a-vis your three edits to Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills). You're too tender-hearted, you just don't want to see people die. Heh, heh. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

David Orme Johnson

Interested to see you have created an article on David Orme Johnson. --BwB (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Osho tendentious

Hi Will, if you have time, please cast an eye over said article, editors ignoring WP:RS verdict and also removing material they deem too critical of subject, this editing is upsetting the POV balance we arrived at after considerable effort.Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will, have refactored proposal text. Would like to move to next stage of dispute resolution if still unacceptable. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the input nonetheless. best. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Norman Clyde

Will, I see that you are taking a break, so respond when you are back at Wikipedia. Beautiful mountain photos on your user page, by the way, especially Bear Creek Spire, which was one of Norman Clyde's favorites. I see that you commented on the Norman Clyde article in 2006. I am planning to correct, revise and expand the Clyde article. Your suggestions and feedback would be welcomed. By the way, you motivated me to add a photo I took to the article on Arlene Blum. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made significant changes to the Norman Clyde article and have also written an article on Allen Steck. Feedback would be appreciated. Jim Heaphy (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

RE: [14] Thanks for updating this editor. Have a great week. Ikip (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat material

I noticed you added the Category:Prem Rawat to the NRM work group page. Generally, I think the NRM group would leave the bulk of the content of any subject which is already within the scope of another group to that other group, maybe just including the main articles. Would you advocate that the NRM group also cover all the material related to the subject? If so, I will go ahead and tag all the relevant articles when I get to that category. Also, would the Prem Rawat project like its own banner, or would it maybe want to use the existing Religion banner? If the latter, I think I can do the adjustments, but would want approval from the PR group in advance. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't necessarily misplaced. I'm guessing you do want the NRM group to include this subject as well, which is fine, particularly if you hope that the Prem group becomes inactive after a bit when the work of the mediation is done. If you do think that the Prem project would want to use the Religion banner, there probably should be some sort of image added, just to help get attention to the project link in the banner. File:Prem Rawat 2007 cropped.jpg seems to be eligible for use, if you want that. And I could make sure to tag all the relevant articles for both groups, thus allowing article alerts to work and maybe the recent changes function as well. John Carter (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I can tag all the articles for the NRM group, and actually intended to; I just hadn't alphabetically gotten there yet. If the Prem group doesn't want attention, I can well understand that. I can try to see if I can set up the banner to do dual work for both groups while listing only one on the banner. It isn't something I've tried before, so I don't know how well it will work, but I can try tomorrow. If it does work, I'll do the setup that way. And I do think having at least the recent changes function available to the Prem group would probably be a good idea in any event, so that no outsider could try to ruin things for the discussion while they're still trying to reach an acceptable answer. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Paid editing alternative

I noticed you recently edited WP:Paid. Did you see WP:Paid editing/Alternative text which I think is the home of those wanting stronger language for a proposed policy? See WT:Paid editing#Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text and WT:Paid editing#Related discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I will also invite you to edit WP:Paid editing/Alternative text. There's no rule that I know of that would prevent you from editing both versions. It is more pleasant to edit something without constant reversions. I ask that everybody follow a WP:1RR rule on the Alternative text page. Smallbones (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck.

Your return to the page would be welcome; the amount of conflict is increasing, and since you already showed support for the material, another voice would be helpful. ThuranX (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder

Thanks, I hope I didn't overlook anything else. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

David Thorstad

So is the article properly sources now? Can we take off the no reference tag?--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Anonymity

I appreciate your suggestion to not pester other users about their identity, but the Aesthetic Realists are special case, since they have insulted former members up and down the street on their "Countering the Lies" [sic] website for choosing to be anonymous. It's intensely hypocritical for them to do that and then come here and edit anonymously. When they pull that kind of crap I certainly intend to call them on it. MichaelBluejay (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AllStarEcho_restricted

As you participated at the above discussion, this is to let you know I've proposed an alternate wording (for reasons stated there). However, it is essentially the same proposal. If you have any objections to it, please note them down. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for David Orme-Johnson

On August 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Orme-Johnson, 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) 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.

NW (Talk) 23:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava

If you have to deal with Ottava on a regular basis you truly have my condolences. There's no getting through to some people, even when you're on their side. --GoRight (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

[15]. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI 2

[16] Cool Hand Luke 17:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:PAID

Will, I think that the roadblock on progress at WP:Paid editing has been removed. The topic is still very important, and I'd love to get the proposed policy back on track. If you ever wanted to add something there, but haven't been able to, now is a good time to do it. Thanks for any input. Smallbones (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation Crossroads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Crossroads#Wilson_cloud

HowardMorland (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE thread

I have started an AE thread on your recent edits to Prem Rawat here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Will_Beback. JN466 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)