User talk:Will Beback/archive72

fyi

Goin' on a little trip (see my homepage for details if ya care!), and won't be back till near the end of the month, I would really like to participate on the discussion of Collier and I hope that it doesn't start/finish without me. I recently acquired my own copy of Soul Rush, which I will be re-reading while I'm away. This didn't seem like the kind of thing to put on a PR talkpage anywhere, so I thought I'd stick it here. Looking forward to thousands of new words to read when I get back (Even if most of them are re-hashed old arguments) Ciao! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

John Hagelin rewrite

Hi Will. The discussion on the John Hagelin rewrite [1] seems to be drawing to a close if you would care to post a comment on your position one way or the other. (olive (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

User:Iwillremembermypassthistime

Hi! Please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iwillremembermypassthistime. Could you help? Thank you! - Sthenel (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right

Edit warring is wrong. Next time I want to edit that template, I'll open a discussion first. Sounds good?--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Roy Frankhouser

On October 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roy Frankhouser, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

An edit war abrew...

Would you lend a hand with Battle of Konotop? There is edit warrior amok...Galassi (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will Beback! I left a comment on WP:3RRV about this edit-war. What do you think? Andi 3ö (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to dispute your decision about the article, but I seriously doubt any compromise is possible with User:Voyeovoda. This is not the firt instance of edit warring and blocking. You just have to see that no discussion was happening at all before 3rd or 4th revert. He is not getting the message. In addition this user was recruiting help at Russian WP to help him wage revert wars here, you can see diffs at his user talk page. Over the last month and numerous reverts, there has been made virtually no progress whatsoever. I cannot dare to predict it coming in the future.--Hillock65 (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Voyevoda keeps pushing his POV well beyond 3RR - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Konotop&action=history . I've looked at his edit history on the Russian wiki, quite ukrophobic. So much for the good-faith...Galassi (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There is another anon. edit warrior, poss. a Voyevoda sock active there now.Galassi (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And one more brewing

Look at the Alexei Losev article, if you get a chance. A Russian editor is removing all mentions of the subject's numerous anti-semitic writings. Galassi (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove it at all (though perhaps I would have preferred to ;-)), I tried to put it into a wider context of 'Losev - the reactionary' theory that had at least one supporting article. The rest is your usual tendentious editing, this time more serious, because Losev was first and foremost a literary scholar whose works have never been received as antisemitic pamphlets (unlike some pieces by Shafarevich, who undoubtedly is an extremist author). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a plethora of russophone criticism of Losev's antisemitic bits, and ther is no reason to whitewash him. He was a great scholar, in fact. But that doesn't make one immune to certain tendencies, liable for criticism later. As long as there are reliable sources, in this case Losev's OWN WORDS.Galassi (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

...'OWN WORDS' taken out of context! Why can't you live with my suggested version(s), whereby Losev's antisocialism and clericalism would be given due weight with the few anti-Jewish passages either left out completely or just summarised briefly (why on earth do you need to collect those Russian citations and litter the whole footnotes sections with the few paragraphs where you have found the words евреи or еврейство in it? You are trying to make a case against Losev, no more. Btw, did you check the Russophone article by a Jew that I added at talk page? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually did. It is unreliable and irrelevant, being also limited to the mere question "Who is Katsis, who has the temerity to attack LOsev's purported antisemitism?". It is simply of insufficient substance.Galassi (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you also look at Stalin's antisemitism, where Miacek is starting another edit war? As for good faith - he also has some whitewashing of known judophobes on German and Russian wikis under his belt.Galassi (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Will, I wanted to mention a couple things. 1.) I was not an admin when Law passed his RFA 2.)I did not know at that time that he was the undertow, in fact, I didn't even know who the undertow was at that time. 3.) I had hoped to go to the Nasville meetup simply to meet some of the great folks who work on Wikipedia and perhaps see a stock-car race, and perhaps the Shakespear event. 4.) I am not in the BRC - I would be exempt because I belong to another cabal: The AGF Cabal. If you have any questions, I am more than willing to answer them. Cheers and a pleasure to meet you, I'd seen your sig. around, but nice to finally make contact. I look forward to working with you in the future. — Ched :  ?  17:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

Since when am I a member of the Bathrobe Cabal? – iridescent 19:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Levin

Due to a lock, I could not add the following to the Mark Levin Talk page:

Well, Realkyhick, I have to say you made a good call. However, other than this blip in time when a sudden wave of v hit the page, the page should be unprotected as the serious problem is established editors not following wiki policy.

Now Mark has singled out Will Beback. Let me be clear that in my opinion Will Beback is acting appropriately within Wikipedia guidelines. Mark, it is bad to just blank out sections. Will Beback is right to restore them. However, selective editing is needed to properly remove the material about you that does not fall within Wikipedia guidelines. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Levin is directing his listeners to vandalize the page here. --BobMifune (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Worthwhile to create an edit filter foir some key words in that phrase - or is this likely to be short lived enough to just allow it to blow over and use normal vandalism prevention? --67.183.232.99 (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Small Changes

Thanks Will. I was not aware of it. I will change my editing habits accordingly. --BwB (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah Duggan AfD

It would probably be helpful to all concerned if you were to clarify your comments about "rare" involvement in WP and how it should relate to a closing admin's counting of !votes as valid or not. If you could manage this, it would be appreciated. Achromatic (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

172/Cognition

I worked with 172 on New Imperialism many years ago - as with many WP situations, we clashed and hated eachother at first and worked it out. But I got the sense that he stopped being active a while ago. I never heard of Cognition before today. As for the checkuser case (and frankly, I never know where to look for the straightforward record of facts on these things, do you know?) I have only one point to add. IF it is considered significant that the IP address is residential and not a University account, checkusers better consider these: (1) in many college towns many undergraduates and most graduate students live in houses, not University property; (2) graduate students mostly work from home, not the library or office; (3) it is very common for several undergraduates or post-graduates to share a house, or for a "townie" to rent a rume to a student - in these cases a graduate student would be sharing a residential line with others; (4) it is quite common for an undergraduate or graduate student to move periodically, I don't just mean when they graduate; (5) if a graduate student goes abroad for a year or a summer for research, they either give up their house/apartment, or have to sublet it to someone. This is a HIGHLY salient consideration. (6) all of this is true for faculty, excep the cycle is longer/slower (i.e. they get leave to go away less often ... but then they almost invariably sublet their homes). Now, all of this is consistent with the claim, "the account was corrupted" which requires a block, anyway. So I find the block just as plausible as my explanation for how it could be two different people.

What I do however find very very very unlikely and thus suspicious is that a notable user like 172 might, in any of the scenarious I have given, by coincidence share a residential line with a Larouchite, one of the most longstanding and biggest thorns in Wikipedia's feet. I mean, how many Larouchites are there? How many graduate students/recent PhDs specialising in 19th century European history? If I have solved one puzzle, it was only to created a bigger one!

Your own thoughts are welcome too. If there is any ongoing discussion and no one has raised the points about college towns I make above, feel free to pass them one, but as I said they still point to "corruption" of the account, they just provide another explanation of how that could happen. But IF the residence is in a college town and truly occupied by an academic, it is a real error to think that this is the person's "home," like the Cleavers (or pick your favorite TV suburban family) Slrubenstein | Talk 11:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Skoojal is back

I can see that you were involved in dealing with Skoojal who was banned and reappeared as Devil Goddess. I believe he has returned again as Born Gay. I need to tell you that I have been in a mediation dispute with him. I looked back at his "precocious" beginning and decided to compare him with previous highly active editors on Conversion therapy. My suspicions were confirmed by this, but I don't really know whether I am doing the Sockpuppet investigation properly. Would you look over it for me? Hyper3 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's beside the point, because I admitted who I am. Will you revert my edits like you promised, Will? BG talk 20:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this. Hyper3 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Flee67. Hyper3 (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please protect User talk:Reparative Therapy Survivor? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And now, Existentialist Man (talk) Hyper3 (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete Fix on Vandal Edit to Aesthetic Realism

Hi Will. I just posted a request to correct an incomplete fix on a vandal edit to the Aesthetic Realism page. It's hard to tell if the vandalism was malicious or random but at any rate the revert by ClueBot didn't wholly work. Can you please take a look at it? Did I report it to the right place? Here is what I posted on the ClueBot talk page: [[2]]. As always, your help is appreciated. LoreMariano (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Saw your message on my talk page. Somebody must have fixed it. If you look at the history, you'll see all the (random?) garbage that somehow got entered. It looks like more editing is inevitable. LoreMariano (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Suite101.com

Hello, I would like to request userfying a page you deleted for me, Suite101.com. I had a userfied copy which I requested be deleted when this article was recreated, thinking that the work of making it notable had been done, but no, it had not, as it was deleted per G4 and so was plainly not meaningfully changed. In truth, I would rather have both the one I was working on and the one deleted from mainspace so that I may compare them and see if the newest one had anything to offer. You will note, if you look at my deleted userpage, that I tagged it in userspace as COI, as I do contribute to the site and I would prefer not to have an argument with anybody that freelance work doesn't constitute a conflict of interest in this case unless I were to argue for the site to be removed from the blacklist (which I won't do unless I can convince management to make some changes that would be more accomodating to Wikipedia's concerns, which looks to be unlikely at the moment). If you have any concerns about userfying this page for me because of this conflict, I'd be happy to discuss them. My intention is to work on the page, complete with COI tag, until such time as I can find sufficient sources to move it safely to mainspace, and then only contribute via comments on the talk page.--otherlleft 23:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche criminal trials

I made a comment about a questionable section and some unneeded pictures. I thought you might want to take a look. Johnnyt471 (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Another one brewing

Take a look at the last few edits at Cantonist.Galassi (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk page there. 'Tis getting ludicrous...Galassi (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback and Fladrif

Hi Will, Thanks for the comment on the talk page that the phrase "grinding a POV axe" may not be conducive to progress. You are right and I stand corrected and I have apologized on the talk page. This is the second time you have singled me out for criticism. I hope you are being equally as vigilant in correcting other editors on the same pages. For example on the same article talk page, on the same day that you commented on my unproductive comment, I see these words from your ally, Fladrif:

• It's not my fault this is a bare-bones article largely lifted from the pages of TM-Org websites.
• Your employers want these pages used as part of their PR campaigns, so what's holding you back?

Will you be singling him out for criticism as well?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will, as I mentioned to you on my User Page [3] I appreciate the post you made on Fladrif's page warning him about un-civil comments after I posted the comment above. Thank you for acting in an impartial and responsible manner. I also apologize if my post sounded harsh or accusatory. Unfortunately though, your warning to Fladrif has not been heeded. Here are some additional comments made by Fladrif today:[4]

• Per the example of these TM-org affiliated editors......I should think that everything in these TM-related articles published by TM-affiliated officials, organizations and employees, should be summarily stricken.Fladrif (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• The only consistency in these TM-related articles, is the consistency with with the TM-Org affiliated editors push their POV by every means available to them. Fladrif (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• -- — Kbob • Talk • 00:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

An additional insult from Fladrif on 10/21/09 [5]

• Perhaps you missed my point, but I am perfectly willing to apply Hanlon's Razor rather than accuse you or anyone else of bad faith or having a COI on the matter. Fladrif (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If you follow the link that Fladrif provides in his comment you see that: Hanlon's Razor is an eponymous adage which reads: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas F. Benton

I removed a PROD request on this article, about which you have previously made comments. I am not nominating it for AfD, but I'd expect it to soon appear there. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Friedwardt Winterberg

We've had an OTRS ticket (Ticket:2009102010011067) concerning your recent addition of the LaRouche movement cat/template to this article. Do you have a cite saying Mr. Winterberg's a member or otherwise associated with Lyndon LaRouche? Stifle (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif

You may be interested in User_talk:Fladrif#Blocked_3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Category: TM Practitioner

Hi Will, thanks for the heads up on the category tags I was adding. I was approaching it as an administrative clean up thing and went to all the people listed in the TM article and added a category tag to link them all together. But as you mention this is not appropriate if that subject of TM is not already included in the article. So in most cases I went back and reverted my addition of the cat tag and left a note on the talk page saying that this was something that could be part of the article if any editors found it notable. Thanks for clarifying this for me as categories are something new to me.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche

I think I got rid of the repetition. Let me know if you can still see some. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

• ...parties are admonished and instructed to avoid ... Unnecessary interaction between Cla68 and SlimVirgin....

Cla68, I've notice that you've been appearing on pages related to topics in which Slimvirgin is known to have longstanding interests, and where she has already posted. It appears that these are unnecessary interactions. I suggest that you avoid doing so in the future in order to comply with the ArbCom remedy.   Will Beback  talk  06:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern Will. SV has helped me out with an article I'm working on which is on my "to do" list on my userpage, which I thanked her for and she responded graciously. If you feel that me and her aren't getting along, please take it up with ArbCom. In the meantime, DKing has admitted that he is not neutral about LaRouche. You say that he hasn't violated NPOV with article edits, which I'm sure is debatable. Anyway, I believe NPOV also applies to talk page comments. Although we traditionally give a little more leeway on article talk pages, if you read Mr. King's comments on the LaRouche talk pages, I believe that it is clear that Mr. King is following an anti-LaRouche agenda. Therefore, if Mr. King continues the same behavior, I'm going to ask for a formal topic ban at ArbCom enforcement. As an admin, I assume you're concerned about violations of our core policies and will help out with the request? Cla68 (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cla, I wouldn't want to interpret the ArbCom restriction so narrowly that we can't ever interact, but I also wouldn't want to see a return to the situation where you appear at articles I've been editing for a long time to strike up positions that you feel may be the opposite of mine. As it happens, in this case, I agree with you that King would be better off not editing those articles, but in general, I would feel happier if we both continued to pay heed to the spirit of the ArbCom decision. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, just to expand on my views about the LaRouche editing, I'd like to see everyone who appears to have a real-life agenda regarding LaRouche asked to stop editing those articles. I don't think we would need to take this to ArbCom. I think we could ask for a vote at AN/I, and thereafter request that it be enforced by neutral admins—something like, "Any account that appears to be a single-purpose account, or anyone with a close real-life connection to the LaRouche movement, whether in favor or in opposition (or whose edits suggest such a connection), may be banned by any uninvolved administrator from editing articles about the movement." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We appear to agree on this issue. If you say that you're going to help resolve this, I believe you and I don't need to be involved. Cla68 (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Willbeback

Apparently you think the information already posted on the site is correct. I know it not to be. I am posting nuetral, verifiable, accurate information and removing/correcting biased, unverified, incorrect and inaccurate information and/or at the least providing the content that is missing - i.e. for example, the rulings of the court with regard to proceedings referenced here.

Rather than suppress the information - why don't you let me finish writing it, posting my references and polishing the posting - then let's have a discussion.

RadisRadis —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadisRadis (talk • contribs) 08:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing mediation

Hello Will, now that Leatherstocking was found to be a sock and operating from the LaRouche organization. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone or something. I've closed the mediation, and I'm extremely disappointed that all the discussion we've had over the months was for nothing. Anyway, good luck with further work on the LaRouche articles (yourself and SlimVirgin both). -- Atama頭 22:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the semi-protection on my user page. I appreciate it. --NellieBly (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What does it take exactly?

The Scientology-Org editors are barred from editing the Scientology articles.

The Larouche-Org editors are barred from editing the Larouche articles, ESPECIALLY when they lie about their relationship to the organization

But, the TM-Org editors go merrily on their way, notwithstanding the rulings at COIN. What does it take, and how does one go about it?Fladrif (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm serious, and my conviction that there has to be some binding restriction placed on editing of TM-related articles by TM Org employees is all the more confirmed in by recent nonsense at the MVAH article. How does one go about commencing the process? Fladrif (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jeff V. Merkey

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff V. Merkey. 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) 01:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent changes!

Thanks for your recent edits!! - It´s a proof that people do have the will to build a better world. 189.217.171.135 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sealing

Hello, you just protected the article Seal Hunting from edits. I asume this is a result of a dispute between myself and an IP user. I only wanted you to know that that misunderstanding has been settled or at least ended. It was my mistake. There is no reason to disable the other contributor from making improvements to the article. Sorry to have caused such a mess.--U5K0 (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Konotop

Dear Will, please take a look at the article Battle of Konotop, at its discussion, as well as on the recent edits of Voyevoda and Galassi in affiliated articles. Voyevoda who adds his information always with arguments and references on serious researchers has been blocked for a week while Galassi who never shows any efforts to seriously justify his actions blindly reverts anything he doesn't like. Please do something about this situation. Also, please help to resolve the dispute on the discussion page of Battle of Konotop. The neutrality tag should be removed finally and the problem resolved. Please evaluate the contribution, the discussion style and the arguments of both sides. Thank you!--HenrichB (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"HenrichB" is now taking his edit war to related articles of Treaty of Hadiach and others. I am inserting anglophone citations (in place of cherrypicked Russian ones), and he just reverts them.Galassi (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Galassi randomly declines any Russian sources, as if foreign language sources were not accepted widely throughout Wikipedia. Tairova-Yakovleva is a professor of history and even a friend of Mr. Yuschenko http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/9066.html. Her citation that was added by Voyevoda gave a very detailed information, while Galassi's sources remains quite abstract. His behaviour is disruptive--HenrichB (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Magosci is the definitive source on Ukrainian history in English. The treaty's emendations are spelled out in the article, and it is not necessary missumarize them. Also HeinrichB's English had a 100fold improvement recently, I believe Voyevoda is using his account.Galassi (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Voyevoda et all and Battle of Konotop

Hi, I thought you might be interested in a note I left at User talk:Tedder about this situation. Maybe we can come up with some more effective way of dealing with the mess together? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far. Just for your information, I've also just blocked HenrichB (talk · contribs), for proxy editing and apparent meatpuppet/proxy revert warring during Voyevoda's block. Those block appeals in favour of Voyevoda here on your page are clearly not Henrich's own English, but very closely mirror what Voyevoda said in his own page, so it seems safe to assume he was proxying an appeal on Voyevoda's dictation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to engage

Outerlimits is again accusing me of something I didn't do -- this time he said I removed Michael Bluejay's link. I only reverted Outerlimits' changes, bringing it back to the way the links originally appeared. I don't want to fight with him on the talk page. His personal references are unacceptable. I find his name calling very insulting, for example, calling me "our Jersey City friend." He makes up facts, he thrusts his edits without consensus, and he insults people.

I am completely in favor of following Wikipedia's rule of having only one link to the official site. I can state that again, but I have already stated it twice.

Alternatively, we can leave all the links.

What will happen when I revert again, for a third time? LoreMariano (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Glenn Spencer

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Spencer. 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) 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Will, could you explain to me what is on your mind at Talk:Prem_Rawat#Followers? You know as well as I do that this is a reliable source by any WP standard, the author's faith notwithstanding: Geaves is a widely published religious scholar, he is within his area of expertise, and the book is from a top academic publisher.

The ex-premies have hinted that "Geaves must be lying", without the shadow of a supporting source. You have not contradicted them. I have posted links showing that John quotes the same attendance figures as Geaves in his forum conversations on his site, as do other ex-premies. Do these protestations that the figures must be wrong still seem credible to you in light of such evidence?

Mike Finch, whose self-published (!) book you were happy to add to this BLP (and who, incidentally, credits in the book, by name, two of the editors whom you supported in arguing for the book's inclusion here), states in the ex-premie forum that "many new premies" who have gone through the Keys programme have written to him. Yet, the argument on the talk page goes, Geaves must be lying when he speaks of "new students" attracted through such means: there are none.

So we have the absurd situation that the ex-premies say the same as Geaves in their forum, only here they say Geaves is lying and the material should not be included in the article. Do you think that is satisfactory?

You yourself, while remaining silent on all of the above, argue that adding material on the state of Rawat's movement in the 2000s would be undue weight. I could understand that if we didn't have lots of material on his movement in the 70s, 80s and 90s (we do), or if we had lots of material on his following in the 2000s already (it seems to me we have practically nothing). So how does this make sense? Due weight means describing his movement 30 years ago in detail, and saying nothing about its present state? Please explain. --JN466 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As a courtesy, I am letting you know that I have started a thread on Geaves on RS/N. However, I would ask you to refrain from commenting until uninvolved editors have had a chance to comment. I have linked to our recent discussions of the topic, so outside editors can see what we have been talking about, and what our respective arguments are; there is no need to duplicate these arguments at RS/N. Thank you. --JN466 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In the discussion

I always suggest editors read the discussion... and perhaps ask me if i've posted a notification, and if not, why not instead of assuming I'm not playing fair. Since I've always notified editors when I went to a Notice board, by the way this is just a talk page for discussion and not a Notice Board so I treated the whole thing more casually, and since you know that, why not give me the benefit of the doubt. The assumptions from some editors in these discussions that I'm not honest is beyond tedious. I'll bold the post notification in the discussion in case it was hard to see. Thanks. (olive (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the apology. Had I bolded it in the first place it might have been easier to see.(olive (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Springbok Club

Hi Will. I have no idea where to start looking for reliable sources on this. It seems to be marginally notable, but I'm struggling to verify what's been written. I'd rather delete the article than have somebody find this excuse of an encyclopedia entry. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Best, AGK 00:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Follow-up: As your proposed deletion was vetoed, I've nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springbok Club. Regards, AGK 14:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mileva Maric page

Will. I'm having a dispute with Anjem about items on the Mileva Maric page. I made some changes a few days ago, and fully explained the reasons on the Mileva Maric discussion page. Anjem has now reverted most of them, and criticized me on the grounds that I am involved in a "crusade". Would you mind arbitrating, and possibly call in another administrator to provided additional opinion. Esterson (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just to let you know that I have responded to your and Ajnem's points and (via his/her talkpage) invited Ajnem to respond.

Esterson (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

hello will. i sincerely hope you'll find the time to put an end to this alleged "dispute" between esterson and me. thanks, ajnem (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Will: Sorry to come to you directly again, but I really don't know what to make of Ajnem's latest comment about me on the Mileva Maric talk page. He/she writes:

"…i'm not going to recount the number of times, the esterson-website, which is imo not a reliable source by wikipedia standard, and includes material, that should not be touched with a 100-foot pole, is cited as reference in mileva marić-wikipedia-articels, or indulge in any other similarly asinine pastimes, sorry. it's the marić-wikipedia-articles, particularly the one in english, that imo need editing, not the marić-talk-page."

I've asked Ajnem more than once to provide one single example of a citation/link to an article written by me on the Mileva Maric webpage. No answer. I've asked him/her to provide examples on the Mileva Maric webpage that, as he/she has asserted, are POV or biased. No answer. All he/she does is repeat his/her assertions as if I hadn't either rebutted them, or requested specific examples.

Ajnem writes: "i'm not going to recount the number of times, the esterson-website, which is imo not a reliable source by wikipedia standard, and includes material, that should not be touched with a 100-foot pole". It is, of course, entirely irrelevant what my website includes if such items have not been cited on the Mileva Maric webpage, though as for the "should not be touched with a 100-foot pole" comment, I can supply statements from half-a-dozen historians of physics/Einstein commending my work, including Gerald Holton who has encouraged me to write a book on the issue. Esterson (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Suite101 page

Will - in October you deleted the page Suite101.com. That site is now a top 100 US destination according to [6] -- the original reason for deletion 3 years ago was "notability", but the site is much bigger now, the article is quite different from the old article and it had several high profile sources of citation stated. Could you please re-create the deleted article? Psb (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, thanks for your reply -- could you be more specific about why you think the site doesn't meet notability criteria? The site is both very popular and meets the criteria: high profile media like National Post, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Spiegel, Miami Herald and a larger number of specialized publications have covered the site with larger features. Additionally, the article was suggested to be a re-post of an old (thus "Speedy Delivery"), deleted article - this is not true, it was a completely different article. Please re-instate. Psb (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yellow deli merger

I am doing my restructuring of Twelve Tribes Article, i think i have salvaged as much out the article as i can, there just is not much there to bring over to the TT page. unless i wish to talke about the runaway lodging and menu spiel which is 100% Tribes Produced. only thing is the Critism section that is poorly sourced for half of it at least. i was wonder if you could merge it i dont understand the directions on the wikipedia Help page. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

John Smith Clarke

Looking back at my talk page, I realised that I never thanked you for your kind note about the article - it's great to get feedback like this! As you enjoyed reading about him, I wonder if you've read about the O'Gorman Mahon - another politician with a highly varied life. Warofdreams talk 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Fusion Energy Foundation

On November 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fusion Energy Foundation, 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.

Victuallers (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Wheat Building-Leesburg VA.jpg

File:Wheat Building-Leesburg VA.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Wheat Building-Leesburg VA.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Wheat Building-Leesburg VA.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

TFA day

Congratulations on TFA day for Millennium '73! :) Cirt (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Well done! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of One Good Fellow

I've been reverting his edits - not Minor, in one case not formatting, unsourced, possible BLP violations, OR, etc. I note you haven't left a block notice or reason. Do you want me to do the latter? Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see he's the IP you blocked also. Any comments I make will take that into account. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR

Thanks for your nomination. We try to encourage all nominators to review as many nominations as they make to keep the queue short. If you get a chance please review a nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 68.215.42.44

I noticed it too - it's a little strange, but it seems to be consistent with WP:BLPCAT for the most part, so it seems to be okay. Ray^Talk 06:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski NPOV: The Sharon Tate murder section now gone

(Buried in Personal life and no link to main coverage now). See: this new talk topic. (Please excuse if you're not interested in that, but since you were in the heavy going ... FYI ) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Secret voting

Hi William. I was reviewing the upcoming Arb election and I saw that you were signed on for secret ballots. I understand the arguments for it, but it is so fundamentally contrary to an open and transparent community I was disappointed to see you supporting that position. Accountability is very important. I hope you'll reconsider. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Alarming

Despite the fact that an editor /admin /arbitrator of Rlevse's experience has suggested that you are not interpreting part of the COI policy correctly and was generous enough to come to our article and say so,[7] you continue to interrogate another editor [8] while drawing conclusions that in no way can be attributed to the editor's answers except by your own mischaracterization. I hope those mischaracterizations are not deliberate. Even so I find this behaviour astounding and even shocking in an administrator. Although I'm sure Kbob does not need my comments and can handle this situation himself, I now have very serious questions and concerns about the agenda that drives an administrator to a user's page and to carry on what looks very much like another instance of harassment. I'm not sure by what right you think this is acceptable or by what logic you create answers and draw conclusions where there are none, but I know that nothing on Wikipedia supports this kind of action.(olive (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

A face saving exit, from what? You imply shame. For what? Editing in a neutral manner. How insulting to equate your stated Wikipedia mission with editors who work as hard as you do to advance Wikipedia as if they do not care about Wikipedia, and its aims. What an assumption of bad faith. You continue to mischaracterize: Nobody said this, made this comment, "putting TM ahead of Wikipedia is itself a COI" . Its an invention. For what purpose? How does this kind of mischaracterization of other editors advance Wikipedia. You know very well that on COIN found no fault was found. yet this comes up again and again Why is that? is that the fault of the editors who in the middle of some discussion, face another editor who gets frustrated and leaps over to the COIN to see if they can have the editors removed from the discussion. This is what happens again and again. I'm sure you are a good admin. Consider these points.

You could take this to ArbCom. I'm not concerned to have my work scrutinized. Are you? Is Fladrif? (olive (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

I am also alarmed Will, that you have potential conflicts of interest ie. pushing editors around with your Admin status on an article(s) that you actively edit. You seem to pick and choose who you want give the third degree to. An editor like Fladrif who has a history of personal attacks and discipline gets little or no action from you even when its posted on your user page.[9] You seem to ignore bad behavior and wait for another Admin to respond. [10]While you seem to have plenty of time to spend on long discussions with other editors over alleged COI issues often with no basis except for the accusations of an abusive editor. [11]-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism

Dear WillBeback,

As a graduate of Oxford University (BNC) I was extremely unhappy to see, in a Wikipedia External Links "Noticeboard" page, your characterization of Aesthetic Realism as a “small group.” Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy whose principles are there for anyone to study and test. In fact, that is precisely what the founder of Aesthetic Realism, Eli Siegel, asked for. No slavish devotion, no mind-control -- critical study.

I spent three years at Oxford studying philosophy, including John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, the works of Descartes, Berkeley, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and more. Aesthetic Realism is no more a group than Brasenose College, Oxford is. Moreover, I’ve seen that the principles of Aesthetic Realism make a connection that is new and accurate – between the nature of reality, beauty, and the human self.

Sincerely, Christopher Balchin ~~TomP76~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomP76 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert my edits, then protect the page

I opened my edits to discussion for a fair period of time. NOBODY. N-O-B-O-D-Y contested. I am sick and tired of following protocol here and only when my edits are made after no objections are raised to them do people seem to object. If the discussion is raised and no one objects, my edits should stay in UNTIL others make their point. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence page

Your interaction with a user is part of the evidence here, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. You may wish to comment on it. Miami33139 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading list

For what it's worth, I just read Seal hunting, in the form you protected it in. It seems to be a well written (although I would edit the lead in section. Use the first paragraph, split the remainder into a separate ==Brief overview of Seal hunting==...) A well sourced article in the current version.

Just as a bit of history, I noticed User:XBValyrie had been blocked for edit warring. I asked him what he felt the problem was, and he replied. I let him know that I would look into what had been happening, read the article, then its history page, which brings me here. Good call to protect under the circumstances.

Now I go to read the talk page... (* sigh.) Care to weigh in here? I'd appreciate your opinion. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Dov Hikind

What is defamatory about stating that Dov Hikind seeks to silence David Irving (and put him out of business)? Hikind is quoted as saying exactly that in the newspaper coverage of the incident. And interfering with (private) speaking and sale of books and DVDs is censorship, is it not? It isn't (quite) governmental, in that the public officials (including Hikind) involved aren't exercising explicit legal authority, but it's censorship all the same (interference of Party A with expression by Party B to Party C). If you block, or continue to revert, I will bring this to resolution by parties not of Yosseia's (or your) choosing.--Joe (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC) (sorry-forgot to sign)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottsf (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

American Express, Ken Chenault

I am prepared to consider your assertion that the matter is not significant as part of American Express's history, though censorship is a serious matter to me and many other Wikipedians. As for Chenault, I am prepared to consider the censorship was not HIS purpose (though it certainly was his effect), and I have put in a new heading that is more meaningful than "David Irving" but omits the "C" word. In a similar vein, I have left in place your use of the hateful propagandistic slur "Holocaust denier," complete with link. Perhaps you may consider letting Chenault rest, and of course American Express, in which I have given you your way fully.

There is a difference between what Hikind wrote in his letter (he was just policing compliance with American Express's merchant standards, if you'll swallow that) and what he said to the press about his purpose in sending it. This is precisely delineated in the paragraph as I have edited it.--Joe (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Censorship Template

You placed the page Transactional Interdiction under Consideration for Speedy Deletion, but edited this template so as to remove it from the page. I trust this was an error on your part. The page cannot be completely considered without inclusion of its context, so I have taken the liberty of reverting your reversion of my edit to the template. My edit to the template will and should be considered together with the article.--Joe (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Talk:Financial Censorship.
Message added 20:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

comments

See my comments at Joe's user page. Let;'s try to keep this in proportion: having it mentioned where appropriate, but there only. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

& in fact, I'm not sure you were right in keeping it in the Sampson article DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of male performers in gay porn films

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Millenium '73.

I read the FAC's... nice perseverance! Cheers, Sasata (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work. Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Request to Unprotect the Seal Hunting Article

I've earned consensus on both edits I've recommended in the above mentioned article. Please review the "GDP" and "Equipment" sections and see that consensus was reached with Hamster Sandwich in the face of 99.245.37.46's unwillingness to defend his resistance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seal_hunting . This is my formal request to have the article revert to unprotected so the edits can be made. This does not, however, rule out that 99.245.37.46 could return to his/her old habits of turning the undo button into their favorite form of communication. Thanks. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly say, "Consensus was reached with..." I read the article and offered my opinions concerning, what are I suppose, the more contentious aspects. It seems to me: a word here, and a word there kind of thing. As opposed to wholesale revisions, and POV pushing. I've had a discussion with XB concerning "being baited" by random editors, and I think he has gained a much better understanding of process, during the discussions he has had with all parties recently. Because of my involvement, I cannot unprotect Seal hunting myself. I would, however, encourage any editor who reverts the changes that have been discussed over the past few days, to refer to the discussion on the article TP, for clarification and direction. Thanks, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I took it that the only suggestion you had was that you might use the word "cudgel" instead of "club" meant that you were fine with the rest. This is the first you mention that the Equipment and Methods section only needs some word tweaking. Let's go back to the Seal Hunting Talk page for more dialogue.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, I just read your comment at Talk:Seal hunting, and I have to admit, I am only familiar with only the most recent past there. I assumed that it would be amongst the most contentious articles in the WP. The comments you make there vis a vis template for admin additions is a good one, as is exploring all possible dispute resolution avenues. Perhaps XB70 is not aware of the particular circumstances (he is fairly new) of editing such articles as are closely watched/often protected. As for myself, well, since I've actually suggested changes to the prose and content of the article, I am not willing to make additions to it that would necessitate admin intervention. If XB wants to ask my opinion about things, fine, but seal hunting is not within my scope of interests. I only kill what I want to eat, and seal meat is horrible. IMO, wax crayons that have been burnt up in a frying pan have a slightly better flavour, and a not dissimilar odour! So, I appreciate your commentary on that talk page, and just wanted to let you know that it put the situation there into a better perspective for me. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Intervention

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

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

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

History of the ice axe

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

Ping

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

NRM essay/guideline

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

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

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

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

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

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