User talk:Will Beback/archive72

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

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

FYI 2

[2] 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)

Question about mediation

I've asked a question at the LaRouche mediation page regarding the future of the mediation and would appreciate your input, thanks! -- Atama頭 17:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Osmund Lewry

Just for your information, the Osmund Lewry content kept in Directory space on MyWikiBiz was distributed to MyWikiBiz.com with a grant to MyWikiBiz and its affiliates a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable, irrevocable and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, distribute, publish, create derivative works from and publicly display and perform such Content throughout the world in any media. It was not covered by the GFDL license, which you had incorrectly assumed. Happy editing! -- Thekohser 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad template

Thanks for this deletion:

• Will Beback (talk | contribs) deleted "Template:U:Ron Ritzman" (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)

I was looking for {{u}} but I typed tl:u by mistake. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Partisan

I am. I've sourced the claims of being partisan with RS. I even changed around the Center for Immigration Studies more or less how you phrased the Federation for American Immigration Reform article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:75.15.246.223

Will, I believe User:75.15.246.223 is a sockpuppet of User:Michael93555. The only edits the IP editor has done is revert recent edits by you and me, and we're the main ones reverting his edits at Ridgecrest, California. Any thoughts? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

Would you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Shafarevich&action=history ? This looks like an attempt to whitewash one of the most notorious Russian antisemites. Galassi (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not whitewashing anything: as much as I dislike Oleg Platonov's conspiracy theories I disrespect Shafarevich's anti-semitic ideas. However, we do have an encyclopedia here, hence, we don't collect 'evidence' against personalities we dislike, and we treat them in an encyclopedic manner. As of now, I've left most of Galassi's 'collection' to remain in the article, but I've sort of curtailed it so as to read at least in a way similar to a normal reference work. Cheers, --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 07:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=MqcwpT_AGSsC&pg=PA419&lpg=PA419&dq=shafarevich+antisemite&source=bl&ots=O8yH4T16mX&sig=m5ffb1vH5LDFiBe82qhWsUty70E&hl=uk&ei=YZS0Sq62J5Lh8QbKvsSTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false . You may remove dead links, but do show good faith by adding live ones. Galassi (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alan D Harvey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alan D Harvey. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RolandTravis (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I feel the article should have went through usual editing process first rather than speedy deletion. I also considered that the re-direct was correct as all the material was duplicated.

Talk:Jockstrap

Article talk pages exist solely to discuss improvements to articles. Discussion of the topics themselves are off-topic, such as this one.[3] For more information, see WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:... Deleting material not relevant to improving the article..."   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I read WP:TALK#Others' comments with interest. I see my feeling that others' comments should not be edited was generally correct, but didn't know there could be exceptions other than personal attacks, etc. All the best - Markhh (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bluedogtn

Just go ahead and delete my accounts and user and talk pages along with the sandboxes, and block my access to my accounts! Permission Granted to Will Beback!_BLuE^DOgTn 23:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

We don't link dates anymore, see WP:MOSNUM. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

Hi there, I wondered if you might have time to read through this article and comment on its neutrality and accuracy? I ask since you seem to have more experience than I do about writing on controversial organizations. The article is the subject of a current lawsuit, so if you wish to comment privately by e-mail rather than get involved in the article's talkpage that would be fine. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your comments and suggestions... I'll do as requested!

Best regards, Mark Wick --Mrwick1 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and IPs

You have a user account so there is no reason for you to be making controversial edits without logging in.

I share some PCs with others who reboot to run special apps or reestablish a connection, both at work and home.

Making edits while logged out does not exempt you from the prohibition on edit warring.

I'm aware of that and recently learned 3RR includes consensus as well as editors.

Considering your previous disputes, I advise that you avoid editing the same topics as Squick.

It's my impression I edited nearly all before him, and that he followed me.

It looks like you've had previous warnings already so further disruption or edit warring, even short of 3RR, may lead to a block.

Please consider what I've written above, and that your action on Worldchanging was to be my next request. -MBHiii (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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 [4] 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)

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: [[5]]. 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 [6] 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:[7]

• 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 [8]

• 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)