User talk:ReSearcher

Your WP:AIV listing of John Elder

This doesn't look like vandalism, but more as a dispute over content. I don't know anything about the subject of High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program and can't say who is "right" and who is wrong here. The recomended way to solve content disbutes is to debate it on the article talk page first (as I see you are trying to do). If you after a while find this to be futile and you still can't reach an agreement then you can request mediation or try other ways of solving the dispute (see: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes).

I'm sorry that this most likely is not the response or admin action that you wanted, but it's as much as I can do or recomend here. And as this isn't vandalism varanting a block on this user, I am removing your listing from the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page for now. Shanes 21:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thanks for awesome, incredible link

Re: Full downloadable HTML (or Microsoft Word copy) of Jules Archer's rare book on the subject

wow! I actually checked out the book and planned on doing the same thing this person on this website planned, now I dont have too! Thanks! Travb 02:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, Travb! --ReSearcher 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your report to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

Hi, I'm responding to your post on WP:RFI. Could you please try and break down that massive body of text down to make it a bit more readable? A few initial comments from what I have read: I fail to see any use of admin powers by Will Beback on the article you mentioned (abuse or otherwise). He is acting as an editor, neither as a member of the mediation committee nor as an admin. Also I cannot see any attempt by you to contact Will on his talk page, to discuss any problem you may have with his edits, which is the first step in dispute resolution. Feel free to point out/link to anything that shows otherwise, but that is my first impression from looking over the relevant talk pages etc. Petros471 11:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. That was fast. Where do I respond? here or on your talk page then? I'll put this in two places? Actually we have been talking on the Skull and Bones discussion page about his plans to "roll back" extensive factual information which is just vandalism on another level of course. Several people are working on editing it up to split the article into smaller sections, though his ideas would be to purge two very documentary heavy sections. Check the discussion page for the article. --ReSearcher 11:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Replying on my talk page is probably best as I will get new messages. I'll copy replies over to my page anyway, you can do the same with your talk page if you wish.

I did take a look at Talk:Skull_and_Bones. One of the issues raised there is of article size. If you think topics need to be covered, it might be best to create a related article and link to it. See Chemistry as an example of introductory paragraphs, linked to articles on sub-topics. Also you will need to make sure the content is not a copyright violation, or original research. It is not vandalism to talk about rolling back the article, it is being discussed on the talk page to gain consensus. Feel free to join in the discussion about that there, but as far as I can see it seems like Will is acting as a normal editor, discussing how to develop the article. Petros471 11:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello ReSearcher. Note that your request for investigation concerning Will Beback was archived or removed because it is a user or content dispute. Such disputes are best resolved through the dispute resolution process; please list the user again if they blatantly ignore that process. Thanks. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 16:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Skull and Bones

splitting the article, sources

There's some serious copyvio issues to be handled, but it's spread over so many edits that a bulk revert would have deleted a great deal of effort. Since articles are expected to be under 32K, I did *some* splitting, but the opium artice may need much more splitting (it's massive) or editing/distilling down to core components. Ronabop 17:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Much of the information does come from existing books and articles (i.e., I don't make things up!), though it is my text as well as my cross-referencing in the documented membership rosters input, which was left out of all these other books because it was not available until 2003, for the most part. Any suggestions? What about a section describing sources in the beginning of the text? I have though of that actually before... --ReSearcher 04:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Several portions of text appear to be plagarized or stolen from existing sources. These: [1][2] [3][4] are just a few examples where the *exact* same phrasing was used in both original texts, and in the wikipedia article. While it's perfectly acceptable to quote sources, we have to note that the text is not originally the intellectual property of wikipedia. We can't just copy and paste text into thearticle as if we wrote it. See WP:CITE and WP:FU.

Also, because the article subjects (especially the portions alleging large scale conspiracy and/or collusion in drug trades) are likely to be argued about or contested in some way, we need to make sure that any portions which may be debateable have proper in-line citations and referencesso that other editors can verify *exactly* what is being said. See: WP:V and WP:FN for details on how we do this in articles. If you take a look at other controversial articles that have been well foot-noted, such as Intelligent_Design, or Abortion, you can see that the general style allows for a variety of sources and methods of checking text, in such a way that if somebody wants to know exactly *where* something was stated, they can click on the reference number, and find the exact book and page involved.

As far as handling topics of great scope and depth, this requires judicious editing as well as splitting article sub-topics out. For one example of how a single article has spawned many sub-articles (in a similar scope/field), there are the Freemasonry articles, which eventually go quite deep into historical issues, scandals, accusations, etc. Another way of reducing article size down is by removing colorful language and metaphors that are not dry and encylopedic, or eliminating superflous phrases and prose. See WP:WEASEL and WP:APT, along with WP:1SP For example, in the main article, there is currently the following sentence:

"Some people, like the first rigorous outside researcher of the secret society, the late Dr. Antony Sutton (PhD, Stanford, economics), say that Skull and Bones is a U.S. chapter of an early 1800s German secret society."

The word "first rigorous" is a peacock term, "Some people" is a weasel term, some of the information isn't relevant to the article at all ("late"), and some is redundant (that S&B is a US secret society, this is stated earlier in the article). We can strip that sentence down to:

"According to Dr. Antony Sutton, Skull and Bones is a U.S. chapter of an early 1800s German secret society.

Half the words, yet it still has all of the content relevant to the article (though it lacks a citation at this point). Ronabop 06:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

as for 1,2,3,4 links you cite, yes, though two of them I do cite clearly where they come from directly (the clipper ships quotes, and the New York Times editorial are already cited in the beginning of the quote). However you are right about the Tarplay issues: I will add in "pre-immediate" notice of where those Tarplay sources come from though. Thanks. --ReSearcher 07:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Humorously, I can't see right now the coding for how its done in the Freemasonry article, because it has been sealed from editing and code viewing because of vandalism for a while.... I'll check back. Thanks for pointing it out.

Sutton though is the first rigorous one, because he was the first to have the original documents handed to him in the mid 1980s. That is what makes him and his research special, because it was "rigorously" based on this insider's view of their books, and I think that should be maintained--if explained more thoroughly.

No objection to other things. --ReSearcher 07:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just summarize your edit...

That's what the edit summary is for. "wake up to Nazi lovers at Yale!" could be understood as a personnal attack, and tells me nothing about your edit. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom, this was directed at the vandalism of removing only the quotes about the Nazi shrine in Skull and Bones's tomb (as reported in the published article from 1979 coeds allowed a canter through the tomb by a Bonesman 'dissident.' Someone went through without being a Wikipedia user, just an IP address, and removed the 10 words or so about that right from the middle of the quote, and making it look like the quote was still full. Very tricky. I hope that explains the citation there, which was actually a bit more full if you check than your rendering of it above anyway. Your comment noted. I was addressing the vandal, mostly, and request others beware of vandals to help out on such politically sensitive information.--ReSearcher 03:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." -Will Beback 08:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your pointer, El Presidente. I still think that correcting someone's error is minor though as well. Major things are rewriting sections or paragraphs. --ReSearcher 10:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Here, for example, you re-wrote a large section and added 1200 words in an edit that you marked minor. I believe you have a setting in your preferences that marks all edits as minor. -Will Beback 21:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

So, how does this get resolved?

What should be done about the state of Skull and Bones and U.S. Education? It is interesting, but it still has problems which should be fixed. Could you start by citing some references at the bottom for starters, then work the footnotes in progressively? Please comment at Talk:Skull and Bones and U.S. Education. Also, some reassurances on copyvio wouldn't go amiss, either.

StrangerInParadise 00:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Synarchism: attack of the trolls

Some of the problems I had cautioned you about are flaring up. Perhaps you might drop in for a visit. --HK 03:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would suggest that you try your hand again at editing the article. The Berlet Wikiclique is going to agitate for banning me if I continue to edit it. Their POV is that there is no such thing as Synarchism. --HK 07:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to see what they have done to HK. See his talk page. Together they continue to harass this user (Will Beback - Slimvirgin - 172) and use Arbcom in wrongful way to continue to ban and block his edits. Since arriving here, Will Beback in particular has stalked my edits - claims I am a LaRouche person (I am NOT, as I have repeatedly stated and informed Wikimedia with my real name and affiliations to indicate this) - and these three (along with a few others) continue to violate their administrator privileges here at Wikipedia. HK, I have found is an honorable editor wronged because he belongs to the LaRouche political association(s) or is an adherent thereof. I can see if he blatantly uses LaRouche websites for his edits without other proof, but he does not. The source of the above users accusations against him and LaRouche himself is Chip Berlet and Dennis King, both of whom are not well known but whose material alone is used to spread smear across wikipedia against individual users based on administrator assumptions without any necessity for proof of the same. Does that not smack of MCCARTHYISM? IF you are an administrator, I would ask you lift the block to HK - who is now being accused of sock-puppetry again without real proof - he uses (according to his statement) AOL, we all know AOL accounts are numerous and do not show a verifiable IP to one user alone. God help Wikipedia that states 'Anyone can edit' (unless your a LaRouche person, or ASSUMED to be by administrators without due process - according to Will Beback - 172 - Slimvirgin etc.).--Northmeister 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

SKull & Bones Politicans: FYI

I have updated my Skull & Bones Political Members listing and would be happy to send you the document if your interested. Just email me at aaron@aaronbaldwin.us

File:Bones family tree straight colored2 50pc1.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bones family tree straight colored2 50pc1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Bones whrussell bw.jpg

The file File:Bones whrussell bw.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Bonesman Francis Burton Harrison.jpg

The file File:Bonesman Francis Burton Harrison.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)