User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive1

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I find useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 15:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:Los Angeles[edit]

First of all, thanks for editing at Wikipedia! It's always good to see a new editor.

However, regarding your catagorizing various articles into Category:Los Angeles, particularly: Angelus-Rosedale_Cemetery; I think you made a mistake. If you look at the history of Angelus-Rosedale_Cemetery, you will see that I removed it from Category:Los Angeles, as Category:Show-biz_cemeteries is a sub-category of Category:Los Angeles(actually it's a sub-category of Los Angeles landmarks, which is a sub-category of Los Angeles), and it is a general policy to include articles in the most specific category, rather than the most general. I'm not sure why you removed the link to Category:Cemeteries; could you explain?

Thanks again for working on the LA articles. JesseW 08:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am bewildered by how cemeteries are categorized. For instance- the Hollywood Forever Cemetery is categorized as "Cemeteries | Show-biz cemeteries | Cemeteries in California". Shouldn't "Show-biz Cemeteries" be sufficient? It is a subcategory of "Cemeteries"- the most general possible - so why include it if the article is also going to be under another cemetery category? Since only cemeteries in Los Angeles are permitted in the "Show Biz" category, shouldn't it be a subcat of "California Cemeteries" anyway?

I have to admit I also have a problem with the category "Show biz cemeteries" because probably every cemetery in Los Angeles has some performers buried in it, plus there are show biz people buried in cemeteries in other cities. It seems like an unnecessary category. (The prime Hollywood graveyards, like Hollywood Forever and Angelus-Rosedale, could come under the Hollywood history category) Willmcw 09:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've copied this to Category_talk:Cemeteries. I'll reply there. JesseW 09:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you know has been updated[edit]

And an article you created recently has made the line up and is now featured on the main page. Enjoy! -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:30, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Transportation of Los Angeles[edit]

Look in on your article and see how fast it is growing. Nice job, on a good article.Pedant 02:29, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Long Beach, California[edit]

I've sort of answered your question about the San Pedro-Mormon connection at talk:Long Beach, California [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 08:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yosemite National Park[edit]

Nice additions to the history section! FYI: I plan to move the history section to History of the Yosemite area and leave a good-sized summary at Yosemite National Park#History. When I create the new article, I'll give you credit for your additions in the edit summary line. --mav 02:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:show-biz cemetaries[edit]

I noticed that you rearranged the cemeterie catagorizion. The new way seems fine to me. (So did the old way, but that's of no matter. ;-) ) You should think about what "show-biz cemetaries" ought to be, if it's not going to include LA cemetaries. Maybe it should just be deleted, unless someone can explain it's use. JesseW 12:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I followed the scheme we discussed on the "Cemetery Talk" page. There's one cemetery in Nashville that has recently been added to the category - I wrote a note on its talk page describing why the category was being changed, and altered the definition of the category as a stopgap. While I was re-categorizing I found several more L.A. cemetery articles that hadn't been included. I'll edit the "Hollywood history" article to point to celebrity graves. Willmcw 16:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Joy Luck Club[edit]

I noticed that you added Joy Luck Club to Category:Chinese Americans. I removed it because that category is for people only. The book and movie are related to Chinese Americans, but I'm not sure if there is a category for it. It might, for example, belong under "Asian American films" or "Chinese American literature". If you have any questions or comments please reply to my talk page. — J3ff 05:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nice work on The Thacher School[edit]

Thanks for adding the paragraph on The Thacher Schools' equestrian program, and your other work on this article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quercus agrifolia[edit]

Hi Will - thanks for the note! You'd have to ask Decumanus (who started the page) why he chose Calif live oak for the page, but my guess is because that is the name used by USDA in their publications (e.g. [1]). I'd have no objection to its being moved to Coast l.o. if that's better. Generally, it varies a bit as to what names are chosen; when I'm starting articles, my order of choice is first, botanical accuracy (I always avoid names that are potentially confusing, e.g. not calling Tulip-tree a poplar), second, official and/or wide general usage in the species' area of origin, and third, historical precedent if useful. Sometimes name choice can get quite heated, as with that one, which eventually ended up with the page at Liriodendron when it was impossible to get agreement whether it should be Tulip tree, Tulip-tree or Tuliptree (!) - MPF 09:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List of famous trees[edit]

Hi Will - hope you won't mind I've changed back, that fungus is a group of clones, not a single, self-contained, joined-up individual - if clones were allowed, the largest living thing would be the millions of hectares under the world's most widely grown sugar cane cultivar (reductio ad absurdam :-) MPF 02:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Baldwin Hills, California[edit]

see talk:Baldwin Hills, California

==

MalnadachBot has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

==

Great, great work on Catalina Island! jengod 21:11, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

{{double hug}}[edit]

Thanks. :) I've been waiting for someone to yell at me. :) jengod 22:51, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Rio San Gabriel[edit]

The sources that have given me the impression that the battle of Rio San Gabriel was the decisive battle come from http://www.cityofmontebello.com/CITYINFO/HISTORY.HTM , http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/topics/History/hi06.htm , http://www.mta.net/LAUND/yester/lytimeline.htm , and http://www.lospobladores.org/Battle-San-Gabriel.htm and best http://www.gbp.net/mexicanwar/mexwar/messages/12.html

Yes there were many battles after the Battle of Rio San Gabriel but nobody is re-enacting it as they have the Battle of Rio San Gabriel. You can ask steveclugston@yahoo.com Even the MTA recognizes the battle as decisive.

 Here is Mr. Clugston's impression on why importance is not given to the Battle.

"The battle is very important, and for some strange reason, overlooked by historians. Why this is so, is very suspicious in that the battle was the pivotal and largest battle in California history (as far as the number of combatants invoved). After San Gabriel, and the battle the very next day: the "Battle of La Mesa" (many link the two battles as one), California became a U.S. possession ever since. One theory, which makes the most sense: is that Fremont and Senator Benton wanted to slander and minimalize General Kearny & Stockton's victory of the Californios at San Gabriel and focused on his alleged defeat at San Pasqual instead. This was due to the court-martial of Fremont. Kearny died in 1848 and was not around to defend his record, and San Francisco historians supported the writings of Fremont since he was running for state senator and then a presidential candidate, as well as being appointed a Civil War General later. We hope to be able to set the record straight by emphasising the truth about the war in California and hope to be able to report more progress soon. " So please.... I really think it is worth leaving in.. if not, add a mention of La Mesa battle and it will be complete.--Lebite 08:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

THank you for working with me. And for forcing me to back up my posts.. takes up so much energy. And please, tell me.. is there an easier way to reply to people or must I always go to their Talk page and "edit it"? Or how can I link my reply to my talk page and your talk page? Or must I do each edit individually?--Lebite 08:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, Sorry about messing up on the LA page.. I really have no idea how that happened since it wasnt even the section I was editing. So are you saying a picture of the San Gabriel area isnt appropriate to go along with the history section of Los Angeles?--Lebite 14:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

live oak page move[edit]

Go for it. I have no objection at all. -- Decumanus 00:49, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Eugenics[edit]

Hello! Thanks for the work on the new eugenics category. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure if he should be included or not. He didn't, to my knowledge, do anything really big in relation to the overall scheme of eugenics (his little society or whatever seems to have had no effects on anything), and I don't think of him as really being a "eugenicist" in the traditional sense. Well, I think it really just comes down to the fact that the category is so small, and much more influential eugenicists do not yet have articles. Which is sort of a silly and poor reason. Hmm. I will think about this a little more. But thank you! --Fastfission 04:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Charles Darwin[edit]

Thanks for your support. Not full support I understand, but hey I'm a beggin' so I cannot be a choosin' . Seriously though, I have always been open to compromise. Thanks for proposing that. Vincent 06:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Asnel[edit]

You're welcome! And by the way, it's great to see someone else interested in California-related things. Looking through your contribs, it seems you know a lot of the same places I do. One of these days we'll have an article on every mountain range, river valley and lake around here! Happy editing, Antandrus 15:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cosmotheism[edit]

I don't quite get the point on this revert war. I think there should be an article called cosmotheism with a link through to Dr Pierce. Obviously PV wants that too. But I can't understand why anyone would disagree with this, given there is obvious dissent. would you mind explaining your POV on this. --Peacenik 04:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio Template[edit]

To mark a page as a copyvio, use the text {{copyvio|url=url of source}}. In your example, this is {{copyvio|url=http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth48}}, and sign your name afterwards using --~~~~. Hope this helps, --BesigedB 23:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wiesenthaler/SLUR[edit]

Hi Willmcw, it was just the username Wiesenthaler who was blocked. The same user is believed to operate a number of sockpuppets, including perhaps Pravda, and the user may be Alberuni, though that, too, may be a sockpuppet. Whoever it is, s/he is a troublemaker and not reluctant to make racist comments, it seems. Best, Slim 06:39, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

For more details see this: User:Viriditas/wikipuppets Jayjg | (Talk) 19:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The saga comes to an end? See Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Sockpuppets_of_User:Alberuni. Jayjg | (Talk) 15:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Odd contributions[edit]

Re: your question about Pwqn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I don't know exactly what to make of it, I've asked a question at the Village Pump. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Laughlin, Draper, etc.[edit]

Hi, thanks for sending those articles my way. You did a great job with both of them, my edits were pretty minimal/miscellaneous (sometimes a little context, sometimes expanding on aspects that I know a lot about, etc.). Sorry I hadn't gotten around to thanking you until today! I appreciate the time you put into these, they are among the better sources on the internet for this sort of information. --Fastfission 06:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a tiny fragment of Malibu tile[edit]

Willmcw, thanks for your gentle introduction to Wikipedia -- I'm hooked! A little more than a a week or so ago, I added an anonymous nip and tuck to the existing Alan Hollinghurst article, only to find the entire entry deleted a few hours later for a prior copyright violation. I would not have understood what had happened were it not for your private note; in fact, were it NOT for what had happened, I would not be nearly so keen on Wikipedia and all its possibilities. And now I've created a number of new entries, with a vision of what's to come.

I don't know when the new stub of Alan Hollinghurst/Temp will revert to Alan Hollinghurst, whether that happens automatically or if some official request must be made. Any advice or help with that would be welcome. It's one of many articles to be fleshed out in the foreseeable future.

Again, many thanks! Sandover 18:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alan Hollinghurst[edit]

People seem to have got it right at Alan Hollinghurst/Temp, linked to from Alan Hollinghurst (Rewrite article at Alan Hollinghurst/Temp). Feel free to add to it and it will be transferred to the main namespace once the copyvio is reviewed and deleted. --BesigedB ^(talk) 15:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

You really have a good sense of humor! When you wrote the edit summary that said, " RV unsubstantiated claim" I thought "Ho hum. ... But I'd better check it." I started laughing the instant my slow mind made the connection! and I'm still laughing as I write this. I hope the guy will come back to discover that his insertion has been cut. 金 (Kim) 06:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche[edit]

Will, would you care to comment on the proposal I've made on Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche? In response to a complaint made on that page by Chip Berlet, which I feel has some justification, I have asked Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper to agree to stop editing Chip Berlet, Dennis King, Political Research Associates, John Train Salon, and also to stop editing the references to Berlet in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. I've also asked Chip if he will agree to stop editing these pages if the others stop. If both sides can agree on that, I was wondering if you would help me get them into NPOV shape. I know it's a lot of work, but I feel the Chip Berlet page, in particular, is a bit of a POV mess, and as he argues, it may be causing him to lose freelance work, so I feel it's unfair to allow it to exist.

I have myself no POV on Berlet and know very little about him, so I feel able to edit the page free of pre-conceived ideas. The LaRouche editors may not believe that, however, as I have previously clashed with them over Jeremiah Duggan, Frederick Wills and Schiller Institute. It would therefore make them feel easier if other editors were involved. I have also left a similar note on Snowspinner's Talk page, as he has commented recently on this issue, and he acted as mediator in a previous dispute the LaRouche editors had with others. I sense that Snowspinner probably has a different POV from me on several issues, so we may balance each other out. My only POV here is that decent sources should be used, and I don't regard LaRouche publications as credible.

My proposal is to start with the Chip Berlet page by editing it down to its barest bones, then rebuilding it using only third-party sources. Let me know what you think, and if you'd like to be involved. I also left a response for you on Talk:Frederick Wills. Best, Slim 06:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is not hard to write a bio or other article from a couple of different sources (even if they conflict somewhat). If you can find some agreeable sources then I can help write articles derived from them. But without sources I would have to do original research -yikes! -Willmcw 10:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Will, sorry, I didn't see your response earlier. Herschel has not agreed to the proposal and Weed Harper has not responded, but Chip has agreed, so I'm going to start editing Chip Berlet, based on whatever sources I can find online that aren't LaRouche-related. Feel free to jump in, and feel free to be bold! We can discuss any differences either on that Talk page or on our user Talk pages. Best, Slim 23:21, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've done some research and there seems to be enough online to write an article on Berlet, who does appear to be a serious researcher, with the work he did on LaRouche only a small part of his overall work. I've created a user subpage to write the draft at User:SlimVirgin/CBdraft and a Talk page at User talk:SlimVirgin/CBdraft, where we can discuss it, so as not to clutter up our own Talk pages. Best, Slim 00:37, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

WIll, I've more or less finished writing the Chip Berlet draft. I still want to create a References section, and I may delete some of the dodgier external links, but otherwise, it's finished. Would you mind having a look at it, and letting me know whether you'd support it if I put it on the page? It's at User:SlimVirgin/CBdraft. I like what you've done with Frederick Wills. It's much better. I've been looking around for a date of birth, and will put it in if I find one. Slim 15:14, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

MacDonald[edit]

Willcmw -- I know you've actually researched MacDonald, so I can't understand why you keep referring to his work as being about a "Jewish conspiracy". He never uses the term (which isn't scientific). Jacquerie27 09:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I "keep" doing that. But he does argue that people of Jewish ethnicity work together to secretly further a particular political goal. He may not use the phrase "Jewish conspiracy", but that is what he is describing, to my eye. What would you call it, in your own words? I'd be happy to find a better phrase. I do not regard his views on neo-conservatives as "scientific". It is a political matter, not a scientific one. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't say they "work together to secretly further" anything. If you disagree, please quote something from him that supports that. I can't think of a simple phrase to sum up his theory: "Judaism as group evolutionary strategy" isn't simple. It is a political matter, not a scientific one. They are not separate realms: scientific data and theories are (increasingly) relevant to politics, and politics influences science and how people react to science. Jacquerie27 10:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you were quoting when you described the supposed Jewish campaign against "The Passion of the Christ" as a "well-organized, psychologically intense campaign." How was it organized? By whom? If it was not secretive, these answers should be easily discovered. -Willmcw 16:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments about tidying. In the US the ADL organized against the film (http://www.adl.org/interfaith/gibson_qa.asp) and the Simon Wiesenthal Center (http://www.wiesenthal.com/mailings_swc/swc_feb2504.htm) and they work closely together. In the UK the Jewish Board of Deputies protested against it.[2] It got a lot of publicity well in advance of its public release because of the campaign. (I'm no fan of it, but the campaign is evidence for MacDonald's theories.) Jacquerie27 21:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since you know about it I guess it can't be called a secret conspiracy. ;). Though possibly inaccurate, I note that others have termed MacDonald's theory as outlining a conspiracy. See here, a short quote by the late colleague of MacDonald's, Glayde Whitney.

You are a good copy editor. Thanks for making Wiki a more grammatically correct reference. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NCC[edit]

Good catch on the National Citizens Coalition. That was way POV. Kevintoronto 16:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions[edit]

you speak about unexplained deletions. Do I have to explain that something that is rather stupid is rather stupid ? You believe in this so-called effect that men can't tell the difference between small and not small because they look down on their penis ? Ask any child what is small and what is not and they will give you a correct answer looking down on something or not. The second deletion should remain deleted because this study is totally ignoring the existing size differences and even suggests people hallucinating because of hidden causes. These nonsense makes me very angry.

I think you're talking about this edit. You are invited to challenge a fact and make an edit, but to anonymously cut something with no explanation is not helpful. I don't know what the basis is for the original material, and the word "simply" sounds, well, simplistic. Do you think you can find some information on the topic, so we can make informed edits? (Oh, and you'll have to excuse a tendency for quick-reverting. Some pages are vandalized a couple of times a day, and random changes to them don't stand a chance unless they are explained). Cheers, -Willmcw 21:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Frederick Wills[edit]

The question is to be answered in your heart as expressed by your edits. If your purpose is to advance the unique ideas of Lyndon LaRouche on Wikipedia there is a problem. If it is not there should be no problem. Fred Bauder 10:32, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder whether Fred Bauder misunderstood you, Will, and thought perhaps you were the LaRouche editor. Slim 19:49, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

He gave a good answer and I am satisfied. My question was posted on his talk page. -Willmcw 19:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well done, by the way, for tracking down that information on Wills: the Jim Jones links, the transcript, the cricket stuff etc. Slim 23:20, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Category:User contributed public domain images[edit]

I noticed that you commented on how long it was taking to resolve this at CfD, so I thought I'd explain. Actually the category was moved some time ago. However, most of the images that are in there are there because of templates, which have some bugs. It takes a while for the change to the template to be recognized by the category, so it looks like all those images are still in the category, even though if you look at them individually you will see that they are in Category:User-created public domain images. The entry is still there at CfD because 1-I've been out of town and unable to archive it, and 2-there is no clear policy regarding what to do in these cases. (We're not that hopeless. We're just behind. ;) -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Using real names[edit]

Hi Will, I can't look around right now as Wikipedia is so slow, but if you go to Requests for Arbitration and look for the case involving Ventrilloquist Don, brought by AndyL, it may say something there. VD knew Andyl's name, I believe from an e-mail, and posted it somewhere on Wikipedia, which is the basis of the complaint. I believe it's counted as a personal attack, unless of course the person has given permission or it was done in error, as we were doing with Cberlet (or rather, as everyone apart from you was doing: I see you stuck to the correct form throughout). SlimVirgin 23:14, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

You can blame my poor citation skills for your not being able to find it. It is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Proposed decision. I called him Ventrilloquist Don. :-) I hope I didn't waste a lot of your time. I don't know whether that will refer to the specific policy, but their reasoning is that Don did not have permission to use Andyl's name, but did use it during a dispute, and therefore it is felt there was some malice and intimidation involved, and that counts as a personal attack. None of these issues is the case regarding Cberlet, although now that I have pointed out that the name should not be used, if it continues to be used without his consent, that starts to look deliberate. There is a great deal of arguably defamatory material on the Talk pages of his page, Dennis King's, and the LaRouche pages. I checked Wikipedia's libel page today, and the law does (unsurprisingly) apply to Talk pages too, which are also cached by Google. Therefore it makes a lot of sense not to use real names without consent, though it would make even more sense not to insult people, but how likely is that? :-) SlimVirgin 01:50, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know he had posted his real name on his user page. Still, I feel it should be up to him whether it's used on Talk pages. All these insults could show up under a Google search of his real name (It can take weeks for them to turn up, so if they're not there now, it doesn't mean they won't be in future). It's one thing to insult an anon user — that's disruptive of Wikipedia — but it's another when it's a real name, when that person's a professional researcher, and when it's his research skills and honesty that are being publicly attacked. That's actionable, so it's in Wikipedia's interests either that the insults stop and/or that real names aren't used. I also agree with you that it would be nice to move on and start creating pages elsewhere. Can you think of a way to speed up this discussion so that we reach an agreement on this page? For my own part, I will agree to anything that is relevant and properly referenced. SlimVirgin 02:47, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom page you referred me to does not say that revealing personal names is a violation, per se. What the arbitraters have agreed upon is that:

1) Attempts to intimidate are forms of personal attack, which are not allowed.

and that the use and AndyL's real name was intended to intimidate. I can't see how the use of CBerltet's real name itself can be intended to intimidate him. But directly disparaging remarks of either user CBerlet or subject/journalist Chip Berlet could be intended to intimidate, and if so they would be a violation, regardless of names used. This may be one reason why it is a bad idea for people involved in a topic to edit articles on that topic. I have no idea of how to move the LaRouche-related articles to reasonable completeness. Unfortunately there seems to be a tendency for them to get longer and longer. I can't see anyone actually sitting down and reading the LaRouche politics article, for example. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any form of personal attack is not allowed, whether intended to intimidate or not. Calling someone a liar and accusing them of making up quotes is a personal attack, and using a real name makes it worse, because it introduces a legal problem too. When you say "people involved in that topic": if you mean the LaRouche editors, I agree. If you mean Cberlet, I disagree. He is not "involved". He just happens to know more about it than any of the other editors, which is why the LaRouche editors oppose him. That he is "involved" and can't be trusted is a slur they've started to persuade other editors not to trust him, just as they call me an "anti-LaRouche activist" for the same reason. These are the LaRouche organization's tactics; they've been doing it for decades with great success, but they should be resisted in Wikipedia. I agree with you about the length, and it badly needs a copy edit. I've suggested to Herschel and Weed that they voluntarily stop editing all the LaRouche-related articles and appoint an editor as an advocate to represent their views. I've posted a link to a list of editor-advocates on the Political views talk page. I doubt they'll agree, but it's worth a try. SlimVirgin 05:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hairdressers[edit]

I don't know what you did, but I deleted the category and recreated it and it is fixed now. Cheers Sortior 04:20, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)