User talk:Will Beback/archive20

Your feedback on Matt Drudge talk page

Hi Will Beback, I saw some comments you left on the Michael Savage talk and you seem like a fair-minded person. I'd be very grateful for your input on a long-suppressed proposed edit to the Matt Drudge page. I cannot see the libel in it, but some other conservative (in every way) editors are unsure. Please leave a short comment there if you have some time. Thanks. Skopp (Talk) 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Question re editing archived pages (John Wayne sockpuppet)

Since the John Wayne sockpuppet guy is back, I posted something to the thread on your User talk page which has been archived. But my post showed up only on the archived page, so I'm wondering: if one edits someone's archived page, does anyone see that if they're not actively reading their archives? For the record, here's what I posted, just in case it should have been placed in a new section on your current user talk page:

After a break, he has returned, doing the same stuff to the John Wayne and James Stewart articles, now using the name BillRodgers.

Thanks in advance for squaring me away. Monkeyzpop 19:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

note on the LaRouche rfCs

I was comparing the two RfCs and noticed that they are worded the same except for names. Is this a policy violation? Dagomar 06:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I raised the COI issue because when you dissect all the LaRouche disputes that seems to be a common issue. If this is eliminated you can pull the rug out from underneath these folks who are trying to make us their pulpit. Dagomar 03:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

With Image:Evilhomer1.jpg, that's cool but let that user know. As for Image:Homestarpedia.png, it was released for public use on HomestarWiki, so that public use would extend to Wikipedia as well. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and don't remove images, regardless, from a user's page. It is kinda rude. Userpages are that user's domain, if you will, and normally, unless it is to revert vandalism, you ask permission first before editing a person's userpage. It is just a common courtesy.

Also, don't intentionally orphanate an image then retag it, again, rude. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"they belong, along with the rest of Wikipedia, to the WMF" - You missed the point entirely, which I expected. As you "took the liberty", as you put it, of removing things from people's userpages, I didn't expect you to. See, most Wikipedians respect that a person's userpage is that user's page and unless they ask ahead of time (or they are reverting vandalism) they don't mess with a user's userpage. No matter.

Also, the CC 2.5, there are plenty of images released under CC 2.5 on Wikipedia right now, so I am not buying that excuse, which is what it is. Since the user released it to the public, it would be released for Wikipedia use as well. You are obviously trying to find a problem where there is none. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it said it was an orphan image.

Orphan - Noun

5. (computing) Any unreferenced abstract object.

(from Wiktionary)

Since both images, Image:Homestarpedia.png more than the other, were being used, they were not orphans and the tags were incorrect. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Try taking a look at the image, it is being used in an article. More than one now. You know, you really take the fun out of Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, it is part of an article, so it is not in violation of WP:FU anymore, so let's try and NOT keep trying to put it there.....and did you not get my point about not messing with people's user pages? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, I am asked to put the image on a page, I do, it's removed. I am ordered to remove it from other user's userpages, I won't, so you do it for me. I make a userbox, it is f***ed up. The image I used, which was released the image out to the public....released to the public....is some how turned into a fair use image.

Do I have a choice, no. Do I have any recourse, no. Does this make me want to ever bother making another userbox, upload another image, or create another article, no. Why, who knows what you will have wrong with that article.

Seems kinda odd that you have no "chased" me around from my Stephens City, Virginia article (which I still have no recieved anything on) to the Cumberland, Maryland article, to this userbox. If I need someone to follow me around, take the fun out of everything I do, and be a complete buzzkill, I will just go find my old girlfriend again. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OK....how can I explain this.....OK, a user page is like a house. I don't come over to your house, rearrange the furniture, put wallpaper that I like, and paint the outside pink with orange Polka-dots. The same goes for you, you wouldn't come over to my house, set my couch out on the front lawn, feng shui my kitchen cabinets and re-tile my bathroom in lime green tile.

Same goes for each of our userpages. If I thought the picture of the mountain with watermelon snow was goofy, I wouldn't take it down and replace it with a picture of George Carlin from 1983. It is just common courtesy....you don't come into someone's house and mess things up, you don't go onto someone's userpage and delete images....unless you ask first.

Also, don't cite the civility rules to me, I have been, on more than one occasion, more than civil and polite with you and others. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Released to the public = Free. I need a Vicodin and a stiff drink now, you guys have given me a mirgaine. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am adding these to prove a point of how stupid the anti-racist category is

It might be more helpful to hold the discussion on that categories talk page.Hoponpop69 23:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well will you still participate in that discussion?Hoponpop69 23:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr Keck

I see that you have banned User:Mr Keck. I have reviewed his contributions, which were few. Could you tell be specifically what was so objectionable about his behavior? --Marvin Diode 14:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I fear that you have misunderstood my question. I saw the notice on his talk page that he was a suspected sockpuppet. To arrive at that determination, you ask for a checkuser, am I wrong? And you must have a behavioral basis, policy violations etc., in order to request a checkuser? So let me repeat the question: what was so objectionable about his behavior? Please tell me it wasn't just incorrect POV. --Marvin Diode 20:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be having trouble formulating my question clearly. Don't you have to run checkuser before deciding that someone is a sockpuppet? And doesn't there have to be some sort of policy violation before you can request a checkuser? --Marvin Diode 14:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be going around the mulberry bush here. You say that the policy violation is being a sockpuppet. So, how do you actually know that there is a policy violation, without first going to check-user? And I guess more to the point: what made you suspect that Mr Keck was a sockpuppet, other than the fact that he voted "wrong" in Cberlet's poll? An awful lot of users who disagreed with Cberlet have wound up banned lately. I find this pattern disturbing. --Marvin Diode 22:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I speaking a foreign language or something? What I am asking is, what made Mr Keck a suspect? Why did you decide that he was a likely sockpuppet, as opposed to any number of other editors? --Marvin Diode 14:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I managed to find Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser and I see no sign of any request by you regarding Mr Keck. Did anyone run checkuser on him? What was the evidence that Mr Keck was a sockpuppet? --Marvin Diode 14:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't doubt that it was the case. I just wondered what made him a target of suspicion, as I have asked you in as many different ways and as clearly as I can. I don't know much about checkuser, but I had the distinct impression that there had to be some sort of "probable cause" before somebody submits a checkeuser request. --Marvin Diode 20:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear at this point that you are unwilling to answer my question about what made Mr Keck a suspect. I also wonder why you did not go through the "requests for checkuser," and instead apparently used some sort of private channel. Lack of transparency in these matters creates a climate of mistrust. --Marvin Diode 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finally answering some of my questions. --Marvin Diode 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked the number of times that it took for me to get an answer. I should have thought that once would be sufficient. As to why I thought that it was important, it comes back to my concerns about even-handedness. There was a nasty content dispute that lasted over a month. When the smoke cleared, the two editors that I thought were the biggest problem, Cberlet and Dking, come away unscathed, with the RFCs on them being suppressed. Meanwhile, two of their main opponents got banned for what appear to be very minor offenses, and a third, marginal opponent, Mr Keck, also got banned. If he is a sockpuppet of a former user who committed very serious offenses, I can see why he should be banned. But just looking at the contribution history of Mr Keck alone, it seemed quite innocent to me. --Marvin Diode 20:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sunset Blvd. entry

Hi Will,

  I edited the Sunset Blvd. entry recently to remove material that I felt was inaccurate, but found that you promptly reinstated
said material.  Specifically, you refer to Sunset as running through "very rugged terrain" over "much of its course" and being
"treacherous" due to "hairpin curves and blind crests".  As a Los Angeles resident who frequently drives Sunset from the West side
to my house near downtown, I can assure you that "rugged" & "treacherous" are not accurate descriptions of the terrain; only a
small section near Beverly Hills & West thereof contains minor changes in altitude and curves; the majority of the road is
absolutely flat and straight.  Short of giving you my word, the only evidence I can offer is to direct you to Google Maps to have
a look at the route for yourself, and I would urge you to do so.  I don't have much vested interest in this article, but just want
to correct something that seemed blatantly incorrect from firsthand experience.  I'll leave it to you to remove the material if
you come to the same conclusion as me, but if you do not I would appreciate an explanation.  Thank you.

Stephens City redux

Do you know of a better way that I can add the permission? Another form, etc? I honestly don't want to have to rewrite all that if I don't have to and the way it is written is great as it is. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond here since your talk page is hard to follow. The implest thing of all is to ask the copyrightholder or webmaster to simply add a line at the bottom of the website's page saying that the material is released under the GFDL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, don't mean for my talk page to be confuzzling. I can ask them, but my thing is I don't want to annoy the crap out of them with this permission and that permission and can you add this, this and that. That is my main worry. I will ask, of course. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to send me a copy of your letter of request I can check to make sure it's complete and correct. Or you can use one of the already and approved prepared letters here. Or you can simply ask them to do what I wrote above, which is to just add the GFDL license to the original page. Or you can ask the copyright holder to come to Wikipedia and contribute the material himself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That last one would work. The one person from the Newtown History Center (the people who made the history section in question) made an account under the name User:Newtownhistorycenter. My only problem is, would that cause a conflict of interest issue? If not, then that would work excellently. All they would have to do is just copy/paste my last edit and call it their own, we would know why they were doing that (would be easier than typing the whole thing again) and then they could say "we added this, it is ours".

I can let them know about that and the GFDL thing as well. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone may ask for proof that the account actually belongs to the Newtown History Center. That usually takes the form of an email sent from a Newtownhistorycenter.org address. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Murphy

Heh... Sounds like the guy is quite the talk of the town. I am not sure that an arrest for deviant sexual behavior is all that uncommon as to make him notable. But he will certainly be the talk of the town. Thanks for passing that along. I was aware that there was quite a mess over at the Young Republicans article, but am out of town and had not had the chance to look into it too much. Montco 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The JDL article

I think that you and I are in agreement about the FBI referring to the JDL as terrorist and where to do it. I have no problem with putting the terrorist tag on them if the FBI puts them on their official list. For the most part I do not edit until I think there is a consensus. I think there is one and I think your edit(s) adhere to it. Albion moonlight 10:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unusual editing pattern

hmmmm--Cberlet 23:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

87.74.46.129

This is the user whose contributions you are reverting, the extent of his contributions being adding the same category to articles. Are these all to be reverted? And if so, there is a backlog of these categories having been added by this user if you need assistance. Bobo. 11:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

American School (economics)

In the course of clearing OR out of this article, I've started wondering why there is an article on an "American School" at all. There doesn't seem to be any mention of a contemporary source using that term. Why can't everything be at the American System article? Gazpacho 22:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche (again)

I have filed a request for admin intervention due to the way the new page RFC on Lyndon LaRouche has been transformed into an attack on my editing and reliability as a source. See here--Cberlet 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Kenneth Wapnick Article deletion/ reinstatement review

Hi Will,
          Good to see you are still active over here . In case you might be interested, there is a discussion going on about whether or not Wikipedia should include an article about Kenneth Wapnick at: the Article Deletion Review board. Your input over there would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

-Scott P. 10:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

More on 87.74.46.129

On User talk:Bobo192, Will Beback said:
Thanks for your note. This editors contributins nedn't be automatically reverted, but the overwhelming majority of them have been unhelpful. He has been making categorizations that don't appear to be justified, and which appear to promote a particular viewpoint. user:Renata3 has blocked the account temporarily, but I'm sure the user will come back. Your help would be appreciated.

The block is certainly useful for the time being while we reassess the situation. I'm certainly unsure as to which, if any, of the people he added to the list of Jewish atheists (is there even such a thing?) really do fit in this category. Surely they do not as "Jewish atheists" sounds to me to be a contradiction in terms. (A nontheistic religion, on the other hand..)

I promise if and when I see the user around again, most probably in 22 hours time, I shall keep an eye on their contributions. Thank you. Bobo. 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg... See ANI report. BTW, there is such thing as Jewish atheist (because a Jew is not just a religion, it's also nationality). But he has a super-strong anti-atheist and anti-gay agenda and will scream his lungs out when anybody approaches him trying to moderate his contributions or seek explanations. Knowing him, he will be back. In a day or two, but he will be back. Renata 19:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing, again

You've been warned previously about canvassing for support for policy changes. This appears to another instance. If you'd like to alert previous participants in a discussion to a new discussion, please do so even-handedly. Selectively notifying users who support your position gievs the appearance of gaming the system. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, first, WP:CANVASSING is not prohibited. Second, what I did above is closer to a friendly notice than canvassing, or, at worst, it is campaigning, about which a "hard and fast rule does not exist". But thanks for expressing your concerns. However, future similar "warnings" on my talk page obviously will serve no purpose, and are not welcome. I hope that is clear. --Serge 22:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review the nature of a behavioral guideline:

• It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

It is a standard that you are expected to follow. Friendly wanring are tolerated "if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion". Selectively canvassing certain editors who've previously agreed with you gives the appearance of attempting to influence the discussion and is called "votestacking". See the "audience" column in the chart at WP:CANVASSING#Types of canvassing. This behavior has generated comments from other editors besides myself. Ignoring polite requests to follow guidelines is not helpful behavior and does not demonstrate good faith. You seem to be saying that you will continue to flout this guideline, and that I needn't bother mentioning it again here. In that case if there is a recurrence it will have to be addressed in another venue, such as AN/I or a user RfC. It would be better if you'd simply follow the expected behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, you're acting like an idiot. I'm not ignoring nor flouting the guideline, I'm following it. Please stop claiming that I'm not, or that I'm flouting it. What part of "The difference lies in the disruption involved. " do you not understand? The disruption you're causing now is much more than any (if any) disruption my one little post caused. What part of "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view, in order to influence a vote." do you not understand? What part of "However, the greater the number of editors contacted, ...the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings ..." do you not understand? One incident of campaigning hardly warrants a warning PER THE GUIDELINE. It would be appreciated if you took the time to understand the expected behavior before you warned people for not following it. Please stop being disruptive, especially on my talk page. --Serge 22:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, I thought you should know that I've contacted a few folks about the current request to move the "AP" cities from "city, state" to "city". These are all folks who have expressed interest in the topic on my talk page in the past. I consider this action to be well within the guidelines, though I recognize and respect that some people like you feel it is pushing the no canvassing guideline. But unless the guideline is tightened up to be more clear about this, I am going to continue to disagree. --Serge 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, like I said, it's a handful of folks who have expressed interest on my talk page in the past. It's campaigning, about which the guideline says: "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view". Anyway, I'm done. --Serge 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice working with you

Thank you for your contributions this evening to the Rickover article. I think that the retirement section is getting a little heavy as compared to his substantial contributions, but then I guess elephant fights are always dramatic & amusing. --24.28.6.209 05:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

IP users in highest income places

Lately there has been an IP user who has added figures that cannot be verified for "Anaheim Hills," California to the Highest Income Places in the US article. This has been a chronic problem in the past, but now the user (seen here with IPs such as 75.47.185.234, 75.43.193.16, and 75.47.182.253 seems willing to engage in revert wars over it, which seems like something not worthing of entering for that user's sake.

There is strong similarity of edits by this batch of IPs to previous IP users, and finally to known sockpuppets of banned user Ericsaindon2. I am unsure as to the best procedure to deal with this. Lakester10 03:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche and related articles, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Why did you delete Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet? --Marvin Diode 14:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Because this editor is an associate in arms with Cberlet and should excuse himself from any actions like above. That would be the ethical thing to do. Cberlet is known for editing his own articles and others on his subjects he writes about. He has been involved in numerous past disputes with Willbeback/Williamcw or whatnot and others. Their is a long history of hysteria on behalf of this group - regarding a non-entity like LaRouche which over-reaches into any topic they think LaRouche is involved with. It's problematic and concerned Wikipedians should censure this crowd for Wikipedia's sake. --Northmeister 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC Ramana Maharshi article

WB, you helped me before, can you look at and comment on the Ramana Maharshi article talk page? I'm having issues with editors whose bias toward "semitic", "christian", "westerners", including a noted, published expert on the subject, is apparent, and who insist on edit warring using inferior sources to support an seemingly hindu nationalist agenda. The insertion of a Britannica stub like reference which requires registration to view the article and which has documentable errors, and which has resulted in putting the Britannica article near the top of searches, seems like a violation of wikipedia policies. Similarly, the use of an article with documentable errors which adds nothing new and does more to promote Sivananda than address the subject. Etc. All this is done under the strawman guise of falsely claiming that my edits are designed to eliminate references to Ramana Maharshi being "hindu" when I am simply trying to avoid oversimplification and attribution of views that are not accurately sourced. --Dseer 18:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche and related articles. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I read your long statement on my talk page, and I find nothing there to change my impression that you are determined to block any discussion of Cberlet's behavior. That is what I find most disturbing. As an admin, you should be trying to find ways to get him to change, instead of being his "enabler." --Marvin Diode 14:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm

[1]. And [2]. -- But|seriously|folks  11:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I won't bother with the checkuser request. -- But|seriously|folks  17:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Justin Berry

If you could take a look at the talk page and logs since you were earlier involved in dealing with the BLP issues there it might be helpful. JoshuaZ 18:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Anchor baby resolution

"Depending on it's usage, Anchor baby can be characterized as a pejorative term." What about this sentence is wrong per NPOV, considering the sources. Let us try to work out a reasonable sentence that we both can agree to? Let's move forward with resolving this issue in harmony between our points of view on the matter. --Northmeister 23:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal threats [3] on my talk page. That's the sort of behavior that constantly gets you into disputes in the first place. --Northmeister 01:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

American School

Thanks for the advice - although I do understand that - its with that issue, and the issue concerning you for some reason that gets me going sometimes. I do apologize if I've made any insults your way in the process of our discussion based on the negative impression I received from others which lead me to suspect your motivations. I can see in a round about way stepping back - that I was more than likely misinformed and under the wrong impression. That said, I do stand by the American School article and my past edits - although that article is in need of improvement, and I agree the long quote had to go (although parts thereof are sufficient for use elsewhere). There is a link [4] for its inclusion. The question Tom-Shoreman had was a legitimate and those two paragraphs are better suited to "Hamilton's Republic" - there was a mess up with the link through some of reworking done - albeit by mistake. I am glad he caught that, although I am disappointed he did not respond to my original question to alleviate my concerns and to allow us to move on. Last, the Analysis part, needs major rework or taking out for now until WAS can rework it better - I concur with your impression on that. Best regards... --Northmeister 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nueva Germania

Hey chief, we'd talked briefly about Nueva Germania in the past. I ran into something terribly entertaining the other day, something you'd probably enjoy. This wonderful website vbs.tv apparently features travel segments to remote, bizarre places: Pakistani arms bazaars, Congolese pygmy colonies, and indeed one charming, rustic, [www.vbs.tv/player.php?bctid=715981011&bccl=MTQ0MTg4N19fVE9EQVk= Paraguayan-Aryan settlement]. There's also a brief segment about the dream machine, the brainchild of that kooky fellow who made those suspect edits to the Germania page. Cheers, DBaba 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Overlawyered campaign

I agree that this is a blog and could be removed from external links per WP:EL, but removing citations wholesale is unacceptable, especially when it's being cited as an example for an opinion. Plenty of blogs from Volokh Conspiracy to Michael Moore's have been used in this way. Cool Hand Luke 17:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Overlawyered qualifies as WP:RS under WP:SPS. It is edited by the leading expert in the field, Walter Olson, it is regularly cited by books,[5]

[6] [7] [8] [9] ^{(and many more)} law reviews, newspaper articles, and magazines. (COI disclosure: I occasionally write for Overlawyered. I added an Overlawyered link to one page after consulting with other editors to the page.) The edit was especially questionable on tort reform, where you removed only the blogs about tort reform, while keeping several left-wing sources that violated WP:EL. THF 17:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Then leave the claim out entirely! What you've done is made the BLP situation even worse—you can't solve alleged BLP uncompliance by writing uncited prose. Some of you changes have been manifestly against BLP. For example, stripping a Bainbridge reference while retaining his named criticism. Cool Hand Luke 17:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:MULTI, I've taken the discussion to User talk:Cool Hand Luke. If we can't reach a consensus among the three of us, we should try WP:RS/N. THF 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Campaign for White America

Hello, I admire your work here. I am concerned that all the documentaion of Human Events and Regnerys ties to Nazis and White Nationalism are being hidden in a campaign here on Wiki. Please read these links and then look at the Wiki articles on these people and groups. (You worked on the National Policy Institute article) "Regnery and two other isolationists began broadcasting Human Events and in 1947 started the Regnery publishing business. Interesting enough the first two titles published by Regnery were critical of the Nuremberg Trials. The third book Regnery published was another pro-Nazi book attacking the allies air campaign. In 1954, Regnery published two books for the John Birch Society." [10] [11] [12] [13] Can you help uncover the truth, or will Wiki stand with Racists and Nazis? Thank you. •smedleyΔbutler• 07:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User Northmeister

Northmeister claims on my talk page that you are Wiki-stalking him. Perhaps you should write a short response there. I am really at a loss with this user, and I am still of the opinion that he is identical with my old opponent, Ted Wilkes. He doesn't accept critical remarks concerning his idol Elvis Presley, even if they are well sourced. Onefortyone 14:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Blog" is more reliable than Wikipedia

Why did you restore a blog as a source for a WP:BLP?[14] Wikipedia's policy on BLPs says:

• Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

Is there an extenuating circumstance that justifies breaking a policy? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither cite sufficiently supported the long-present statement in the article and therefor neither was a "source" for controversial innformation. The overlawyered.com item did, however, point to an actual RS (The New Republic) which could be consulted, and removing that clue while leaving the unsupported text was unhelpful (as my edit comment indicated). I didn't then have time or inclination to run down the truth of this matter but have now done so [15] with the aid of the removed cite. As I suspected, the problem was with Wikipedia, not overlawyered.com, which appears to be far more reliable. Andyvphil 08:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Christopher_Monckton

As you participated in WP:RS/N#Overlawyered, you may be interested in a recent discussion on the BLP use of blogs at this noticeboard. THF 11:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us!

Cyrusc 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Liberty Dollar article & conflict of interest

Much of the Liberty Dollar article is written in a manner that elicits interest from gold speculators. Furthermore, the site touts the launching of the Ron Paul Dollar, in honor of Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul. On both of these matters, the Liberty Dollar strikes me as making a conflict of interest --particularly, in the interest of the person who launched the Rons Paul Dollar, Nick Lebold, or User:Nleobold. This user is taking wikipedia from encyclopedia to infomercial.

The following is the offending [commercially self-serving] wikipedia entry:

== Ron Paul Dollar ==

thumb|right|Gold Ron Paul Dollar
1 oz pure .9999 gold piece.

On July 3 2007, Bernard von NotHaus announced that he and Liberty Dollar Associate Nic Leobold were creating The Ron Paul Dollar (RPD), to honor libertarian Republican Congressman Ron Paul on account of Paul's long-time advocacy of a return to the gold standard and his 2008 presidential campaign. Limited editions of the RPD with a Bill of Rights Scroll hallmark and numbered hallmarked series are being issued. It is currently made in copper, silver and gold. A platinum version has been confirmed and is currently being ordered.

Liberty Dollar announced it planned to contribute up to $2,300 to Ron Paul's campaign from the initial proceeds of the RPD's sales, with future buyers encouraged to send more RPD's directly to the Paul campaign as "real money" contributions. The design and launch of the Ron Paul Dollar was kept secret from Ron Paul and his campaign staff because of the strict Federal Election Commission campaign finance rules, which Paul and fellow libertarians claim are a violation of the 1st Amendment Right of Free Speech and of free trade/property rights.

Thus, I am making a formal request for intervention, from you, an administror. Yours, Dogru144 22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles on Domenech

Hi,

I left a question for you under your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Domenech. If you could provide links to those articles you mention, that would be very helpful. Thanks! Noroton 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I hunted down the Web links, at least to the samples given out by the Washington Post and Atlanta paper, and that nails it, as far as I'm concerned. I just voted to keep. I might even be able to fit a bit of the Post article into the Wikipedia article. It's the kind of fact-based, low-drama stuff that really advances the encyclopedia. Much appreciated. Noroton 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ted Hayes

Hi. No, I saw that on IMDb. I had a question when I saw her birth year, but thought it was possible and that IMDb was reliable. I'll send them a correction. Tim Long 01:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Linda Gottfredson

I see that you have previously edited on the above referenced page. I would like to remove the disputed neutrality box. I have posted to the discussion page and have not been able to have a consensus since no one seems to be interested enough to discuss it. I also notice that no one had put forth a reason that it should be disputed before tagging it. If you will take a look at the page and see if there are POV issues. If there are not, could you remove the tag? thanks.Die4Dixie 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Larry Craig - LGBT cat

Hi - thanks for assuming good faith!  :) I hadn't yet checked out the lengthy discussion on the talk page. I definitely appreciate the kind heads-up. Popkultur 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)