User talk:Will Beback/archive22

Your edits to Loyola website

Please leave the comparitive statistics in there. Statistics aren't of much use without a comparison. They were there for months before you deleted them. --Uponsolid133 06:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Loving v. Virginia do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Martial BACQUET 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm really sorry. Your recent edit was appearing like a vandalism, this is why I reverted it. I haven't seen you were a sysop. I'm sorry. Martial BACQUET 00:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is it. But don't worry, I'm in the good side ;) but I've seen an external link and a removal of content so I believed it was a vandalism. Have a good day. Martial BACQUET 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion

Hello Will Beback. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Eugenics. The discussion can be found under the topic Eugenics. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. --Schwalker 09:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey

WHAM! Oooo I'm totally taking you seriously. Tell me, are you the type of person who regularly tags along on other Admin's fights just to get a taste of the action bc you really can't handle it on your own? Nice job, child. You totally remind me of the guy who'd sit would let his friend fight and only help out by telling him to look out for the punch heading right for his face.Chairman Meow 21:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your civil wiki cites these examples: Belittling contributors Judgmental tone Calling for bans

All of what you have just done to me. Perhaps I may have been a little zealous, however, zealousness is it's own excuse, not taking the plank out of your own eye, isn't. Don't judge if you are guilty of that which you claim to deride.Chairman Meow 21:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions in list of cults article

Sorry, I am kind of new to Wikipedia. I will make sure that my edits have an edit summary and a talk page comment. Thanks for the tip. Love-in-ark 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Embarazada

Where is the copyvio from? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's OK

I'll keep it for the time being then. Consensus was that there is some encyclopedic value to it. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Redaction potentially needed at Justin Berry

In this edit, an IP editor added some fairly unsavory (and patently false) commentary about Berry. Out of an excess of caution, should this edit be deleted? --Ssbohio 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mail

I've sent you email, I'd appreciate a reply when you get a chance, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Geert Wilders

I've put a source of Pechtold's question regarding Wilders' wife, although it is a blog. So if you want me to translate another source for you, I'd be happy to. Mallerd 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Involvement

I happened to review your contributions list.[1] If I read it correctly, you've made just 50 edits to mainspace articles since 4/30/07. In other words, you don't seem particularly involved in Wikipedia. Yet you are passionate about this linking policy and have made hundreds of postings about it. Why does it matter so much to you, more than actually contributing to Wikipedia? People who don't want to get harassed have an obvious interest in the outcome, but I don't understand your interest. Am I missing something? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You phrased it nicely, so I'll assume you're genuinely curious, and not gearing up for Ad Hominem attacks. :)

People have lots of different editing styles-- the most valuable are Wikignomes, who make prodigious amounts of minor edits to thousands of articles. I tend to focus on one article or issue at a time-- right now, my focus is towards the BADSITES issue. Look deeper into the history and you'll see I have substantial contributions a substantial number of articles.

What is my personal interest? Wikipedia is heading towards being THE most important content site on the entire internet. And the thing that makes the internet (and Wikipedia) so magical is that it's the first communications medium in human history that is truly completely uncensored. The internet has every point of view imaginable, and Wikipedia discusses every notable subject imaginable.

This kind of communication really is changing the world. A year or two ago, I was playing Warcraft and got to know talking with one of the people I was playing with. She was a Jewish teenager, living in Israel. She has a boyfriend, she told me, someone she met online, but she had never met him. "Did you two live too far away from each other to be able meet?", I asked.

"No," she replied. The boyfriend lived within 50 miles of her. But you see, he was Palestinian. She was Israeli. Even though they were close together geographically, their families would never have allowed them to date, or even to meet. But they secretly were very very close, using the internet, the uncensored medium.

The internet is going to change the world. Wars are going to become infinitely harder to fight. Historically, it was conceivable for Americans to bomb Russians-- who did we known in Russia? Thanks to the Internet, all peoples are going to start to come together more and more. You don't want to bomb a country when you're scared you're friend there might die. You don't want to declare war on a country if it means half your Quake Clan might be killed.

In Myanmar, where there's a massive human rights crisis, the first thing the government did was shut off the internet, because they knew it would bring world attention to the people of Myanmar, and tend to make the rest of the world reach out and want to help. Whereas, without TV or internet or phone service-- Myanmar is just a place on a map-- not faces of people we want to help.

In all this, I've spoken in terms of the Internet, but I could just as easily talk about Wikipedia, since we're on the cutting edge of the internet. It's a wonderful beautiful thing. An encyclopedia that covers _Everything_, that's free to anyone who we can possibly get it to. Christian children can learn about the Islamic view of Jesus and Muslim children can learn about the Christian view of Muhammad. Creationists can learn about Evolution even if their communities don't want them to, and Evolutionists can learn about Creationism even if their communities don't want them to.

But we have to resist the temptation to start censoring. It has to be the encyclopedia of EVERYTHING notable-- not just an encyclopedia of the popular or the approved. And censoring always starts so small-- surely THIS speaker is sufficiently evil that we can censor discussion of THAT person/group. No one would ever defend this person/group-- they're without redeeming value. We can get rid of them. Oh, and what about this one too? And what about this one? And soon-- amazingly soon-- we're not censoring coverage of ED trolls anymore, we're censoring coverage of Michael Moore.

So, that's my story. Wikipedia is a powerful force, and it's tempting to use that power to try to stop specific cases of harassment. But not only is such power easily misused, ultimately, the value of having a totally uncensored encyclopedia of every notable subject is so great that it far outweighs whatever small help censoring the encyclopedia would. Not linking to harassment will not cause that harassment to no longer exist. The simple fact is-- if someone is harassing you, stalking you, or threatening you-- you have to take it to the real courts, not to Wikipedia. We don't have the power to do anything about it.

And censoring those accused of harassment from our encyclopedia (if they are notable to merit mention) will sell out our reputation. We don't HAVE to be the uncensored encyclopedia of everything, after all. We could be the encyclopedia of only "acceptable" point of view, rather than NPOV, and if we're not careful, that's where we might wind up.

I don't mean to get melodramatic, but since you asked. BADSITES isn't about ED or ASM or even Michael Moore. It's about Wikipedia. No one here has the ability to delete Michael Moore's speech. The BADSITES proponent arent' trying to delete things from Michael Moore's site-- they're trying to delete things from Wikipedia. From our site.

If a vandal came here and started randomly deleting external links, we would immediate recognize that they're deleting valuable content and we should defend the encyclopedia from them. But when those very same deletions are done out of a compassion to protect the harassed, suddenly it's very hard to see that a valuable part of our encyclopedia just got deleted. But we _NEED_ the link to Michael Moore-- and just as surely as we should defend it from a vandal deletion, we should defend it from a compassionate deletion. (although, of course, we have far more respect for the deleters in the latter case).

BADSITES is a test of Wikipedia, the Uncensored, Free Encyclopedia dedicated to covering everything notable. It is a test of whether this project, or any project so conceived and dedicated, can long endure. If we given in to the temptation to censor, and if we don't change our minds later and turn back, then in the end, Wikipedia will just be little more than a fancy blog host.

I want Wikipedia to work. I want the world to have a Wikipedia. I want the Wiki process to work. And if I can take a few minutes out of my day to try to help the Wikipedia stay free, and work.

I don't know how to help the world. What action can I do that will give a citizen of China the right to vote in a democratic election? What can I do, today, to help make a woman in Saudi Arabia be allowed drive a car? I don't know. But one think I can do to make the world a little better is try to protect Wikipedia. And silly as it is, I think in the end, that will help the world. --Alecmconroy 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your full reply. I'm not sure what it has to do with citizens of China. It's certainly true that we should protect Wikipedia and its contents. Protecting Wikipedia means protecting its editors, because without editors Wikipedia is an ampty ballooon. We don't allow personal attacks and we shouldn't allow harassment either. If you're truly interested in the well-being of this project I don't see why you'd oppose policies that prohibit linking to marginally-reliable source engaging in active harassment of WP editors. Don't you want to encourage editors to contribute to the project? Do you think they will if they face being targeted for harassment? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I want people to feel safe and free to contribute. But I can't protect them. All I can do is deface articles-- which is no protection at all, since the harassment will remain. It's just trading our credibility, objectivity, and NPOV for a handful of magic beans that won't really do anything at all to stop the true external harassment. --Alecmconroy 12:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC Adi Da Talk

Wiil, please refer to [2]. I'm involved in a BLP dispute initiated by an advocate at [3]. User 202.63.42.221, the advocate, now proposes: "If you think (which you obviously do , otherwise you would have removed the content you added already) the material you added to the talk page does not contravene these points listed above , I am willing to go through and strike out the text I think fits these criteria and you can then argue to keep it if you wish , again within the strict criteria of "Biographies of living persons-WP:TALK that means no "soapboxing" personal views (also)WP:SOAP". This strikeout of perfectly acceptable material and article ownership is unacceptable and appears based on pretextual use of BLP. Your non-partisan comments would be appreciated. --Dseer 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:DCGeist

"Will": Wondering what can be done with regard to DCGeist? His behavior on Wikipedia has been nothing short of disturbing as evidenced, for example, in his "commentary" on the Gone with the Wind (film) page. Surely Wikipedia has and will continute to take a stand against behavior such as his. 24.45.196.36 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, my message was in large part designed as a red flag for passersby who might be convinced by the troll's lie about the L.A. Times indicating that the Tara set was anywhere in Hollywood in 1979, and weighing in on that basis. I felt it necessary not only to flag the lie itself, but to indicate the troll's own readily accessible record for those unwilling or unable to research the substantive matters. I'm happy to remain silent on this from now on--except if the troll again makes objectively false claims. Those do need to be explicitly addressed, I believe.—DCGeist 21:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Tara Set

"Will" I resent your representation of me as a "troll". Trust me in that I have better things to do with my time. But I must say that the inclination toward name calling at Wikipedia is truly astonishing. Perhaps this is the way of the Internet... but I wouldn't know because adding to a site like this is something I do on an irregular basis.

Simply put, I'm not satisfied to simply go by someone else's word simply because they say something is so. And as I've been able to surmise by your writings, you share this sentiment. It's an admirable trait. Please know that I have no intention of making you "jump through hoops". I'm sure you also have better things to do. I'm only asking for follow-through on an earlier statement in which you said that you saw the double photo included with the story about the set's destruction. And it's these photos which go to the heart of the issue. If in fact I'm wrong, the photos will bear it out. And again, photographs -- per Wikipedia policy -- can be used as sources. Therefore, if you'll be so kind as to humor me this last time, please post the photos from the 1979 L.A. Times story. 24.45.196.36 22:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Schwartz Memorial Library at the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University has ProQuest Historical Newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, 1881-1986. It's 11 miles from Franklin Square. — Walloon 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Walloon", while I appreciate your suggestion, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to hike out to Long Island to grab a copy of photos that "Will" says he already has. Furthermore, why would anyone in their right mind make such a trek for the sake of a web site? Again, if "Will" is truly interested in putting all of this to rest, he can simply post the photos. The photographic proof will put to rest once and for all the question of this second Tara set having once existed on MGM's lot #2. 24.45.196.36 18:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I already described the photo and copied the caption. For whatever reason you don't believe me. Since no previous evidence has been sufficient to convince you that your memory is incorrect I doubt that going to the effort to find the article again, cut out the photo, and upload it to Wikipedia will convince you either. I've devoted plenty of time to this silly argument and am not interested in indulging the whims of an anonymous editor who is not willing to make the effort to acquire easily-available sources on his own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Need an outside opinion

Will, hate to call on you again, but an outside opinion would be appreciated. Talk:Charlotte, North Carolina. I believe my fellow editor is trying to [[|WP:SYN|synthesize]] a statement about Charlotte's air quality improving indirectly out of sources mentioning national trends. If you have a moment, I've gone as far as I can on this one. Thanks.--Loodog 05:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Vandal"

This has been ongoing since last night with this user, I don't think he is getting the point, hence my warnings. When someone tells you to cool it and you continue to remove things from a page, then that is vandalism. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh

Look, I don't wanna play hardball, but you're well past 3RRs here. I'll give you a few moments to self revert, or I guess I'll have to go noticeboarding. <groan> --Alecmconroy 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If I made three reverts then it was inadvertent. I believe I only made one revert. Edits that change text to new text aren't reverts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel you have editing in error, then I would happily accept your statement if coupled with a self-revert, and will gladly forget the whole matter. We all make mistakes and lose count. If you stand by your edits, however, and refuse to self-revert, we have a behavior problem on our hands, and I guess now's as good a time as any for the community to address it. --Alecmconroy 04:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know about complex reverts. --Alecmconroy 04:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

G'night

you might try editing an article occasionally. ;). Wink notwithstanding, that feels a tad like a personal attack, given the context, but no matter.

I'm off for the night. I hope when I return, I find that you've seen the error of your ways, or that others have convinced you of them, than you have self-reverted, and that the policy page is again unprotected so PM, BenB4, and its other principal authors can continue their work of improving the proposal they want to present to the community.

I'm _truly_ and sincerely hoping for that. If I get back, and you still are hammering away, editing without regard to the opinions of others, the page still protected with your disputed changes un-self-reverted, then I have to accept we can't make any progress on this issue until your behavior is in line, and that means and I have to go through the work to dig up every on-wiki behavior problem you had in the past however many years, and then I have to file some sort of form or case or something, and then one half of the project will be yelling at the other half, while I try to argue through the noise that whatever people think of BADSITES-like policies, your behavior still need to change, and you ought to be warned or blocked or banned or de-adminned or god knows what.

And let me tell you, that is a world I _really_ don't wanna wake up to. Ugh. But, if we can't convince you to change your ways, it's better to get it over with sooner rather than later.. But let's all hope some wise admin comes along in the night, looks at the 3RR, explains to you where the error in your thinking is (or explains to me where the error in mine is), and we can all go back to arguing over things that matter instead of arguing over behavior. :)

G'night. For what it's worth-- I want you to know I really don't have any harsh feelings toward you. I think you're wrong, and I think this whole BADSITES/NPA/Link2ExtHarass issue won't be resolved until we can get some behavior changed. But-- never think that means I think you're somehow a bad person. We're just two nerds who like to write having a philosophical disagreement. Its my job to change your behavior, or to stop your behavior-- but never think it's my job to dislike you. --Alecmconroy 06:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The nerve of some people

Oy. -- But|seriously|folks  07:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Have at it. -- But|seriously|folks  08:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A request for arbitration has been filed that includes yourself

Please note here. --Marvin Diode 12:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your Message about POV Editting

I recently cited me for POV editting on the Reconquista (Mexico) page. I did not eggregiously violate the terms. If I am being repromanded for not citing sources, then I'll point out that my additions were quite minimal and that the version you restored it to failed to cite references on even more material than I provided.

I editted the article solely for objectivity, removing highly sensational and intentionally conflational material, much of which was not cited. The changes to the text or wording were designed to balance the article in places where removal would have damaged the integrity of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivity Check (talk • contribs) 05:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sincerely, Objectivity Check 06:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Porn star categories

I see you are applying porn star categories. There was an earlier concern that "star" is not an accurate term for everyone who appears in a pornographic film. What criteria are you using to decide if folks are porn actors versus porn stars? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't know there was a difference between a porn actors versus porn stars. If you tell me what the criteria is, I'll correct the changes I've made. Epbr123 08:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Stanislavski's 'system'

Hello. Since you expressed some interest in the Stanislavski articles, it'd be good to get your imput on this - proposal to move the article. Thanks, DionysosProteus 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bilbo

Thanks. Even though my mother's from Mississippi, I'd never known about Theodore Bilbo until reading about him recently. Definitely an interesting character. Mandsford 22:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WTA clarification

I saw your comments on the cult discussion, which seems very similar to a point I've just run into, and I wanted to clarify whether your position reflects consensus on the topic. The issue is whether a suicide bombing can be referred to as terrorist in the narrative voice, considering the language of WP:TERRORIST. The argument is that with the possible exception of the organisation responsible, that terminology is near universally accepted (including by people like Yasser Arafat). Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 00:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you saw this message, but I would be very appreciative if you could respond either way. Tewfik^Talk 10:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just checking in to see if you've seen this. Tewfik^Talk 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Usury

Opposition to usury is something which can be detected in short, recent articles by LaRouche or his organization. I don't think that it is a matter of dispute. It's the secret code interpretations, favored by King and Berlet, that seem dubious to me. --Marvin Diode 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's now a deletion review

Hello, Will Beback. I'm alerting all of the editors that took part in the the deletion debate for the article Adult-child sex that it is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Tri-City Skins and the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team Nominated for Deletion

I've know that you have an interest in the Canadian far right. Perhaps you would want to provide your input on whether these two articles should be kept as they are, modified, or deleted as per the nomination? AnnieHall 05:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been admonished about canvasing in the past though it wasn't really intended as such (though the way I worded my message at that time could be interpreted as such). In this case I really was looking for legitimate input, however. I even asked Dogmatic for his input as well. I really am interested in improving the articles in question and thought interested parties might have something to say in this case. Still, I understand the need to tread with caution. AnnieHall 04:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

William Cohen

You say it;s uncited but I could cite several dictionaries that will tell you that "appered" is spelled "appeared" and "recognised" is "recognized"... did you actually pay attention to what you were reverting?--Dr who1975 06:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand now. I don't know what kind of thrill people get from intentionally introducing spelling errors into wikipedia.--Dr who1975 17:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Beleive it or not, I thought of the English spelling thing too and came to the same conclusion regarding it being about a U.S. Senator. I always have to keep British spelling in mind when I'm working on Dr. Who pages.--Dr who1975 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Alex Kulbashian and other articles in Category:Canadian_far-right_figures

Greetings Will Beback. I noticed you have an interest in the subjects above and are an administrator. To be honest, I do not have an interest in the subject matter above, however I stumbled onto Alex Kulbashian by accident and noticed alot of unsourced claims. I am not an expert on the subject matter but I have done my best to remove these unsourced claims and yet user:UnionPride keeps re-adding them. Would you be kind as to have a look at the article and make any edits accordingly and also ensure that users don't try to add back unsourced claims? Would you also be kind as to have a look at other articles in this category, as I believe there are many other unsourced claims in these articles? Like I said, I do not have an interest in the subject matter but my primary concern is in protecting the project. Thanks Pocopocopocopoco 01:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A warning from you may be better accepted

Regarding user Milomedes (talk · contribs) 's comment here, the last paragraph being an obvious threat and intimidation, a warning from you would be surely better accepted. Obviously the guy is disturbed by who knows what, and unable to listen to any advice from me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you did the correct thing by contacting Will to mediate this matter, and I generally agree with his temperate remarks to me.

Having said that, you are completely out of line.

What a waste of project time. Your own long-standing habits of attempted intimidation of me, and probably others as well, cause you to see things that don't exist, like your fictive "obvious threat and intimidation". Nonsense. I'm the good guy here. What I wrote was the proper and the decent thing to do, and I would write it exactly the same way again – your uninvestigated hip-shot, conflict-of-interest biased, and uncivilly potty-mouth charge, notwithstanding.

Note that you selectively quoted me without ellipses, omitting the clause where I explained that I was issuing a warning due to failure of the group to discuss a real-world war issue. That pointedly displays your personal bias, due to my previous compilation of ethics charges against you. As an admin with a personal grudge, you are ethically forbidden to block me for any reason. Where I'm concerned, you are just another editor, and I expect you to behave that way without further pretense under a false color of authority.

Will suggested safety warnings by email, but (1) I don't have it available (and one reason for that is so all attempted intimidations will be public), (2) since the risk is still potential, private communications could mis-viewed exactly as you are trying to impute my public warning, (3) more than one editor may be at risk, (4) the risk can yet be averted by a group warning.

Sunni and Shia are at war. As mainstream religious and cultural groups they are both decent peoples, but they are stirred up by extremists who kill members of each side every day in Iraq. If almost no group that actually fits the sociological description will accept being called a cult, it's guaranteed that extremists will find that word insulting when both sociologists and average people don't agree that major religions can be cults. Extremists are well-known to use lethal force to revenge what they believe to be religious insults. They are also skilled at using the internet, and can certainly find anyone that I can find.

Relisting Sunni and Shia as cults is asking for trouble. When I first spotted the personal risk to LOGRTAC editors last year, it was the cap on a pile of troubles caused by wrongly listing major religions as cults. You are one of the editors pushing this POV, so I will hold you fairly, proportionately, and publicly, responsible for any consequences.

Based on the repeated violence against them, UK citizens are also at particular risk from extremists living in their own country. One of the editors appears to be a naive high school student editing under his own name, who has published details about his small rural town. He is getting in way over his head, and had no idea of the potential personal consequences of his aggressive but merely literalistic pushing for relisting of major religions as cults.

Again, I'm the good guy here. You are getting in the way of my trying to avert him from his own path of folly. Milo 20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am WillBeback1 on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/WillBeback1. Thanks. -- ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I got your message

I think I pasted more than intended to begin with, or something.Jimmuldrow 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Where to add an article for review before posting it ont he wiki

Hi Will,

I have an article I'd like to add to the wiki, but I want to have it reviewed before posting it for official viewing. How do I create an article for review? Do I add it somewhere on my User page?

I'm new to this - don't want to make a mistake and i could not find this info in the help pages.

thanks gjamal 26 October 2007

---

Hi Will,

Ok, i've added the article to:User_talk:Gjamal/sandbox

Now, how do i get administrators to review it and provide feedback?

thanks.

gjamal 04 November 2007

Kronberg article

Will, you just mass-reverted a series of carefully annotated edits with one misleading edit summary. Also note that for King to be used as a source, his comments must first be published, and a self-published website doesn't meet Wikipedia specs. Also, the source was misleadingly labeled "Papert" -- there is no published source for Papert. --Masai warrior 22:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

David jason Silver

Hi: Sorry to bother you with this, but I found your name as an administrator who had had dealings with this individual before, here, and I thought you might like to look into the AfD at David jason Silver; you suggested in July 2006 that he might have to be blocked indefinitely if his behaviour didn't change, and it seems that he's up to his old tricks. I apologize in advance if this isn't the right way to go about this, but I thought someone ought to know (I've posted a note about this at the current Administrators' noticeboard as well). If there's something further I can do to help with this, or you think there's some different way I should have proceeded, please let me know. Accounting4Taste 15:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky‎

Done. I'm not actually completely uninvolved, but I'm probably one of the more uninvolved admins. JoshuaZ 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

AGF, pot, kettle

It's a bit ironic; with "Some folks were more interested in allowing trolls than in extending good faith to Jimbo." you're accusing people of "allowing trolls" (instead of, you know, believing in good faith that the person who was blocked is not actually a troll) in the same breath as saying they should assume good faith. And, no, we shouldn't begrudge him a family camping trip, but there's absolutely no evidence that Miltopia's trolling (even if he is a troll) is such an emergency situation that Jimbo couldn't have waited until monday to place the block. Even in good faith, a hit and run is poor form. —Random832 21:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

When the choice is between giving an assumption of good faith to Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, or to Miltopia, editor of Encyclopedia Dramatica and accused troll, I'll side with Jimbo. Isn't it great that that's not what the choice is, then? I was talking about your stunning lack of AGF towards, not Miltopia, but rather a large number of editors who are not Miltopia, and who have not in fact assumed bad faith of Jimbo. —Random832 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Query about user behaviour

Hi, as you are an admin, is was wandering if you could help me answer a question I have. (This is unrelated to the List of groups referred to as cults issues where I encountered you.) There is an editor who seems to be consistantly ignoring consensus and generally upsetting people, though they defend what they are doing by referring to other policies, notably WP:EPISODE and WP:N. While the actions might be technically correct according to these policies, and the editor has been doing this for quite some time; the way they are being implemented is upsetting a lot of people, and generally sowing unrest and confusion in their wake. Is there anything I can do to try and improve this situation, as they refused to answer my queries on their talk page? (I do accept that most of this may be interpreted from my PoV) Conrad.Irwin 22:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image question

I see that you had originally uploaded the image Image:CCHR.jpg to the English Wikipedia under public domain. I have utilized this free image in the article Cult Awareness Network. Do you feel like transwikiing the image to Wikimedia Commons with a more detailed description and a public domain license, so that there is no confusion in the future as to its status and so it can be used across multiple projects? Also, of course, I would always value your feedback on the changes I have made to the article Cult Awareness Network, which I hope to nom for WP:GAC in the near term future. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

Kirchner

I moved it to keep the article consistent, as the article never used "Fernández de Kirchner." Whether we should use your preferred title is another matter. I personally don't have a preference. Both titles seem to be used extensively, although I have seen a preference for "F. de K." in English media. ☆ CieloEstrellado 18:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

PolarWolf ( grrr... ) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

^_^

No problem :-) --PolarWolf ( grrr... ) 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Talk:Self Righteous Twat

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Self Righteous Twat, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Self Righteous Twat is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Self Righteous Twat, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 23:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for corrections to article on Jared Taylor

Dear Mr. Beback,

Thank you for locking the article about me, which is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor

I’m sorry the article has been such a headache to administer.

I am grateful that the current version keeps out the worst of the unsubstantiated allegations about me. It is clearly an improvement over many versions.

However, it contains a number of errors, both of fact and of emphasis. Corrections will improve the article.

These suggestions are in sequential order, *not* in order of importance. The most *important point* I have to make is No. (7), “Views on the Holocaust.”

(1) First Sentence

The current first sentence says: << Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist and an advocate of racialist theories to explain the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries.>>

No one really know what “racialist” means, so this sentence –- although otherwise factually correct -- is not illuminating. The “source” given for this sentence never uses the word “racialist.” Because no one knows what “racialist theories” are, I would suggest the following: << Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist who explores the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries. >>

If that’s too bland, you could try:

<< Samuel Jared Taylor (b. 1951) of Oakton, Virginia, is an American journalist and an advocate of what he calls a “race-realist” perspective one the sociological and economic problems associated with non-whites, particularly blacks, in Western countries.>>

(2) “Works and Views.” Current first sentence:

<<He is the author of Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle (1983), which among other things argues the distinctiveness of the Japanese as a race as well as a culture; Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in America (1993), which hypothesizes that multiracialism in the United States is the cause of many of todays social ills;>>

Both book descriptions are wrong; whoever wrote them did not read the books. I wrote the book about Japan when I was still a liberal on race and certainly did not argue “the distinctiveness of the Japanese as a race.” On the contrary, I criticized the Japanese quite sharply for excessive preoccupation with their own uniqueness, and warned that they are not a good model for Americans.

Paved With Good Intentions was not about “multiracialism” and drew no conclusions about it. It was an extended critique of the idea that “racism” explains black social failure. The following would be correct descriptions of these two books:

<< He is the author of Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle (1983), which argued that Japan is not a good social model for the United States and criticized the Japanese for excessive preoccupation with their own uniqueness; Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in America (1993), which argues that racism is not a convincing explanation for black social failure;>>

(3) The two following sentences are completely unrelated to each other.

<< Taylor insists that he espouses a doctrine of race realism. In a 2003 interview with Phil Donahue, Taylor said that Central Americans are organizing en masse and invading the rest of North America.[3]>>

The first sentence is true; the second is wrong. There was such an interview, but you will search the cited transcript in vain for any such statement by myself. It is pure invention. If, for some reason, you want to cite that interview, you could say <<In a 2003 interview with Phil Donahue, Taylor said that Mexican government officials brag that Mexicans are “reconquering” the Southwest United States.>> That, at least, is something I actually said.

(4) “White separatist.” The article contains the following sentence. <<He has described himself as a "racialist" and a "white separatist".>>

The source cited says I have described myself as a “racialist,” which is correct, but does not use the term “white separatist.” In the past, I have used the term “racialist,” but I no longer do so because no one knows what the term means. I have no recollection of ever calling myself a “white separatist.” You will certainly not find that self-description in any of my written work. I’d like to know who it is who claims to have *heard* me describe myself that way. I suspect I have never called myself that, so that description should be removed.

(5) Here is another very muddled passage. <<Taylor says he is not a white supremacist, whom he defines as one who wishes to rule over others. He claims to be a "yellow supremacist" because he has theorized that Asian people are the most advanced humans (in evolutionary terms), followed by white people and those of African descent. [5]>>

The first sentence is correct. But having just defined “white supremacy” as the desire to rule over others, would I be likely to say that Asians should rule over whites (“Asian supremacy”)? Let’s look at the source cited for the second sentence. It is a journalist describing a conversation with me as follows: “He dismissed the ‘white supremacist’ and ‘racist’ accusations as empty epithets. If anything, he says he is a yellow supremacist because he believes Asians are genetically the smartest race, then whites, then blacks.” Therefore the sentence in the Wiki article is a paraphrase of a journalist’s paraphrase of my conversation with him--which, by the way, says nothing about “advanced humans (in evolutionary terms).” This is very sloppy work.

Why can’t the article refer to something I have actually said rather than paraphrase a paraphrase? It is relevant to note that I consider blacks superior to whites in some respects. The following would be an accurate summary of my views:

<<Taylor has published arguments supporting the view that backs have a genetic superiority to other races in certain athletic endeavors. In response to charges of “white supremacy,” Taylor has written: “There is no scale on which racial differences can all be ranked so as to draw across-the-board conclusions about racial ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ . . . . It is certainly true that in some important traits—intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease—whites can be considered ‘superior’ to blacks. At the same time, in exactly these same traits, North Asians appear to be ‘superior’ to whites.”

(6) More muddled thinking in the following passage:

<<Taylor has questioned the capacity of blacks to live successfully in a civilized society. In an article on the chaos in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Taylor wrote "when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight.">>

I did write those words attributed to me, and they are some of the harshest I have ever written about blacks. That is why “anti-racists” like to quote them, and that is why they appear in Wikipedia--not because they are characteristic or representative. However the sentence with which they are introduced makes no sense. The quotation from me refers to blacks living entirely on their own, not living in a “civilized” society, or one not of their own making. As the quotation says, I am talking about blacks “left entirely to their own devices.”

If you insist that out of millions of words I have written about race, the sentence on Hurricane Katrina must be included in Wikipdia, you should leave out the first sentence. It only adds confusion.

(7) “Views on the Holocaust”

This section should not be in the article. I have never written for publication about the Holocaust nor lectured on it. It is not an area of special study for me at all. I have spent 20 years writing and lecturing about race. To have a section called “Views on the Holocaust” that is almost as long as “Works and Views” is completely wrong. Why is this section even here?

It is here only because someone who already disagrees with me about something else, has taken a single sentence I wrote and twisted it maliciously to say that I have suspicious “views on the Holocaust.” Obviously, in my one-line reply, I was writing about the six million figure, not whether the Holocaust occurred. I have nothing like the historical expertise to judge which of the generally proposed victim totals of 4 to 6 million is most accurate.

I gave a single-line reply in a private e-mail message to an unknown sender, and suddenly I’m accused of Holocaust denial. Quite absurd, really. *At least* this section now has my denunciation of this charge as absurd and malicious. Many versions of the article have removed this important point.

• If* this section is to remain, it must be balanced by the following addition:

<<Taylor has always seen Jews as full participants in what he calls “race realism:” “It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.” >>

My views in this respect are, in fact, *vastly* more significant than my one-line expression of ignorance about the Holocaust death total. You will find my views on Jewish participation sharply debated and attacked on many Internet pages.

(8) “Praise and Criticism”

To trot out David Duke as the first source of praise is obviously an attempt to discredit me, but when I checked the source, he seems to have said those words about me. At one point, someone had included praise of me from Samuel Francis, praise I far prefer to that of David Duke. Any reason why that can’t be included to balance David Duke? The text was:

<< The late paleoconservative, Samuel Francis, has written of Taylor, “What attracted me to Jared Taylor and AR is what seems to attract most of their other readers—not that AR is the last, quaint representative of a dying breed gnashing its fangs at a world that has passed it by but that it is in fact the harbinger of a new breed.” >>

(9) More “sympathy to Holocaust denial.” The following is in the article:

<<Other critics have described Taylor as a racist and an advocate of white supremacy, and have accused him of sympathy to Holocaust denial.>>

The sum total of “sympathy to Holocaust denial” is my one-line e-mail message quoted above. This does not bear repeating here.

(10) External Links

The link to the Color of Crime (the second of the links) is to the 1998 version. The link should be to the latest version, and should therefore be: http://www.amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=color_of_crime

(11) Possible Additions.

I realize, first of all, that editors of Wikipedia do not agree with my views on race. However, what is the purpose of this article: to caricature and discredit those views or to present an accurate, concise summary of them? Should direct quotations from me only be those selected by my critics? If I have any reason to be in Wikipedia at all, it is *because* of the views I promote, *not* because of the way either critics or admirers characterize those views.

First, I repeat that my positions on Jews in general are extremely important, and urge the inclusion of the text from section (7) above:

<<Taylor has always seen Jews as full participants in what he calls “race realism:” “It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts.” >>

Also, the following is a good summary of an exceedingly important issue.

<< Taylor compares racial solidarity to family loyalty: “Our nation or race is, in effect, our extended family in the largest sense, and our feelings for our extended family are a dilute, but broader version of what we feel for close kin.” He adds that a preference for one’s own race in no way implies hostility to other races, just as the preference for one’s own children implies no hostility to the children of others. He claims it is a dangerous double standard to encourage non-whites to show racial solidarity and to work openly for group interests while condemning whites who do the same thing. >>

So is the following:

<< Taylor argues that race is not only a valid biological category but is an inevitable part of individual and group identity. He points to consistent racial self segregation—not only in America but around the world—as evidence that race is one of the most basic human fault lines, and a frequent source of conflict. Taylor argues that a preference for people like oneself is natural and even healthy, and that attempts to encourage or force racial integration are misguided. He believes it is impossible to build a society in which race can be made not to matter. >>

These are central aspects of what is in fact a nuanced and carefully elaborated body of work. They deserve to be in an article that purports to be encyclopedic.

It would be my preference that the article be removed entirely. My views seem to attract criticism so intense that verges on the malicious, and have given rise to many unsupported edits. However, if the article is to remain, I would request that it be accurate.

I repeat my regrets that this article has been such a bother to the volunteers at Wikipedia.

Thank you and best regards, Jared Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.194.12 (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Thanks for leaving the info at my site. I have a question. I am contributing to an article (Thucydides) and my references do not link properly to the reference list. Could you tell me how do that or where to find instructions on the guideline pages? Best (RFB 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

WP:NPA

Hiya,

I've replied to your note about WP:NPA at my talk page. Hopefully my comment resolves the matter :)

Thanks!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Give an RFC a chance

Really, 8 hours is not a long time for involved editors to collaborate on building upon an RFC. Some of us work and sleep. Why the hurry? Rough consensus seemed to be headed in the direction of at least giving the RFC a chance. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It was far more than 8 hours, and your action seems like a good call, SqueakBox 05:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, 8 hours and 17 minutes. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec'd) No, that is since it was restored, I signed some outside views several days back and they were still there a few mins ago so it is well longer than 8 hours, SqueakBox 06:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant it was up for 8 hours after User:David Fuchs restored it based on RfA consensus. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete it. I'm trying to come up with a thoughtful comment (and certification) for it, but the thing is going up and down so fast I can't even get to it. Please let things run their course. --Elonka 06:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Speedied Rfc for an explanation, SqueakBox 06:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The worst that can happen is a discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are right, SqueakBox 06:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.  :) I've gone ahead and certified, and posted my reasoning on the talkpage. I'm also working on a comment for the RfC itself, but, as I said, I'm still giving that some thought since I want to get it right. But thanks for giving the RfC a chance. :) --Elonka 06:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)