User talk:Will Beback/archive68

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Need for Correction of Inaccuracy in Dairy Management, Inc. Company Description[edit]

Hello – I am an employee of Dairy Management Inc. (DMI) and posted some requested edits to our company description last week. I was unfamiliar with the process for correcting inaccurate information so thank you for the input received last week. There is actually an inaccuracy in the opening sentence describing Dairy Management Inc. that we feel is important to remedy to properly describe our organization.

The opening currently reads "Dairy Management Inc. is an offshoot of the U.S. Department of Agriculture dedicated to promoting the role of American made dairy production."

DMI is actually not an offshoot of the USDA; and is actually funded solely by America’s dairy farm families. In addition DMI actually does not use any government or taxpayer dollars to promote dairy products.

Can we please change the opening line to reflect this proper description?

I would suggest the following:

"Dairy Management Inc.™ (DMI) is the nonprofit domestic and international planning and management organization responsible for increasing sales of and demand for U.S.-produced dairy products and ingredients on behalf of America’s dairy farmers. DMI is funded solely by America’s farm families."

Please advise as we would like to ensure that the accurate description of our organization is posted as soon as possible. Thank you very much.

RoseDMI (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The only rebuttals or information I can find that support that statement are from Dairy Management itself, including the item that may be mistaken as an article on PR Newswire. Do you have a reliable source for it? Also, sadly, you cannot directly use the copy verbatim from Dairy Management's press releases and website (even though you work for them) without proper permission being given by releasing it under the correct copyright or into the public domain. It would need to be treated as a copyright violation.
And coincidentally, I can find a dozen of secondary reliable sources of various sorts, from various dates that do indeed state that the USDA has provided funding to Dairy Management (, The Consumerist, and The NY Times as three examples). This[1] document, from the Federal Government, indicates some form of partnership, and implies some form of funding via cost shares, reduced costs for applicable things, and grants. Perhaps you can find secondary reliable sources that contradict the information elsewhere? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the citable "truth" may actually something inbetween the current text and what RoseDMI proposes. WillBe, I'm willing to do some digging and help out, if you two want. Bloomberg lists them as formed in 1915. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Kerry Bolton[edit]

I don't know if I ever had anything to do with OTRS. Probably not. I have deleted the content at Kerry Bolton because it was a whole chunk of stuff without a single valid source. I wouldn't object if you reinsert the material. I assume that you know about how to use primary sources, or opinion pieces. News articles from secondary, independent sources who build their reputation on accurate reporting are always best.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened[edit]

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule[edit]

I only reverted twice. Why did you warn me citing to the three revert rule?--WikiPolicyExpert (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Need administrator advice[edit]

Good day sir, Thank you for your welcome however I do not thank you for removing my posts regarding documentary Conspiracy of Silence about which I had hoped to initially gain some further information after stumbling across it a while back on line. However the Wiki page was redirected to the "Franklin child prostitution ring allegations" page. After this I went to the Boys Town (organisation) page to see if there was any mention or acknoweledgement of the documentary there. There wasn't. I then tried to research Lawrence "Larry" E King (one of the persons that the documentary (note; the documentary, not myself) did allege to have been centrally involved in child abuse. There was no page dedicated to this individual despite the fact that the documentary states this individual was given a lengthly custodial sentence for a multi million embezzlement purpetrated against the Franklin Community Credit Union. For this prominent or "rising star" of the Republican party during the 1980's, there is no dedicated page which considering the allegations and conviction against him, is an omission. The entry that exists for the aforementioned "Franklin child prostitution allegations" does not acknowledge or make any reference to the documentary "Conspiracy of Silence" even though it says it's a redirect. What concerns me is that at the beginning of this documentary, it is stated that the film was comissioned by the Discovery Channel and filmed for this channel by Yorkshire Television in 1993 and due to be aired on the 3rd May 1994. It was also stated that the film was listed in the TV listings magazines and newspaper supplements at that time. Despite this, the film was never broadcast and those involved in its production were reimbursed the production costs of approx 1/4 million dollars. Those involved in the production are not as I am sure you can agree, small scale operations prone to the sole entertainment of the paranoid or pandering to the fantasies of conspiracy theorists but, when a film is on the web that says it was effectively banned due to US congress pressure, I am going to attempt to research this further although this is difficult when there seems to be limited information about the whole affair from the mainstream press. So, Will Beback my questions to you are thus; (1) Please highlight or explain to me exactly what part of the information was defamatory considering that the information was not presented as a direct accusation / allegation made by myself about Lawrence "Larry" E King, the Boys Town Organisation and / or John Decamp. As I would like to repost my edits in a manner that is mutually agreeable. (2) Please explain why the "Franklin child prostitution ring allegations" page is locked from editing and is sparse of information regarding the subject matter, appears bias towards dismissing the scandal as a hoax without consideration to other aspects of the case and does not even mention Conspiracy of Silence let alone describe in any way the contents of the documentary. (3) Please confirm exactly which sources about this topic are considered "reliable". Would Wikipedia consider as unreliable the following; or the Thursday 29th June edition of the Washington Times (front page)?

I understand the pillar of assuming Good Faith however can you not see how the apparent supression of a subject might appear in this instance. So with respect please give me some pointers and justifications for your actions.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbero (talkcontribs)

"Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health" and "Andrew A Skolnick" biography[edit]

Subject/Heading: "Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health" and "Andrew A Skolnick" biography

Hi Will, I am puzzled as to why you are so adamant that the subject pages should not include what appears to be the actual outcome of "The Lancaster Foundation -v- Skolnick et al" case. According to court records the recorded outcome appears to have been "This cause of action is hereby dismissed without prejudice and with leave to reinstate if settlement is not effectuated. All pending motions are hereby moot".

The impression that I have from the exchanges that I have seen is that you are a lone voice wishing for that factual information to be hidden from others searching for facts relating to the Lancaster Foundation and Andrew Skolnick. So far I've found that TimidGuy and Keithbob wishing to retain it and only you and Andrew Skolnick wanting it removed, but I see no good reason given for hiding this recorded fact and isn’t that what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be a source of “ .. encyclopedia articles focus on factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands .. ” (

Your comment on 14 May 2011 @ 23:05 is odd “Let's not even get into the question of why a Wikipedia editor has a copy of this document, which does not appear online”. Why shouldn’t an editor of Wikipedia (or anyone else for that matter) have a copy of any document in which they have an interest?

Maybe your persistent objections to Wikipedia presenting important facts without providing any convincing justification for doing so. “ .. leaves one concerned about POV pushing .. ”, as you suggested to TimidGuy on 16 May 2011 @ 11:09.

Best regards, Pete Ridley Pete Ridley (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and an apology[edit]

Good afternoon. Thank you for you advice regarding my queires about the Franklin child abuse scandal and the documentary "Conspiracy of Silence". I will endeavor to garner some further suggestions from the page you have suggested. I apologise that my initial communication with you was a rant, I was just somewhat annoyed about the deletion. Thanks once again. (Webbero (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC))

"Beware of Rabid Attack Dogs"[edit]

Hi Will, thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia and for the advice about WP:BLP (Biographies of living persons -,WP:V(Verifiability - WP:NOR (No original research). BTW, please can you advise how I can insert links to WP:BLP, WO:V, etc. I tried the "insert" facility but couldn't find iany guidance.

I understand that you are an elected voluntary administrator of long-standing at Wikipedia. I draw your attention to the subject entry ( and respectfully suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for such comments. The unwary expect Wikipedia to be a source of reliable information, not petty arguments and there are plenty other places for comments of that nature, including one's own blog.

As it says in the footnote to each "new section" edit page "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view".

On that topic of being unbiased, isn't it unreasonable to expect the individual covered in a biography to be unbiased? I suggest that caution should always be excercised when changes a made by the individual in question. Where there is a contention between the individual and others then there is a need for unbiased arbitration over the validity of any edit to be clearly demonstrated. I am not convinced that this always applies.

Best regards, Pete Ridley (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ali Islami article[edit]

I am stating the facts. Not imposing my views. Even though this is wikipedia and known for controversies like this. With all due respect, You don't seem to know much about the Iranian history. This guy is not a member of the pahlavi family. Has been expelled from the royal court in 1974 after taking up arms against the royal family. His father's marriage was not recognized by the court either. Any one can claim royalty, It won't make them so.

Andrew Roberts (historian)[edit]

Most of the material in the last edit is from this article from The New Republic:

I assume you got the link. You mentioned about posting your thoughts on the talk page, but did not speak about reverting the edits. The TNR link I sent is not just a collection of rants, but exposes racist streaks of Roberts which are severely lacking in the Wiki entry. I distilled only the facts from the TNR link, checked with other sources, and then included them in the edit. Does each and every statement require a citation or will the TNR article suffice?
Thanks for the tip. I'll keep that in mind.


Sorry I broke the ref, I didn't realize it was used more than once. Thanks for fixing my mistake.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal comment copied from Talk:History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)[edit]

Will, why don't you actually help on these things instead of devoting so much energy to endless nitpicking, battling-in-disguise, verbal maneuvers, spinning to try to amplify every small small problem, and denigrate solutions, and verbal maneuvers trying to spin everything as negatively as possible?! This is getting old! !  ! North8000 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Gee, not a day goes by without a personal attack on me. For the convenience of editors, I've made this a section of its own. Let's try to keep these all in one place.   Will Beback  talk  02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, trying to falsely relabel a comment on your behavior there incorrectly as a "personal attack". It matters less now; I got disgusted and left the article. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I've copied this here because personal remarks do not belong on article talk pages.   Will Beback  talk  03:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Immigration to Mexico[edit]

Do you remember our 1st meeting years ago? you were using wp:policy to delete an article,, i authored. that same article is now rated High-importance and retained all of my original text. do you think in the past any of the policy enforcement was based on your own bias? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation standard reversed[edit]

The title is inherited. The one who disputed it and called for citation suggested that the titular inheritance may be in question because the child was born out of wedlock, however has cited no basis for such reasoning whatsoever. If every other descendent of this House is given such a title, why is there suddenly this double standard for this particular figure? brilliancetime (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
For extraordinary tenacity and eloquence in defending the Wiki against misapplication of policy at David Ogden Stiers. Rivertorch (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I second that barnstar. I'm too disgusted myself to participate in that kind of discussion anymore. Like I said on Jimbo's talk page: if we apply the über-high standard that the first-hand source needs to be of utmost reliability regardless of what secondary sources cite it, then something like the events described by Deep Throat would be un-reportable on Wikipedia for decades. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Luke Evans[edit]

I'm loath to change your edit, Will, but didn't you leave out a "not" before speculate? "When the subject makes a declaration that he is no longer gay then we should update the category, but we should speculate on his orientation based on our own judgments of his behavior."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers[edit]

You earlier stated that you were going to restore information about the sexuality of David Ogden Stiers removed from the article by various editors. I've twice asked on the BLP noticeboard if you still intend to do so, but you have yet to answer. Would you mind stating your intentions there? The discussion seems to have reached a natural conclusion, but if you intend to restore the material, it would be helpful to say so before the discussion gets archived. Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So? No answer yet. What's next? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

RE:List of RPI fraternities and sororities[edit]

I see what you are saying. Unfortunately I've been extremely the past few days. The main problem are there are no really good sources on the Fraternity system at RPI (or at least, there wern't last time I checked). I created the page from a merge / from a list I found somewhere. Right now I'm planning to reduce it to a list/table, similar to List of fraternities and sororities at Arizona State University, but with the date of founding and an external reference/link. Most of the information is promotional blurbs/ irrelevant, and will be removed. I will start a lead paragraph though, with some general history (I came across a good presentation online with some historical information). I will have time to work on it starting on Friday. I'm assuming nobody will mind if the page sits for a few more days in this condition. Thanks Danski14(talk) 21:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your post disappeared[edit]

Probably a technical glitch [2]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk page on Fukushima[edit]

G'Day Will, thanks for your reminder about interspacing replies - I will endeavour to do better in the future! MWadwell (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi protect a page ?[edit]

Really stupid question here, how do I get a page to be protected against IP (anonymous) editing? NECRATSpeak to me 07:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. On this page [[3]], the line "132 and Bush, I've got him at gunpoint... Okay, gunpoint, 132 and Bush, cover's code three." The word "cover's" keeps being changed back and fourth between cover's and coverage , between different users with similar or different IP addresses. It's an unsourced part of the article, but a well known part of the show. Unfortunatley the only documentation about the actual terminology is a police officer's forum, which doesn't qualify under WP:Verify due to the fact it's just that, a message forum. NECRATSpeak to me 07:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I am still a "freshman" when it comes to a lot of the Wikipedia stuff. But I learn as I go along! NECRATSpeak to me 07:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


Have some documentation as requested but do not know how to insert. Also, I have first hand knowledge of the info I inserted because I was part of that event.Fredahick (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a copy of the document sent to LaRouche with the 119 names of everyone leaving the org in October 1981.It's available on Google. Also, I was a member who was part of the split from LaROuche.Fredahick (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the first Google search result. My married name was Freda Hilty, which is already on another piece of Wiki documentation. I believe there was some lawsuit or something I can't even remember. Fredahick (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

sorry. try

That's the actual pdf. Fredahick (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem I'll expect your deletion. It won't change what we all know we did. Thanks anyway.Fredahick (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I recognize one of the names, but I'm not familiar with the book. I've tried to stay clear of all things LaRouche. I only thought of the Split because I ran across the doc while searching Google for a long lost friend. And it reminded me that the 30th Anniv. was approaching. I have no interest in embellishing anything else to with the NCLC. Thank, WIll. Fredahick (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sahajmarg article edit war again?[edit]

Hi Will

Appears that is engaging in an edit war on [[4]]Sahajmarg again. I as well as other editors have tried to engage and discuss these mass-edits with him, but we get nothing. I'm 100% sure this is user 4d-don who was once barred from editing this article (who also uses caps randomly and makes controversial leaps of logic in his writing).

Just wanted you to know. Not sure what (if anything) can be done here. Thanks!

--Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks[edit]

The editor in question reverted my edit simply because it was mine. I would consider that to be uncivil. Dbpjmuf (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe[edit]

Will, I wonder if you might be willing to take a look at James O'Keefe. I've posted a notice to the BLP noticeboard here. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha, thanks anyway then. Best, DickClarkMises (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Return[edit]

Since you refused to address my request on my talk page, I will bring it here. If you want me to not have access of the "vandalism" button, then please remove access of just that button via the TWINKLE preferences page. It doesn't give me the option, so it is probably admin only. I am trying to meet you half way here, but throwing more threats and going on a fishing expedition isn't helping things. - NeutralhomerTalk • 08:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

SP Royalty Websites[edit]

What are your plans for the self published websites now, are you going to remove them all? There are quite possibility thousands of them that are used including ones like Online Gotha, Monarchies of Europe etc. - dwc lr (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok well if I make an edit to an article that uses one and I have a book, which I have few of, that has the information in I will replace a website with a book reference. - dwc lr (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

anytime is good for improvement[edit]

please don't change a policy while you're being accused of misinterpreting it to match your definition - take it to talk

anytime id good for improvement - take it to tslk -its clearly an improvement - do you disagree with anything specific apart from that I made the edit? Off2riorob (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Simple beneficial changes are unworthy of discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


I can find the case if you'd like, but Jossi was sanctioned by the ArbCom for changing policies mid-dispute. Make a proposal and get s consensus for it on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  07:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck about jossi or previous crap - a simple improvement its just that Off2riorob (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

our communications[edit]

  • - ==dick suckin

Back off dude - you are startin to bother me.Off2riorob (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • - I have retitled this section header. I apologize for using a sexual expression it was inappropriate. Sorry I will work on my emotions and I get upset and hurt sometimes and lash out. I realize we are not getting on very well at present as we are involved in two arbitrations but that isn't a reason to be rude. I look forward to better editing relations with you. Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for clearing up that NPOV talk page posting. I saved the first copy but there was an edit conflict and the post didn't appear, so I redid it. No clue what happened so that there were two posts(olive (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

Hotel Jerome[edit]

You're welcome ... that article, along with all my other recent Aspen NRHP articles, is one of several fruits of my stepbrother's wedding there a little over a year ago (the ballroom photo, in fact, is early on in the rehearsal dinner). I knew a little about the building's past then but I wish I had known more ... I would have gone to the J-Bar for a Crud, and perhaps gone upstairs.

And there's a lot of color to come. I haven't even gotten to the recent ownership controversy. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's done now, with that and the ghosts.

Do you live in Colorado? It seems from your userpage that you do. I'm wondering if you might be able to go to Aspen and get some more pictures to round out the article a little bit. I think it could conceivably get to GA or FA but it could use more pics. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thirty years ago ... that was a different Aspen, I gather.

I have looked on Flickr ... this pic of the J-Bar might be one I could persuade the owner to relicense. I'd also love to have pics of an Aspen Crud, and Room 310. Dream pics would be one of Thompson at the bar or other partying celebrities.

Who knows? I do plan to email links to all the completed articles to the Aspen Historical Society when I'm done, just for external peer review if nothing else. Perhaps they can be helpful ... it seems Aspen is that way. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for trying to add some balance to the Joan Ryan article by restoring the expenses info. I'm glad you liked my version of the text although I'm sure it can be further improved and I'm sure you'll make a great job of it. The patience you've shown on the article's talk page is highly commendable and it's a real shame people have resorted to directing personal attacks at you. I know what it feels like to be bullied on Wikipedia but please don't ever let it put you off from making such important contributions. Keep up the good work.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notification[edit]

This is just to let you know that I've renominated an article you once nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft seat map (2nd nomination). Best, ╟─TreasuryTagpikuach nefesh─╢ 17:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Golden Domes[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Golden Dome concerns[edit]

Dealing with an article of this complexity, simply, is difficult. I'll format something later today. I'm not attached to the article in anyway but my concern is that an article that is more of a journalistic endeavour rather than encyclopedic become a standard on Wikipedia. In the meantime you might look at the article with a critical eye and see of you can see the "coatrack" aspect. If this is the way Wikipedia wants to go then the article may be fine but I haven't seen that.(olive (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

Sorry but RL calls. I'll try and get to this tomorrow.(olive (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC))
I'll be able get to this today. Attempting to deal with a coatrack article is not a quick explanation. Nor did I expect to be on Wikipedia late last night in a last ditch effort to come to a compromise on another article. I'm surprised by your urgency. (olive (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC))
I have read through the Dome article today in detail and it reads like a magazine article, not an encyclopedia. May of the points are tangential and irrelevant. Article needs serious pruning and rewriting. Plus, one could questions the notability of such an article. --BweeB (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Special rules[edit]

You commented on my talk page "Medical articles and BLPS are covered by special rules. The article in question is neither." What are the "special rules" you are referring to here? --BweeB (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

altering the RFC question focus[edit]

Hi please don't alter the focus of the discussion - if you don't likee the question open a discussion about it - it was worded neutral and the wording is fine - I am looking to get some update to the BLP policy to stop this repeated battle over this issue - please attempt to take the discussion in a friendly way - using words like absurd is never going to find a solution - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Writing a partisan, non-neutral question is a problem. You didn't ask for any input. You didn't sign it either. It doesn't belong to you. Now that there have been many responses, please don't delete my revised version. If necessary, we can put the two questions side by side.   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise you wanted to discuss - I posted there for quite a while - RFC ... Rfc? I will go sign it - Off2riorob (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As you were discussing for inclusion would you please add to the discussion what you intended or supported adding to the BLP - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

peremptory deletions[edit]

What does "peremptory deletions" mean? --BweeB (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What if they are trivia and not pertinent to the subject? --BweeB (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Can't "Be Bold"!? Just like Doc James? --BweeB (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The TM Articles are not "medical".
And Doc's edits on other TM articles is what I am referring to. If he can be bold and delete/edit material without consensus, then that should apply to all editors. --BweeB (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The point I am making to you is that when I make BOLD edits, you take me to task, but when Doc makes BOLD edits you seem to ignore them. --BweeB (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Not convincingly you haven't. I do not see how the point about "special cases for BLP and "medical" has anything to do with the this. --BweeB (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Third notice[edit]

On my talk page you posted this text - "PS: I see that this is the third notice regarding peremptory deletions in as many months." Can you please give me the specifics of these three notices? Many thanks. --BweeB (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Concern about your comment on peremptory deletions of MEDRS[edit]

This statement you made concerns me in context of support of Doc James past removal of Reliable Sources. "Medical articles and BLPS are covered by special rules." What special rules apply to peremptory deletion of reliable sources per MEDRS? This statement also implies the rules governing removal of unsourced content in BLPs parallels removal of sources under MEDRS. As far as I know this is not accurate information unless I'm missing something. Could you point to the policy that allows for peremptory removal of RS sources per MEDRS?(olive (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC))

Yes, I would also like to understand this policy. --BweeB (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have a question about MEDRS. I have a concern with what you said about MEDRS. If you are citing a part of a policy then I'd like to be pointed in that direction. If there is no such content in the policy then I'd suggest we not use such statements in discussion. And I don't see the content that would support your statement.(olive (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC))
This is what meant, you comment on MERDS, not the policy itself. --BweeB (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Continue discussion?[edit]

Please answer the plea of a hard working wikiped. Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

and again. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Davison Associates for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Davison Associates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davison Associates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Edcolins (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Falun Gong material[edit]

I am in the process of going through a few sources regarding the subject of Falun Gong. I hope to expand and improve the quality of the content based on those sources starting, I sincerely hope, later this week.

The primary concern I have regarding the subject is, unfortunately, the fact that few if any people who know much about the subject or are in any way interested in it would really qualify as neutral. Li has told FG practitioners that "fa"-rectification, which, basically, means activism and evangelism to a degree, is the only way people of this era have a chance of achieving "consummation." So, not a lot of neutrality there. Some sources indicate that about 40% of the Chinese diaspora community agree with the PRC that Falun Gong is an evil cult, and, based on what I've seen about this content earlier, that includes a lot of those editors interested in the topic. So, not much neutrality there, either. And, unfortunately, the amount of academic content relating to the topic is a lot less than I would like, even if I can understand why that would be the case.

Right now, I think that JN466, myself, and, maybe, Vassayana, might be some of the only editors actively dealing with the topic who aren't in one of the two groups above. You have been involved in some similar content relating to the LaRouche movement, and I think the group would very much benefit from the active involvement of another senior, neutral editor. If you would be interested in helping, or, even, maybe just answering some of the doltish questions I seem to be in the habit of asking, I would very much welcome it. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania townships[edit]

I realize that category talk pages are not the usual place for discussions, but I think this is the best place for this discussion. It covers all of the townships in Pennsylvania. There has been much discussion lately about how township names in Pennsylvania should be titled. Some go for X Township, Pennsylvania. Others want X Township, Y County, Pennsylvania. Of course there are many Washington Townships in Pennsylvania so they and others like it will need to include the county name in the title. The townships in question are the unique ones like Horton Township and Plunketts Creek Township. I think it is best to limit this discussion to Pennsylvania. If other wikiprojects want to do it differently that is fine. The status of townships vary greatly from state to state.

Zeena LaVey[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Courtesy notice[edit]

You are mentioned in a discussion here: [5] Writegeist (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Your On-Wiki and Off-Wiki Attempts to Intimidate Me[edit]

Re: RFC/U [6] "I see you're adding a lot of 'evidence' that was already reviewed by the ArbCom in the June 2010 TM case, especially related to COI. Is it your intention that we review all of the COI evidence that was already covered in that case? That seems like it would be unproductive, but if that's where you want to go with it I'll start preparing evidence in reply. Will Beback| 06:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)"

Let me get this straight. I post evidence of your pattern and history of bullying and intimidation on a draft of an RfC with diffs as recent as June 2011 and you respond (with the above) on my talk page in what appears to be more intimidation? Wow. -- KeithbobTalk 12:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm just saying that re-fighting old battles is a waste of time. Will Beback talk 12:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your explanation. I'm going to assume that your post was just poorly worded and did not mean to imply any intimidation or retaliation and as such, I have retracted my earlier comments. Let's just present our respective evidence at the RfC without trying to influence each other in any way and let the community comment as they wish. -- KeithbobTalk 17:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
OK Will Beback, your off-Wiki email to me dated Aug 30 2011, at 10:30pm Eastern Time, is the last straw! Be informed, that I have no fear of you and you cannot intimidate me. So you can cease your attempts to try and prevent me from posting evidence at your RfC. I am tempted to post the content of your email at the RfC and to forward it to ArbCom. Your behavior is absolutely unbecoming of an Administrator. I have amended my prior comments above in light of your email which I just now found in my Wiki email inbox.-- KeithbobTalk 01:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
an outside view. Keithbob, my advice is to hold off on the actual forwarding, but possibly send a request to the committee asking about it and what you should/might do. Unless Willbeback agrees, don't post it on the rfc evidence page. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Rocks. ArbCom is an appropriate venue especially since the 2010 TM ArbCom (of which both WBB and I were parties) gave a principle regarding Off Wiki Communication. But I don't see why I need WBB's permission to post the content of a manipulative and unsolicited email he sent to me. Why do you feel that off-Wiki intimidation from another Wiki editor should be hidden from the community?-- KeithbobTalk 19:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Keithbob, I'm certainly not trying to intimidate you. I am trying to tell you that opening cans of worms is sometimes unhelpful in dispute resolution. Since you seem intent on following your path I'll make you a deal. I'll grant permission to publicly post my private email to you if you will give complete and honest answers to the same three questions that user:NuclearWarfare has posted on the talk pages of user:TimidGuy and user:Littleolive oil:[7]

  1. Do you now, or have you ever, worked in a paid position for an organization associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement?
  2. Do you now, or have you ever, worked in a volunteer position for an organization associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement?
  3. Do you now, or have you ever, worked as a teacher of the Transcendental Meditation technique?

Let's settle this COI issue for good. User:Will Beback 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Will, you just don't get it do you? For years you have mis-represented, abused and violated WP:COI and used it as a stick on countless talk pages, at several COIN's, at SPI, at ArbCom and other public forums, in failed attempts to gain sanctions, to intimidate, to bully myself and other editors and to drive us away because we often disagree with you on content issues at articles which you wish to have ownership and control of. This has been brought to your attention multiple times by myself and others and now when this chronic pattern of misbehavior is being compiled in an RfC with your name on it, you make further attempts to intimidate and bully me with messages on-Wiki and off-Wiki and make specific attempts to deter me from posting information and diffs specifically about your abuses of WP:COI? And now you have the absolute gall to ask me for personal information (with the coordination of Nuclear Warfare) in a three prong, simultaneous personal attack on the very same editors that you have been abusing for years, by asking me and them, once again for personal information! What are you thinking? Your threat of wiki blackmail contained in your Aug 30 2011 email is sitting in my Inbox. It belongs to me. I may do with it as I wish and I certainly do not need your permission nor do I need to submit to your trite questions and transparently, desperate attempt to wiggle your way out of this big mess you have created for yourself.-- KeithbobTalk 22:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm an editor uninvolved with this disagreement, but I do have some thoughts about disclosure of real or even potential or suspected conflicts of interest. I post the following statement on my user page:
I have been a member of the Sierra Club since 1976, and have found that many of my contributions have to do with notable people and places associated with the Sierra Club and the mountains of California in some way. I am disclosing my membership, but also want to state that I am not now nor have ever been an officer or employee of the club, and my contributions are my own, and not coordinated with anyone else.
If anyone has any concern about the editing I do related to biographies of notable people associated with the history of the Sierra Club, I hope that my statement will allay their concerns. If my statement was not enough, and anyone was to ask me for more details about my relationship with the Sierra Club, I would be happy to elaborate in more detail, without disclosing any "personal information".
Keithbob, in my opinion, words like "bullying, "intimidation", "absolute gall", "trite", "desperate" and "personal attack" are inappropriate in this discussion, and to me represent evidence of a failure to assume good faith regarding Will Beback who I see as an editor who has worked very hard for years to protect and defend the basic principles that have made this encyclopedia so successful and so useful for so many people.
In my view, your comment about "personal information" is a red herring. Keithbob, I don't think that we have ever interacted and I don't think that I have ever edited anything directly related to Transcendental Mediation. The closest I have come is a major expansion of an article about Ethan Russell, a photographer associated with The Beatles, who were interested in TM at one time, as is well known. It would be very easy for you to answer Will Beback's questions frankly without revealing any "personal information". You could answer, "No, I have never worked in a paid position, a volunteer position or a teaching position in the TM movement". Or, you could answer, "Yes, I was a volunteer for TM for three years in the 1970s, worked as a staff person for two years in the 1980s, and have taught the TM technique on and off for fifteen years." These are hypothetical answers you might possibly give, as I have no ideas what the actual facts are regarding your involvement. No such answer would reveal any "personal information" in the sense of exact dates, job descriptions, work locations, pay levels, social security numbers and so on. Such answers would be exactly analogous to the disclosures I have made about my Sierra Club membership. In my opinion, it is entirely appropriate for Will Beback or any other editor to ask such questions of you or any other editor who concentrates on a related group of articles where concerns about POV pushing are legitimate. Writing as an uninvolved editor, my request to you is to answer Will Beback's questions honestly and frankly, without disclosing any inappropriate personal information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I sincerely and honestly answered those questions many times, beginning with my arrival in 2006. What was the result? Will Beback and other editors have used COI to harass me for years, frequently telling me I shouldn't be editing and trying to get me banned. Revealing personal information was the worst thing I ever did in Wikipedia. Editors continue to harass me, continue to use this information on Talk pages and to skew dispute resolution instead of focusing on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. TimidGuy (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:USER states "Some people add personal information such as contact details (email, instant messaging, etc.), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, etc. Once added this information is unlikely to ever become private again. It could be copied elsewhere or even used to harass you in the future. You are cautioned to think carefully before adding non-public information to your user page because you are unlikely to be able to retract it later, even if you change your mind." [Please note: the bold print style has not been added but instead taken directly from the WP guideline.] I have a right to privacy and I am exercising it, just like tens of thousands of other Wikipedia editors. Furthermore, WP:AGF states "If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns" which is exactly what I have done in my post above and in the pending Will Beback RfC. -- KeithbobTalk 13:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Beginning in Nov 2009 I have told Will BeBack: "I have repeatedly stated that I am aware of Wiki policy on COI and that I edit in accordance with that policy and with Wiki's best interests. I am a neutral editor. But you continue to pursue me to express your concerns about how I make a living and who are my associates."-- KeithbobTalk 14:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
And again here: "I am familiar with Wiki's COI policy and I edit according to that policy and in a way that serves Wiki's best interest and ideals. At the same time, I do not wish to give out any information, overt or implied, about my job, my hobbies, my interests, my medical preferences, my family, my associates, my investments or my friends and according to Wiki policies I am not required to do so."-- KeithbobTalk 14:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

tucker smith/paulouellette is alive and well in costa mesa ,Ca. he is straight. no children or siblings[edit]

Will Beback please stop messing with Tucker Smith. Obviously Your Pa. born Smith is dead. He impostered the actor. As well as any bar owner posing as him. Tucker is handsom and healthy in the O.C. Write to us, Tucker Smith and I at; or call me; 949-467-0407. Please have the respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugettelaine (talkcontribs) 21:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)