User talk:Will Beback/Revisions

Can you help me pleas

Will beback cna you pleas help me edit and fix the article that I created about Sam Watson. --Durfuhrer121 04:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Will Beback --Durfuhrer121 09:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Order of the Red Star

		Order of the Red Star
		I, therat121, confer the Order of the Red Star upon Will Beback for his tireless contributions to the fight againist trolls , bias users , Peter Wats , DePeRe and otehr trolls and bias bretts. Thank you. --Therat121 13:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Will - I'm fairly sure that Therat121 is Peter Wats. Drett 17:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark Lemire

I had to stub the article again. I hope you can help with it.--Jimbo Wales 02:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

BDORT

Hi Will, I think that the article should remain hard protected until the end of arbitration, based on past history. It seems that this case is next in the queue, so it should hopefully be just a matter of days to get the issues resolved. Thanks, Crum375 12:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Coving

Please stop reverting this. I'll take credit for the edit if you like. I understand and support the prescription on banned editors, but don't let's take it to extreme lengths to prove a point. Grace Note 10:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I suspect "Mirror" is probably ZS. Based on coving and terrorism edits. Also, he is clearly an experienced user...his first edit used "rvv", and he immediately started voting on RfAs. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I can and can't have, Will. You are not my mum. This concept exists (see here and here (I checked it out before making my note, of course) and it's interesting. If, like me, you lived in a sprawling city, you might have wondered why new housing is laid out in winding streets rather than the more obvious grid pattern. Please don't take your war with a particular editor to the lengths of destroying useful work. Grace Note 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I should have known better than to expect you to be reasonable. I meant, as is absolutely plain because I quoted the policy, that I take responsibility for the edit. If you or any other editor removes my edit, I will reinstate it later, just as I would any other edit that is being removed for personal reasons without proper cause. If you want to explain on the talkpage which elements of the article you have a problem with, we can discuss that. Otherwise, I think we are done discussing this, Will. Grace Note 02:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The personal animus is that directed at this Stark guy, not me.

And Will, please, you can surely do better than carping at the way someone phrases something. I even quoted the policy for you. A banned edit can be reinstated if another user takes responsibility for it. So all I was saying is that it is my edit not Stark's. Because it is a whole article, I said "my article" for "my edit". This is not a question of WP:OWN. Naturally, I'm not going to waste months of my life defending the article. As soon as you have stopped trying to remove it rather than trying to improve it, my involvement is over. Tell me what you think is wrong with the article, rather than its provenance, and we can fix that. Specific things, Will. There are too many unsourced articles on the wiki for you to claim that that particularly worries you with this one and a quick glance at Google, or even the sources I provided for you, will show you straight away that the article is basically sound. This really is all I have to say about it. If you want to waste more time carping about my saying "my article" rather than "my edit" and trying to spin that into a violation of WP:OWN, that is going to be your problem, not mine. I simply cannot do any more for you than I already have. Grace Note 02:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

List of articles related to quackery

Do you have a good suggestion for where the List of articles related to quackery could be parked if it is voted to delete it? It's too good a resource to lose. They succeeded in getting the category deleted, and it was then suggested that a list would be better, but the list is still not acceptable to them. They won't be content until the word quackery is removed from the face of the earth. Without the category or a list, how can students of the subject be enabled to study what Wikipedia has to say on each topic?

The long and bitter controversies that surrounded the Category:Quackery led to the deletion of the category. Why? Because of NPOV issues that can be dealt with in articles, but not in categories:

"Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." [1]

A list is "a better option," and that's what we're doing here. By keeping it a bare list, we avoid NPOV issues altogether, yet we have a valuable resource.

More good information can be found here, where the option is "can", not "must":

• Lists

-- Fyslee 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. The article list of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 03:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CantStandYa

Firstly, thanks for blocking. Secondly, any ideas on what to do with the IP? An anon-only, account creation blocked account may do the trick, though I'm not sure how "shared" the IP is - if it isn't shared, then a hardblock may be more appropriate. Thirdly, the sockmaster who hasn't edited for nine months now could also do with a block, and I would be the first to jump on the indef bandwagon for abusive gross sockpuppetry. Just some thoughts :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

After being harassed by multiple socks from this user, I would also like to jump on the indef block bandwagon. Jasper23 23:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Doubling the cube

Please do not remove 'larouche sources' as that link is not there for larouche (the conspiracy theorist), but for a 3D interactive java applet that shows elements of constructions in some ways more clear than other 2 'reputable' links with only plane illustrations and one fuzzy 3d picture.

I guess that for the same reason of being related to larouche, you want Fidelio Magazine removed, even though it doesn't bother you the existence of hundreds of other magazine articles that are written in the same manner and without citing any 3rd party source. Please consider that not everything related to larouche is necessarily bad. Lakinekaki 00:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Coving

Thanks. I had some time. I agree with your removing it and with Jayjg about the OR. A lot of things in the original article didn't match very well with the references, like the basic definition and the origin of the name. --Duk 08:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

McEachern High School

Feel free - I was just trying to remove the non-encyclopedic and pov comments that riddled the entry. I'll probably take another glance at it a bit later on. --Mhking 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Saunas

Ah, sorry, my bad. I guess I was just moving so fast on VP I hit the wrong button. I am familiar with WP:NOT. I'll mark it as a mistake, and revert it. Once again, sorry.

No problem. Those tools can be tricky. -Will Beback · † · 00:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramírez

Ramírez is a very current family name in Spanish, it is accentuated like that. Gaudio 09:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can find in every Spanish orthography sites that all the paroxitone words which end with a consonant except s or n have an accent in the stressed syllable: cáncer, lápiz (pencil), dócil (docile), etc. But if you want to know more you can see RAE rules, or this place: Wikipedia or this one: School of Modern European Languages. Or if you want to know about these patronymic Castillian surnames: [2].

Anyway, there is such a big problem with these rules, because there was a limitation with typewriting in some keyboards or something like that and capital letters couldn't be accentuated. Gaudio 00:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Care to comment?

Talk:Richard Ofshe#RfC ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In recognition

		The Purple Star
		Given in recognition for having one of the most vandalised user pages. Timrollpickering 03:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cocktails

Hello. As a person interested in WikiProject Cocktails, you may be interested to know that a name change is being considered from Cocktails to Mixed Drinks. Please add your opinions to the discussion and vote. Also, check out the recent changes to the WikiProject area. Consider becoming an active Participant. Thanks!

This WikiProject is the one primarily responsible for maintaining the List of cocktails you complimented. Glad you enjoy our efforts. --Willscrlt 08:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Not sure if you're aware of this: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-28 Will Bebeck. Despite the spelling mistake(s), he evidently means you. It's a pretty malformed mediation request and I'm not sure exactly where the issues are, or if there even are any at this point. Thought you might want to know about it. Kafziel ^Talk 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Golden Gate Bridge page

From Igor Polk, I am sorry, I do not know how to post correctly, so I am posting you here. I hope it can be edited. I want to tell something to Mr. Will Beback.

Dear Mr. Beback,

Please do not remove Golden Gate Bridge Virtual Tour link from the Golden Gate Bridge page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Bridge. The link was there for very long time. One day I have looked at it, and have found that it was removed. So I put it back. You have removed it with the notice, that Wiki is not a mear collection of links. This is not fair! So I am putting it back.

Also this is not fair because it is not a mear link. It links to my truly unique virtual tour, arguably the best page about the bridge, where everyone can make a walk across the bridge and/or observe bridge panoramas from various places in San Francisco and Alcatraz.

It is unfair to deny access to my page to the Wiki visitors.

This is the best page on my website, and I value a link from Wiki very much.

Thank you for understanding.

Igor Polk. PS. The same I have found for San Francisco.

Let me remind here the except from link policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links ):

"..information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews)."

My virtual tours provide great amount of free reach content, no doubt found meaningful by hundreds of thousands of visitors of my site. It can not be added to the article, since it is a virtual tour, and needed a specialized software ( Java Applet ) to run.

I hope will will be able to come to my site and find yourself that what it is very useful. Please, refer to my guest book, and read what other people are writing about it: http://www.virtuar.com/gue7bk/guestb245o21.html

Thank you!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.228.76 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you!

Thanks for the kind words. Nice to meetcha! =) regards, guyzero | talk 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2... again

He's editing Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California again under the IP:69.232.46.27. Time to block (again) and reset the block clock (again). Actually I think it's time to go for an indefinite community ban. This is ridiculous, and the 1 year ban makes it seem as though there is a possibility he'll come back and be productive. AniMate 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's up to me. It kinda feels like a formality, since it's obvious he's not going to be returning as an editor in good standing... but let's make it official. I'll try to post something by tonight. AniMate 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've posted to AN/I [[3]], and I'm sure your input would be appreciated... though I'm not sure what good it'll actually do. AniMate 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

AC-130 edit conflict

Just letting you know that I didn't notice the addition of a comment - it looked like an inadvertent blanking, but I didn't realize it was an edit conflict. I've since fixed the situation. ericg ✈ 06:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your comments! I'm glad someone's noticing the changes. Just plugging away; I really hope that by the time I'm done, it'll be at least a 'good' article! - Vter4life 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A&F Pictures

The pictures that I uploaded are from the Spring 2007 Marketing Campaign. I uploaded the Winter 2006 pictures and they where there for about a month and-a-half without any complaints what so ever(until I deleted it to make way for the new one). People are interested in the A&F marketing pictures. If you're not, then it's not my problem. Besides, Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia and not a "book" which can not be edited and revised up to date. Now, about the logos, I will admit that you are right. - Hpfan1 16:50, 11 January 2007

Google and Wikipedia

Which part of Wikipedia is available to Google? I saw deletion review logs appearing in search results. Has some policy been defined regarding this? -- Knverma 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

I saw your reply at Talk:LaRouche Movement, and I am sorry to have posted in an inappropriate place. In the future I will raise my concerns here. But having said that, it seems clear that you have a strong anti-LaRouche bias, which is expressed by your being absurdly lenient toward POV edits by anti-LaRouche editors, while being hypercritical of edits by pro-LaRouche editors. --MaplePorter 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For example? Do you consider yourself a pro- or anti-LaRouche editor? -Will Beback · † · 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself neither, so please address my edits in an unbiased way. --MaplePorter 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Will, you said on my talk page that you have no POV agenda, which is to say that you consider yourself neutral. Under the circumstances, I ask why you tolerate Dking's abuses of policy. He has been asked on his talk page, for example, by another admin, to desist from personal attacks on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. How did you manage to overlook that? --NathanDW 02:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2...again...again

Well he's already back. Actually, this latest sock had edited before I was reported Eric on AN/I. Anyway, I've reported DP121 on AN/I now, but thought you might want to take a look at it. You've got to hand it to him. You've got admit that he's committed. I'm pretty sure he's accumulated over 30 socks now. Sigh. AniMate 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Nobel Peace prize nominations

You have been removing Peace Prize nominations in several articles. I do not agree with the way you think you can operate here. Although you may be right that the nominations do not always reflect genuine nominations, you cannot impose a general rule that it is prohibited to mention nominations. As shown in Talk:Danilo Dolci, Talk:Bill Handel#Nobel Peace Prize nomination and Talk:Rebiya Kadeer#Nobel Peace Prize nomination there are reasons to mention nominations. By the way: Who nominated you as the nominations police officer? This is a typical case of good intentions going bad. And of laziness. If you think it is such a big issue, it is your responsibility to check if the nominations are genuine – and not simply remove them. - Mafia Expert 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC at Steven Hasan

Will, if you have time, will you take a look at my RfC at Steven Hassan? It would be much appreciated if you could take the trouble to wade through it all and contribute your opinions. Thanks. Tanaats 00:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramírez

Sorry for being this late but I've been busy.

Well, you guys can use the accents as you want, but the lack of accentuation in these articles proves someone's ignorance or carelessness, and I'm afraid you don't want that in an encyclopaedia. And anyway, you can make lots of redirects to avoid problems with keyboards for instance.

I know one person cannot be conversant with all the languages in the world, but since this is a multicultural project, and you guys can find people who can help you with right spellings, it's a pity you cannot take adventage of this situation.

Gaudio 11:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey related question

Is it true that IP addresses aren't eligible to vote in surveys, for instance, on a proposed page move? Someone claimed as much on Talk:Capital punishment, and I can't find any such rule. Also, is there any rule about multiple move requests? We had this debate on the capital punishment page a few months back, and I'd rather not have to go through it again. Cheers, JCO312 21:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cheers, JCO312 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For putting the warning - I have no Idea why I had the article on my watchlist - butwatching this careful construct - and checking wire servies - (I think my usual us admin friends are off at moment) I wasnt sure what to do. BTW very impressed by your user page photos - the nearest to get to that - I used to live in western tasmania - must upload some of my west coast range photos sometime! (my user page has a water level one only at the moment Thanks and Cheers SatuSuro 01:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Its started again - from emptry red link isp numbers again SatuSuro 14:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

More LaRouche (blah)

As a rational person, it might be helpful if you weighed in on the LaRouche article. TsunamiButler, MaplePorter, and NathanDW (is Nathan also a LaRouche follower??) appear to be gaining some momentum whitewashing and misrepresenting negative material on LaRouche.

I'm not wedded to the full content of DKing's edits, but it seems that MaplePorter and company have been trying to rewrite the summary of some of DKing's allegations to make him sound like a nutcase. Other edits simiply remove negative facts and allegations. For example, DKing's version of the alleged coded discourse section begins:

In addition to providing examples of what he believes is conventional anti-Semitism in LaRouche's writings,[42] [43] [44] [45] Dennis King claims to have found euphemisms,[46] "Orwellian" semantics,[47] and examples of symbolic scapegoating [48] in LaRouche's writings which he claims contradict LaRouche's published condemnations[40] of anti-Semitism.

While the version by MaplePorter begins:

Dennis King claims to have found what he terms "euphemisms,"[42] "semantic tricks,"[43] and examples of "symbolic scapegoating" [44] in LaRouche's writings which he claims contradict LaRouche's published condemnations[43] of Anti-Semitism.

...not obviously hideous, but MaplePorter's version makes it sound like the only anti-semitic allegations are fringe "coded discourse" inventions of DKing, which is incorrect.

My worry is that LaRouche followers overwhelm others in an edit war and that documentation of conspiracy theories, anti-semitism etc... drops off or gets obfuscated piece by piece. Tsunami Butler has recently enlisted some editor Charles to look at the LaRouche article. To me, some of Charles's comments are, mildly put, eccentric, and I have some doubts whether his involvement will be helpful. I'm not quite sure what I'm asking you to do, but to maybe weigh in occasionally or just observe.

On another note, I think it's too bad (and a flaw of Wikipedia) that policing this article takes so much time. Several months ago, I had to escort a LaRouche protester out of an event at Stanford, and afterwards I did a few Internet searches to see who he was. During these searches, I found several completely bogus lines of text in the lead of the Wikipedia article. I removed the bogus lines and found myself in a minor edit war with various followers of LaRouche. Anyway, thanks for watching these kinds of article and being part of the reason Wikipedia isn't completely overwhelmed by wacko fringe groups. Mgunn 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:ChiatDay Gehry.jpg

Hello, I was wondering if you took this picture and if so could say so on the image file and maybe change the license to PD-self. User:User2004 who uploaded it redirects here so that's why I ask. I found a picture of this building on flickr, not seeing this one before, and have uploaded it to the Commons. Each has it's merits I just wanted to add a picture of this building to the postmodern architecture page and the Claes Oldenburg page. Regards, DVD+ R/W 04:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is only a portion of the building - the whole building, details, different sides, all of these would be worth having pictures of. Thanks for updating the info.

Heh, I didn't know what a Tri-X was. I didn't take that picture either, what I do is choose a 'picture of the day' every couple of days and put it on my user page, this is not my own photography though I just 'find' the pictures. DVD+ R/W 17:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Westside schools

Partly because I wish for the photos of the schools to be posted at articles of Westside areas zoned to the schools..

I.E. Bel-Air, Los Angeles, California would have Warner Ave, Emerson, and University Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, California would have Pacific Palisades, Revere, and Palisades

etc.

As an example, see how I used my photos at River Oaks, Houston, Texas

WhisperToMe 08:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, these private schools have no photos:

• John Thomas Dye School
• Milken Community High School

Brentwood School (Los Angeles, California) has a photo, but I wonder if it needs a photo of the facade.

WhisperToMe 08:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok :) - Be sure to let me know when your camera is in order :) WhisperToMe 07:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV of Wikipedia

Re: Your comments in [4]. The underlying article isn't good but even a newbie like me can make it better whereas I wouldn't yet know how to start an article. And I don't know how much WP:N is required to justify an article, but it's easy to find a LOT of similar articles with less. I'm a bit disappointed that your contribution to the discussion doesn't address this point as you don't seem to share the apparent underlying reaction of some that the article should go out because they don't like the POV of the website. Andyvphil 10:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that you responded to my first version of this, written before I noticed that you were one of the ones who had voted on the issue. My user page has disappeared (perhaps temporarily) but I was able to get to the edit history once (and then I couldn't), and I could see what you had written by bringing up the cache. Wierd. ... I'll keep an eye out for the "+". First time I came through your user page it was unitary, when I came back each block had an "edit" box. I dunno what I did different. Certainly not hit a "+"... Andyvphil 10:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: accents (e.g., Ramírez)

No, actually, there are no accents in lots of birth certificates or ID in lots of Spanish-speaking countries, because there were some limitations with capital letters. But they accentuate names, family names, etc. I have explained this here lots of times before. And there are lots of people who do not know how to put accents like there are so many people who make spelling mistakes in English although they speak English, you have to learn the rules as you have learnt lots of orthographic rules in your mother tongue. The correct accentuation of that family name is Ramírez, you can see the links I left in your discussion page or other people's articles with that family name because it is very common: José Luis Ramírez, Sergio Ramírez, Sara Ramírez, etc. Gaudio 11:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Myths and Misperceptions About Texas

Hi, what did you do with the article "[[Myths and Misperceptions About Texas ]]?" I can't find it, but I would like to read it. Thank you, (12.218.46.67 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

CantStandYa/Scran Socks

Here is another sock User:Semper Fidelvis If there is an easier way to do this, please let me know. However, I do appreciate your diligence and help. Thanks. Jasper23 22:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with these sock puppets. I really do appreciate it. Jasper23 16:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

169.229.111.71 and Spooji

FWIW, Special:Contributions/169.229.111.71 and Special:Contributions/Spooji are the same person; see contribs. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche

I appreciate your advice. The fact that the article is temporarily frozen may be helpful in cooling both sides off. But there really needs to be a Wiki policy developed for dealing with cult edit-wars, which seem to have a special dimension of intensity not present in most edit disputes.--Dking 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. The Prem Rawat article is constantly edited by people who post on an anti-PR forum. Prem Rawat is one of half a dozen living people who have their own "Criticism of " article where detractors can list critical material without any positive material for balance (George Bush, Tony Blair and Hugo Chavez are others). I have often suggested removing "opinion" from the PR article and relying on indisputable facts but anti-PR editors will not stop inserting what ever critical material they can find, no matter how inappropriate or contradicted.Momento 20:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

Hi,

Last February there was a debate about whether to keep the category for bow tie wearers, and I notice you contributed to the discussion. Here's what you said:

Delete. Does not serve a navigational purpose. I'd make a fine list. -Will Beback 21:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the category was eventually deleted and is now a list that I, at least, think is "fine" (List of bow tie wearers). But there's another deletion discussion and the deleters are in the majority. If you still have an interest, please drop by and insert your two cents. If not, sorry for the bother. Noroton 03:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are being used

Hi. Take a look at Jasper23's recent edits to Cracker (pejorative). His recent reverts are not about preventing vandalism, but about furthering his own agenda. Whatever that is. He arbitrarily reverts well sourced material just because it doesn't suit his tastes. He uses you to silence those who disagree with him, or even dare to challenge him, no matter how well documented or respectful they might be. In the case of "Cracker Party" he is trying to give the impression it was a bonafide political party in its own right, rather than a political machine like Tammany Hall. I don't know what he is up to elsewhere. Thought you should be informed. Sacrificial Ram 14:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please look at today's edit to Cracker (pejorative) and Jasper23's reaction to it. (I'm sure he will delete it.) It is a bonafide reference from a transcription of a Malcolm X speech. Absolutely 100% legit. Thanks. Sacrificial Ram 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Newest Scran/Cant stand ya sock puppetJasper23 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Another one. You Are Being Used Jasper23 06:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Template format / position

Hi Will, could you comment at Template_talk:Cults#Infobox_debate? Tx. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Notices on Article

Unless there's an ective discussion of the alleged POV issues, we should remove the POV tag. -Will Beback · † · 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company"

There is a discussion of "Neutrality" and it's just beginning, and will be up for review by other editors to review all of the archive talk pages and talk pages. I have also contacted Wikipedia directly on this matter and we are well within Wikipedia:Policy and the notice can remain there until all pages are reviewed by Wikipedians. If you have any other questions, please contact our advocate Tutmosis in which an AMA is open.

--Roger the red 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

EIR

I am posting this comment on your talk page, as you requested, instead of at Talk:Executive Intelligence Review. It appears to me that you are arguing against this article based on your animosity toward LaRouche, not based on Wikipedia policy. This is the kind of biased editing that I asked you earlier to refrain from. --MaplePorter 15:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any animosity towards LaRouche. I'd argue against having any article that doesn't have sufficient outside sources. Turn the question around- we haven't had an article on EIR since the founding of Wikipedia. Why are you arguing for one now? Could your views of LaRouche be a factor? -Will Beback · † · 18:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Roger Copying Material

Hey Will, I got your message but sorry I'm a little confused by it. What you mean by "copying material onto multiple talk pages", what material? Are you referring to copying and pasting user comments? Thanks. — Tutmosis 02:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He was copying and pasting current discussion from Talk:American Mutoscope and Biograph Company onto my talk page. I'm assuming that's what you referring to. Okay, I'll let him know that copying and pasting makes things a bit confusing. I hope once he returns you and him can come to an agreement. All the best. — Tutmosis 02:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello, Will. I suddenly noticed that you tagged Copyright violation tags on this article. Even though I have been contributing, improving many articles since Last year March, but I still have big troubles to improve articles cause some of them tagged Copyright, and removed couple images that is not licensed, or unsourced. That's the reason some couple editos were afraid about images. In Ellias Koopman article, there is no images on article. Is there any reason to tagg Copyright? But I'm referring to this: [5] Please reply in my talk page, and Cheers!! Daniel5127 <Talk> 03:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathan Braun

Hi, Will. I removed the libellous information on 'Nathan Braun' because, in accordance with Wikipedia policy (cited in the History change page), the controvery concerning Nathan Braun has been criticized by credible sources as "not credible." See the Talk page for more info. In particular, Dr. Stephen Kaufman makes three claims:

"1) The evidence against Nathan Braun is not compelling.

2) The GARC statement is heavily biased.

3) The public campaign against Nathan Braun has been reprehensible."

Therefore, according to the Wikipedia policy cited above, CONTROVERSIAL negative and defamatory information, especially if it is not from especially credible sources, must be removed:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if libellous"

Patricia Jones, the woman cited in the article, is a particularly ardent and vocal feminist (some might call her a "man-hater", as can be demonstrated by searching her out on the web) and is no more of a witness than you or me. I could similarly accuse you of any number of crimes (if I was so inclined). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billmurdoch (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vocational school

This is a low-scale problem, but it's still frustrating. 65.33.238.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been putting external links into articles. After investigating the link they put into Vocational school, I decided that the page didn't say anything better than was in the Wikipedia article, so it was mainly to promote their website. They'd already been warned, and their contributions show that they're only edits have been spam, so I escalated the second warning to Spam4. They've ignored the warning, and added the same link for the 4th day in a row (this time deleting a different EL when they added their own). Could you spammer-whack them for a few days? (It's a Tampa Bay RoadRunner account, so it's likely not a permanently static IP). TIA ^BlankVerse 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

These small-time spammers are almost more trouble some times than the large-scale ones. For the latter, you just wield the ban-hammer. Many of the small-time guys have had their links on the Wikipedia for months because they're on little watched articles. I had somebody for awhile who kept adding a link to a website that basically had one page with an obnoxious animated logo and a single line saying an update was due in January. :-( ^BlankVerse 08:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Now they're concentrating on Bachelor's degree. After adding their link, I deleted, and warned them again (see User talk:65.33.238.226). They then added the link, yet again. Both websites that I checked have the same name and the location in Florida in their Whois data. ^BlankVerse 10:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

New problematic edits / More block evasion by Grazon

Given your past involvement, you might want to look at

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#New problematic edits / More_block evasion by Grazon

—12.72.70.212 05:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Center for Consumer Freedom/Arthurberkhardt

Hi, as you've been involved with locking Center for Consumer Freedom, I wonder if you could take a look at the sockpuppet incident [6] with the user Arthurberkhardt. There is compelling evidence of the use of a sockpuppet account in order to violate WP:3RR by this user. Nssdfdsfds 09:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nssdfdsfds, stop making accusations towards me. The administrators can check my IP to ensure that I have no affiliation with Terryfilene22. Arthurberkhardt 01:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Webb Schools

Hi Will,

Thank you for the help on the page about Webb. I am an employee of the school and noticed that some of the facts were not accurate, school names were wrong, and the interpretation of the latin motto was innacurate. The source of the info posted is from the Webb: 75 Years of Building Character - a book that was put together for the 75th anniversary and has been updated since.

twsclaremont

watchlist

Could you please add David Lethbridge and Ron Gostick to your watchlist? These articles seem to be the target of attacks by neo-nazi vandals and I'm not online enough to deal with vandalism in a timely enough fashion. Dimitroff 20:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Political Parties labeled Far Right, Extreme Right, Nationalist or Right-wing

An article that you have been involved in editing, Political Parties labeled Far Right, Extreme Right, Nationalist or Right-wing, has been listed by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Parties labeled Far Right, Extreme Right, Nationalist or Right-wing. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Argyriou (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikia

Hello. Did you create an account on Wikia? Apparently, that user vandalized on Wookieepedia, and if he/she is an impostor, a cross-wiki block may be issued to prevent further vandalism/impersonation. G.He 20:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ekh

The URI was questionable enough, but I'm having nothing to do with a site that has that as its favicon (Nothing against you for bringing that up, the description sounded screwy enough). 68.39.174.238 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a suspiscious, but can't confirm it...

...User:Gareon comes off strongly to my instinct as a Primetime pupet. The userpage and the contributions just... FEEL like its him. Can you confirm/reject this assertion? I did a little checking, but the two random samples turned out either legit, or offline copys. 68.39.174.238 03:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The user's been around since 2004, which makes it a little unlikely he's 'T. Unless this person later went on to create Rickyboy, Richard, and all the other accounts... also I don't think 'T or HQCentral ever edited Philippines-related topics. Flyingtoaster1337 03:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious behavior that looks like Primetime. PT has edited articles on a variety of countries ( Cameroon, Mali, Palau, but he usually doesn't stick with them. Mexico is an exception (he minored in Spanish in College). I don't think Gareon is PT. -Will Beback · † · 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I didn't check that far, but if he's OK by you I'll leave it at that. Also, I totally missed this discussion due to it being left here. 68.39.174.238 22:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Derex

:) I guess I've just grown tired of finding comments of his towards me on various talk pages degrading the months of hard work I put into the article. When I tell him to go ahead and fix any errors I make or to make his own additions to the article, he shoots back that he has no interest in wallowing in the swamp and doing battle with me. This attitude is strange as I have never reverted even once one change he has ever made. It's quite maddening trying to deal with someone of this mind-set. Anyhow, I'll do my best to ignore his insulting comments. Cheers, --Jayzel 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALK

I found your comment on that talk page; I believe you should take this to WP:AN where you would actually get a response :) >Radiant< 12:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Banned User:155.84.57.253

Thank you for your warning - I had no idea of this, all I knew was that he/she/the IP had actually 'contributed' to the article (as opposed to vandalised or abused it).

I would appreciate it if you could tell me how I might cross-reference users to any banned lists in future, to save me issuing eroneous invitations like that. I have not found this facility in Wiki so far.

I have had no experience of sock-puppetry, as you will see from my brief time editing.

Thanks once again, and yes, I will be vigilant for the future! Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 21:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: your note on my talk page

Would you please explain to me what on earth you are talking about? What is there about early American opposition to free trade that anyone could consider a "LaRouche concept?" --HonourableSchoolboy 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you have also removed references to Milton Friedman and George Schultz from "Laissez-Faire," calling it a "LaRouchism." This is outrageous. If you look at the articles on Friedman and Schultz, you will find that their advocacy of drug legalization is noted in both articles. I don't care whether you like or dislike LaRouche. You are removing material that has nothing to do with him. --HonourableSchoolboy 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It also makes no difference whether LaRouche likes or dislikes Henry Carey and Friedrich List. They were is fact opponents of Free Trade. What do you want to do next, eliminate the articles on Carey and List? The point is, whatever your motives may be, you are simply removing material that is historically accurate, well documented, and relevant to the articles from which you are removing it. Why? --HonourableSchoolboy 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And, I see you have changed one of my edits to the article on the Wall Street Journal to try to make it look like it is all about LaRouche, too. Is this some sort of obsession with you? The article in the Journal mentions LaRouche, but gives equal consideration to Sy Hersh and the New York Times. I am beginning to feel harassed here. --HonourableSchoolboy 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say that there is a nightmare-like quality to having you show up on every article I edit and claim that my edits are related to LaRouche. They are not. Thousands of people opposed free trade before LaRouche did, and the history of this is well known. If you intend to continue to harass me, I suggest that we go straight to the mediation process. I am contacting you as it recommends on the mediation page. --HonourableSchoolboy 07:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are simply saying that your view of my edits is right, and mine is wrong. I will start the application for mediation. --HonourableSchoolboy 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Need help with a vandal

I hate to drag you into another one of my conflicts, but the Wikipedia conflict resolution process mystifies me. I'm having ongoing problems with a user Anarcho-capitalism who keeps posting original research to articles on anarchism. One of the disputed entries is Anarchism in the United States. I just spent an hour fixing the accuracy of that entry, re-organizing the sections, adding citations and adding links to a range of articles. I'm currently writing a book on this subject, so I'm an expert if that matters anymore around here. Anarcho-capitalism and others of his ilk have been using Wikipedia for several years to get people to believe that they are a significant force within anarchism. I think that this qualifies as original research. I've confronted this user with numerous facts about anarchism and the American movement, citing book anthologies, articles, and the fact that the biggest anarchist publisher in the U.S. carries no books on anarcho-capitalism. We've tried pointing out to this small group of people that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. If these people want to believe in something that is called anarcho-capitalism, that is their right, but they shouldn't be allowed to use Wikipedia to create a fantasy world where 99.995% of anarchists simply don't matter. This person continues to vandalize anarchist entries with misinformation and content that is out of balance with the subject matter. I have tried to work these things out with this person on various talk pages, but they just won't budge. I also think that this person created a sock puppet to attack me, which prompted you to protect the entry about me. Thanks! Chuck0 01:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Chuck0 completely misrepresents the situation. If you intend to investigate, allow me to point you to Talk:Anarchism_in_the_United_States sections 30, 31, 32, and after that to the edit history of the main page there. I don't know if you know anything about the subject of Anarchism, if you do I apologise for telling you what you know, but the crux of the dispute seems to relate to the common habit within the individualist anarchist and socialist anarchist traditions to deny that the other constitutes true anarchism. Chuck0's edits have been little more than massive deletion of material concerning individualist figures he considers to not be true anarchists. Wikipedia policy has been explained to him, references have been cited, and he simply continues to spout polemic and revert deletions over and over again. The situation *does* need admin attention. Arker 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin

Good morning - I noticed you reverted some vandalism to the above article but didn't warn the vandal - I took care of it. Check out WP:Vandalism for the procedure for vandal warnings/blocks - hopefully we can shut down some of the worst offenders. - RJASE1 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

help w/ CantStandYa

I am not sure if I am doing this correctly, but I am asking for your help w/ a user.

It appears the user CantStandYa (TxsgTrooper) whom you blocked below, has resurfaced on the Texas State Guard page with the name of 'The TAG Adj'.

After multiple attempts to have this user identify himself he has refused and continues to remove our legitimate Regimental link and reference from Wikipedia.

Can you block him again and/or lock the page so only legitimate users may edit it? My name is Tom Crum and I work IT in the 19th Regiment of the Texas State Guard, tscrum@aaawebsolution.com.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tscrum (talk • contribs) 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Rajneesh move to Osho

Hi Will, please see Rajneesh talk page, we seem to have reached agreement on moving the page to "Osho". Could you do the honours? Jayen466 02:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Thank you kindly, that's great. :-) Jayen466 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

hey if you have some time over please help me wikify the article on The graaf sisters or on the performers in Melodifestivalen 2007./matrix17

Administrator removal

I have contacted Wikipedia administration. I am requesting for their review of your conduct as an administrator and your removal. As a newer member of Wikipedia unfortunately I do not have the coalition that you do as to counteract a block on my membership. I do not have to defend myself sense I have done nothing against Wikipedia, have made no threats to you in any way or even attempted to change this problematic article in question. The only item I have included is tags which you are determined to remove. I feel I have stated my case clearly and factually. I have not used "Legal" terms, only Wikipedian terms within the scope of discussion. I have not made any threatening accusations against you. I have only attempted to contribute as an editor, period. I feel that for you to resort to these drastic measures does assure me that you do have a personal connection. I also feel and will report to Wikipedia administration there are personal links between you and the other "Supporters" of my blocking, even possible "Sockpuppeting". No article I have edited has had any problem except for this one. This article which at this point now I could care less about is irrelevant, but your conduct is. If I am blocked, there will still be an inquiry about you to Wikipedia administration.

--Roger the red 02:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FINE

My, I spent a lot of time working on that, and you edit it before letting me answer why ;). Just a bad day =P. Now I've edited it back, here's why: I have this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmarinas86/All-Rael) I just made and I don't want that templates and categories to appear in it so many times. If you don't mind, I'm going to have to undo all your edits to my articles ;).Kmarinas86 05:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC) !!!!!!! stupidKmarinas86 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reversions go TOO FAR BACK

Why are you reverting the pages to far back? You haven't discussed the non-offending edits which you have reverted! You butchered the edits I made to the History of Raelism page. Be more surgical!Kmarinas86 06:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The RfC on Cult

Hi Will, if you have the time your participation in the RfC at Cult would be most appreciated. Thanks. Tanaats 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories on redirects

You wrote:

There may be some value to placing a category on one of the "Discover the Networks" redirects, but not all four. Likewise there's no reason to add a category to "Front Page Magazine" when we already have one on "FrontPageMag.com".

Separately, this talk page has some categories that only belong on articles. Please de-activate them. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the template illustrations from my talk page. They'd already caused some bots to accuse me of spamming, and I didn't notice they'd put my talk page into various categories. It would be nice if I could dynaminally call up neutered versions, but if I can't, sobeit.

On the other hand, I think I disagree with you about redirects. On a constellation of articles of this size (pretty small) I think the housekeeping advantages of having a list of all the moving parts outweighs the confusion to someone looking up the category, although I'd already decided to move the redirects back out of the alpha list and under "*" (or maybe "↔"), precisely to avoid that confusion. I'm still pretty new at this -- am I missing something? Andyvphil 02:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the categories/templates on [your] page. Regarding the other categories, think for a minute about the purpose of categories. The exist to allow readers to find articles on related topics. Including four almost identical redirects does not help them in any way, but rather would confuse them and send them looking for things that don't exist. See Wikipedia:Categorization. -Will Beback · † · 02:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I said I understood that. But take another look at the way the category looks now. [7] Andyvphil 03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how this helps readers. Can you explain that for me again, please? -Will Beback · † · 04:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't add sort keys that don't make sense. If there's no key the article will be sorted by its first letter. So there's no point in add "D" to make "David Horowitz Freedom Center" sort under "D". Also, the sort key you add won't show, so there's no point in adding "heterodoxy" to "David Horowitz Freedom Center", because it will still appears as "David Horowitz Freedom Center", but be sorted under "H", which would only confuse readers. -Will Beback · † · 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"David Horowitz Freedom Center" was sorted under "D" and "David Horowitz" under "H" and I'm not aware of putting "heterodoxy" anywhere (although, now that you mention it, thanks for reminding me inadvertently about the Heterodoxy(magazine) redirect). So, what's this comment about? Andyvphil 07:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was another editor who added those. Anyway, I still don't see why you want to categorize every "spelling" redirect. Could you explain that again, please? -Will Beback · † · 08:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I ran across your edit after my note here. I was responsible for the unnecessary "D" but not the two "Heterodoxy"s. ... I'm not actually wedded firmly to the idea of categorizing captalization redirects, but see a slight advantage to editors and no cost to readers in listing them, so long as they are not in the alphabetized section. And catecorizing topic redirects (eg "Heterodoxy(magazine)" to the appropriate article) turns out to be something serendiptously useful, as you conceded might be true in your very first sentence.

I recently saw some Wiki- policy or guideline text, somewhere, to the effect that articles don't have a "tree" structure, but other policies (eg, that the contents of certain topic splits should be summarized in the parent article) implicitly indicate this is not entirely true. Which it isn't. There is certainly some elements of hierarchy. But, IMHO, the network isn't visible enough, and it causes editing problems. E.g., the summary starts accumulating detail that should go in the primary article whose existance, once it's been calved off, is insufficiently easy to detect. So I'm looking, just a bit, to Categories as organizational aids... Andyvphil 09:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Never find it

• Never find it → Carlotta, California — vandal moved it —BlankVerse 12:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Will: The above is the Requested moves template, but since they look like they have a three day backlog for the uncontroversial moves section, I've copied it over to your page as well. I could probably do the same thing the vandal did (moved the page to a new page, and then move again), but that's such a messy 'solution'.

Lucaswennerholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to be spanked banned, and the Never find it page should probably be prememptively salted, and the 'middle' page, Carlotta, Lucas wennerholm, needs to be deleted. TIA.

I would have never even found out about this page move except that user:WP 1.0 bot ran without the Bot flag set, and so I looked at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/California articles by quality log, which not only shows changes in article assessments using the {{WikiProject California}} template, but shows page moves as well. I wonder how many other sneaky page moves have been done that nobody has caught.

I also ended up finding a few non-standard page names, such as Tustin Ranch, Tustin, California renamed to Tustin Ranch. BlankVerse 12:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The ordinary Wikipedia vandalism is bad enough, but this one bugged me more than most. BlankVerse 10:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Columbia Pacific University

Hi Will - I posted a detailed list of objections to the current article on Talk:Columbia Pacific University. I'd like to get your opinion on the subject, as you have been editing the article for some time. Thanks! Skinwalker 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your advice

Hey Will, I would appreciate it if you would offer your advice over at User talk:Sisyphus Aeternal. I was trying to offer an explanation of some reversions to a new user, and he seems to feel bullied by me. I don't think I am acting improperly, but an outside perspective would be helpful. Thanks, DickClarkMises 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Free Trade and related articles. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

My user page

Thanks for the revert. As long as I've been editing on the Wikipedia, and considering the number of vandal and spam reversions that I've done, that is only the third time that I've had any of my user pages vandalized. BlankVerse 14:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clark

The material I have been deleting is material I have contributed. I understand that I cannot prevent other people from re-adding it since it is licensed under the GFDL, but I do not want it contributed under my own name. I believe I have basically finished erasing all of my contributions at this point and so won't be editing any (many?) more articles. If at all possible, I'd like to register some sort of complaint against User:Spamreporter1 for his continued hounding of me and accusations that I am a spammer (I am not, as the discussions and my actions in re-editing the articles under dispute show). His account was created immediately before he started harassing me, and I suspect it may have been created specifically for this purpose. --Bill Clark 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

QuackWatch links are slowly being deleted over a period of years

There is little left of QuackWatch links. Who is doing this? Can anything be done? 63.17.56.54 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A&F Fragrances

I will edit it tommorow...I have no time today. After tommorow...then you can deleted it. User Talk: Hpfan1

Cable TV issue

Regarding the apparent complaint of Bill Clark, I invite you to ask all of the other editors who were involved in this discussion if they felt that I did anything improper. Please make inquiry of User:Alan.ca, User:orlady, User:Kablammo, and User:Orangemike, as to their reactions to my conduct.

In addition, I have archived all of the discussion on this topic that I could find here. Unfortunately, parts of the discussion have been deleted by Bill Clark, including deletions from my talk page. I believe that everyone involved with Bill Clark acted with restraint and fairness. Spamreporter1 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

in response to your questions: I have also acted in relation to actions by User:Patricknoddy, again regarding an ill-considered set of actions that would have affected a large number of articles. Please see my contributions regarding that user. So, no this is not just about Bill Clark.

Regarding Bill Clark, I only reluctantly became involved. Again, if you examine my contributions (and the discussions archived), you will see that I first requested assistance at the Villge Pump. When that was unavailing, I left a very polite note on Bill Clark's talk page. After he brought the topic to the WikiProject City page, I contributed to the discussion (along with a number of other editors).

The consensus was unanimous by all the editors that Bill Clark's plan was not a good idea.

I regret that he has turned his unhappiness into a personal attack. Because of my concern regarding possible personal attacks cluttering my regular user name, I created this user name for these types of issues only, a legitimate use of an additional user name.

Again, I urge you to contact the other editors who were involved to ask them about my conduct, and urge you to read the entire discussion collection here. Spamreporter1 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)