User talk:Will Beback/archive10

Protection?

Do you want this page semi-protected? --Nlu (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

League of the South

Good work reorganizng and editing League of the South. It's much better now. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recognition! It wasn't really a labor of love -- it's more that I ran across an article that was just so hopelessly biased and badly written that I felt compelled to dig in. Glad you like my work. --Zantastik talk 07:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scot Ross

Ross did lose his campaign. I'm not sure why we would need to delete his bio, though. He was active in Wisconsin state politics prior to his candidacy. I would think his candidacy for a statewide office cements his notability, so I would be against deletion. However, if you feel strongly that this must be deleted, please pursue doing so. NickBurns 01:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, please pursue deleting the article as you see fit. In any case, I believe I now understand the label "deletionist" as it applies to Wikipedia. NickBurns 02:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will - can I ask you a favor? I am trying to learn about aspects of Wikipedia I don't have experience with yet. Will you leave me a talk page message when you have started this process, so that I can see the various steps that go on? (If I'm not mistaken it has to be nominated and voted on for deletion?) I don't intend to weigh in with an opinion on this - we disagree, but I see your point. I'd appreciate the opportunity of a learning experience on this one, though. Thanks. NickBurns 16:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My post-deletion comment wasn't about you, Will. I understand you were doing what you needed to do. NickBurns 12:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discover the Networks

You commented on Talk:Discover the Networks in February. You may want to comment on whether it is a reliable source. Please see Talk:Discover the Networks#Poll. Thanks, DRK 21:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting, DRK 03:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the note. I am glad if I am doing some help here. Steve Dufour 03:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit of the discussion page, forgot to add a title. The762x51 22:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Aiken external links

Is there any particular reason why you decided to put the link to the adult site back in after Argle and I have be reverting it out? I didn't see any sort of explaination, which would've been polite. - mixvio 14:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry then; yes, it appears to be a link to a pornographic website and I believe the IP is trying to stick it in repeatedly as an advertisement. I left a vandalism notice on the board but I don't know if it went through; my alert disappeared immediately after I posted it. I don't know if that's correct for this sort of thing. The IP also has been editing and deleting comments on his talk page. You're an admin, yes? Maybe you can look into if he's abusing? Thanks. - mixvio 18:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-emptive Primetimery!

Per someone else's suggestion, I've made an official suggestion against Primetime on another WMF wiki: Meta. Since you stated you've found more of his noxiousness elsewhere, you may want to fill in some holes in my report here: Meta:Babel#Cross-wiki_ban.3F. 68.39.174.238 01:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Hiya, thank you for keeping an eye out for vandals at Talk:Elonka Dunin.[1] :) In regards to what appeared to be a vandalistic blanking though, I would like to kindly ask you to reconsider. I have been in email communication with 68.14.0.254 (talk · contribs), and one of the things that we discussed, was whether or not he should remove some of the personal attacks that he had placed on that page. My request, plus the comment by Quartermaster, seems to have resulted in more civil behavior, meaning 68.14.0.254 (aka Harangus) deleting his comments from Talk:Elonka Dunin and moving them to User_talk:Elonka [2]. However, he did not include any edit summary, so I can see why it would have looked like vandalism. Accordingly, if you agree that that's what he was doing (simply removing a comment from one page where it wasn't appropriate, to move it to another page where it was more appropriate), could I get you to revert your revert? :) I'd do it myself, but I'm trying to be sensitive to WP:AUTO, which is why I'm asking for a second opinion. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, Elonka 05:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! :) --Elonka 09:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to Ban User

The user damitch17 and his sockpuppets have vandalized my user page numerous times, and have only caused destruction. I am completely horrified by what he is doing, and I would like you to have him banned indefinitely. I know him personally, and he will keep up the vandalism unless he is deprived of his editing abilities. Thank you very much. Dam-itch 02:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way,

I'm a CheckUser on en.wiktionary.org now. So for now, I'll try not to update the WP:'T page myself. Of course, anyone can look at wikt:Special:Log/block and search for "Primetime" to see what IPs I've blocked recently. Kind regards. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 06:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thanks for helping out the page on Heads Of Proposals. I had a few problems; I didn't know if I should use "is" because it was a single document, or was because it was in the past, or were because it had a name that is plural. Everything you've done improved the article. I'm really grateful. I'm --Connor K.

Need Third Party Help

Hi Will. I'm looking for help to put an end to a flame war that is happening on several entries and discussion pages. The pages in question are The World Can't Wait, International Socialist Organization‎, and the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA‎. I've been involved in a long-standing off Wikipedia feud with the person who has Wikipedia user account In the Stacks. This person has posted rumors about me to the Wikipedia page about me, as well as numerous talk pages. He has been repeatedly reverting links I have added to the "Related Links" sections of the aformentioned pages. I really don't want to get into a revert war, but this guy has declared that he won't allow these links to be added to these entries. This user is arguing that Wikipedia guidelines should be extended to external sites. One of the links goes to a new page that I created last week in response to the removal in August of a paragraph explaining anarchist opposition to the RCP. The page explains what anarchists think about the RCP, includes some analysis, and links to articles and websites. In the Stacks keeps removing links and has been censoring my responses to him on talk pages. At this point, I'll leave In the Stacks alone if the links are left in place and if he stops attacking me. Chuck0 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, user Chuck0 is attempting to place unsourced, unverifiable and false claims about the status of various organizations. This behavior of his is long-running, and has led to difficulties for him on several forums. Unsigned, unsourced rumors that make allegations with legal bearing will not be hosted on sites. Claims of covert control by their nature cannot be verified, and in these particular cases are false. Munson creates anonymous attack pieces, hosts them at the website he owns, then uses them as "sources" for posts to Wikipedia, among other destinations. In the case of all the above articles, criticism is well incorporated into the main body and external links. Munson is attempting to do this for reasons that are not informational, and can help to establish legal precedent for government supression of activist groups. Should it prove true that a pressure organization is "controlled" as Munson alleges but cannot prove, (nor does he claim to be able to prove them!), then under current Homeland Security legislation, activists working on various campaigns could face legal sanction. This is why the question of verifiability is exactly to the issue, and these links cannot go up. Unsigned, unsourced rumors posted to an external site do not pass any standard of integrity, let alone "verifiability." I desisted on previous efforts to note Munson's record on his entry here, which he continues to use as a personal resume. Fine. Whatever, but when it comes to tarring real people and real organizations with the phantoms of his mind -- let him fine a magazine, newspaper or other source to hold legal responsibility for the claims he makes. Wikipedia is not here for his vendettas. I have no issue with Munson, have never met him -- and will let all of this drop when he stops trying to insert anonymous, incorrect and legally dangerous statements about organizations to Wikipedia. In the Stacks

Related side note, posts I made about Munson related to this same issue and his history of being "banned" from a major Indymedia local for aggressive attacks on individuals involved there. The source? His own blog. Other people were involved in attempting to post this, but decided to desist in the hopes he would cease his activities. His efforts at appearing reasonable should be checked by any interested parties (in this case Will Beback) against his editing record, and previous issues that led to his ban at Wikipedia. In the Stacks

Amazing. In the Stacks says that he has nothing against me, but goes on and on about my alleged misdeeds. This really isn't about me, of course, but I have to deal with a wingnut who posts defamatory material about me on various websites. Now he is using Wikipedia to slander me. What In the Stacks doesn't seem to understand is that his will can't be forced on Wikipedia. There is a different set of rules here. I think they are very clear about allowing external links to pages that contain analysis and opinion. The entry on Noam Chomsky even has an entire subpage devoted to criticisms of Chomsky, many of them untrue and ridiculous. What In the Stacks is demanding here is that links to critical pages at Infoshop on several organizations be banned from being linked from Wikipedia. Wikipedia policies simply don't apply to content of external sites. In the case of these Infoshop pages, the one about the ISO has been online for many years and has been cited by other websites and publications. This really isn't relevant of course, because this is simply about links that In the Stacks is hell-bent on keeping off of Wikipedia. Chuck0 03:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet and Lowe

Hello, again. Haven't heard in a while. If you have seen my web site [[3]], you'd realize that I have a plethora of pictures. I was actually privee to the Pasadena Hist Museum's archive and a selection from some 500 slides ehich were laying in a shoebox under a table. Why? were you looking forward to seeing some more in the article?--Magi Media 03:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Magi Media.[reply]

Wow, what a collection! Thanks for recording the history of the area, and of its people. I was looking at the "Altadena Panorama", trying to deduce its vantage point. Somewhere along Castle Canyon, or at Inspiration Point? It'd be fun to take a similar picture today. The hills haven't changed much but the plains sure have. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say that it's taken from a ridge somewhere along castle Canyon. Inspiration Point is a little far away and from a diferent aspect.--Magi Media 04:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Magi Media[reply]

Ericsaidon2?

Recent edits to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, and especially this edit deleting a Citation needed template (with the edit summary "citation not appropriate") suggests that User:Ericsaidon2 was editing the article as 69.237.25.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

As far as I can tell, after his brief flurry of anon edits after being banned, Eric hasn't been editing on the Wikipedia until now. The first edits of the IP improved the article, but there was also an unexplained change in the demographics data (which never had any references anyway and aught to be deleted from the article) [4]. There was also the addition of some unreferenced climate statistics, which seems typical of his overemphasis of the importance of Anaheim Hills [5].

Do you think this activity warrants resetting the year-long ban for Ericsaidon2 (one month after the last reset of the ban) [6]? ^Blank ^Verse 09:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Welcome back, Will Beback. ^Blank ^Verse 09:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Confederate Veterans

This is really getting tiresome.[7][8] Note the BS about being "in contact with administrators" and "warnings" (on top of prior threats of "immediate arbitration" without even discussing it at talk first). Do you have any suggestions? · j e r s y k o talk · 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jumping back in. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medcom

Will, there's a discussion here about what to do about the medcom given that Essjay seems to have disappeared. I was wondering if you'd be interested in revitalizing it, so I said I'd draw your attention to the discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cerritos, California

There is one editor, Publicdefender99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and an Earthlink IP 63.146.65.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), that has been deleting the entire section, even though it is properly sourced. Although the section has negative information on former Cerritos councilmember and current state representative candidate Grace Hu, it looks to me like it falls within the policies at Biographies of living persons. Except for one brief message at User talk:Jumping cheese, the only thing they have done is do a complete deletion of that section (and once deleting the discussion of the section on the Cerritos talk page). They have not responded to the messages on their talk page, nor to messages sent to the email address they gave on their user page.

Since all they've basically done is delete that one section, does this qualify as a vandal account that can be blocked or banned?

PS: Thanx for the action on Ericsaindon2. ^Blank ^Verse 05:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at the conflict. As you said, it looks borderline. If I get the time tonight, I'll add Grace Hu's explanations and justifications from the Press-Telegram article to balance out the section, since nobody took my hint. ;-)

Another odd problem with the article. There was a short edit war over the City Image section, with one editor being reported and getting a short block for a 3RR violation. The other editor involved, Banana Republic (talk · contribs) seems just a little too knowledgeable to be a new user, but I don't see any reason for sockpuppetry.

It's quiet now, but while you were on your wikibreak, I had some similar "fun" with some slightly obsessive (and apparently a little paranoid) oceanliner fan(atic)s over editing the RMS Queen Mary article. I hate edit wars, so I reported a couple of editors for 3RR violations and had the article protected for awhile.

There is one other thing you can help with. There was an article, tinywords.com, that is now deleted. It doesn't have an AFD discussion, so I assume that it got PROD'ed. Can you tell me who PROD'ded it and when it was deleted? ^Blank ^Verse 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you take a look at the page and tell me your opinion? I know I am too close to it as the creator of the article, as well as someone who has been published by tinywords.com and as one of the editorial assistants for tinywords.com. Still, I don't think there is anyway in hell that it truly fits any criteria for speedy deletion and user:MONGO should have realized that. The article didn't say it, but it is the largest circulation haiku publication in the world. If it had been PROD'ed, I would probably have seen it on my watchlist, so it pisses me off royally that it was speedy deleted after being on the Wikipedia for months. I left a message for MONGO asking them to undelete the article. Otherwise, it looks like I have to take it to Deletion review. ^Blank ^Verse 06:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Publicdefender99 (talk · contribs) did yet another revert today, and was then report as a vandal by Banana Republic (talk · contribs) (as their only edit in five days). User:JzG then blocked Pd99 for 48 hrs.

[Also. I saw your vote on the requested page move at talk:Los Angeles, California#Survey #3. I'm trying to figure out how to give the vote more attention without vote spamming. Any suggestions?] ^Blank ^Verse 10:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but your comment on the English only movement talk page doesn't make a lot of sense. How is a list of External Links a susbsitute for a specific citation? And how does the inclusion of this list of External links justify a statement (i.e., the Lousisiana point) that is contradicted by one those very same external links?

The crucial question is: how do we know the list isn't full of other errors without citing--specifically, not generally--where we got the information?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded further on my talk page--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Thanks. Modified the notice. --Eupator 20:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know what i'm talking about. Other than uploading various images of deformed people and labelling them as "typical Armenian". He made edits such as these: [9],[10],[11], [12], [13],[14] Just the tip of the iceberg.--Eupator 22:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you say deformed? That seems to be a racist comment to me. anyway, always assume good intent I have not a racist bone in my body, if you want to discuss my edits please visit my talk page.--Caligvla 00:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks again, Will, for stopping by the Transcendental Meditation article. Was nice to have an administrator appear. TimidGuy 00:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my Talk page. I will indeed get in touch if an issue arises that needs your input.TimidGuy 11:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Vote

Since you recently voted on the Philadelphia article name change, I thought you might be interested in participating on the vote to make a similar name change for Los Angeles. See Talk:Los Angeles, California. --Serge 18:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, others are publicizing this vote similarly. See User:Jonathunder. --Serge 18:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Cult CfD

To help with reaching consensus on this CfD, I added categories to sort votes into reasons for Keep or Delete. You can confirm that I sorted you into the right group here

Also, you may be interested in the related CfD for Leaders of alleged cults. Antonrojo 19:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC as source

Good hello. Would you be so kind as to list the dozens of articles that use the SPLC as a source? Cheers. L0b0t 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Just trying to help. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You may wish to voice your opinion/vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Yours, Smeelgova 07:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- What is your opinion regarding the "non-compliant" tag that User:Jossi placed on the article Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous ? Yours, Smeelgova 07:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

Thanks for pointing out my mistake on Pittsburgh rare. It wasn't meant as a cliff hanger, but somehow I managed to splice the sentence when cutting-and-pasting. Unfortunately, I don't have time to re-write the rest of the paragraph at the moment, so I just finished out the sentence. Feel free to add or edit! Aelffin 22:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cults in Our Midst

I have updated the Cults in Our Midst article entry. Take a look and let me know what you think, on the article's talk page. Yours, Smeelgova 23:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hey

Please check your wiki email... – Ch acor 00:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book)

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book). Yours, Smeelgova 03:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

How to do a "Revert"

How does one revert a topic page to it's state at a previous time? It is okay if you just refer me to the relevant instruction page. --Green in learning mode 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS!! and now,

ANOTHER QUESTION!!!

There HAS to be some sort of short cut to insert that funny little straight "up & down", totally verticle line. As it is now, I have to click on it and then it seldom inserts itself where I need it, so I have to highlight-cut-paste. Can you help me again? --Green in learning mode 23:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU, again... I am really smiling. Yes, it is over the \ character, but on my keyboard it appears as two verticle lines, one over the other. Kinda like a strange kind of colon (:) I now know how to do two of the most baffling and frustrating editing tasks I've come across so far. And with the revert page, I found the template and now have the category page bookmarked!!! Kiwi||||a Kiwi --Green in learning mode 23:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A username

While scrolling the afd page, I noticed a username that I'm 95% sure isn't appropriate. But instead of the normal course of action, I decided to mention it here for you, since a, you're an admin yourself, and b, your username is the reason that I think that one violates the Wikipedia:Username policy. The account? User:Willy Beback, with a whopping three contributions at the time of this message. Of course, what to do is up to you. For all I know, it's your work account. So, because of that, (and because I'm not a sysop,) I leave it in your hands. Picaroon9288 23:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orme-Johnson challenged again in TM article

Hi, Will. Thanks again for your earlier contribution to the Transcendental Meditation article and your opinion regarding David Orme-Johnson's credentials. Someone else, username Jefffire, has challenged Davids credentials and the references to his web site. Jefffire has gone through the article and deleted much of the material that was referencing Dr. Orme-Johnson's site. I may have cited it too much, but I feel like it's a useful souce and would like to be able to cite it if the context warrants. Not sure what to do. Jefffire and I have started a discussion on the Talk page. Thanks. TimidGuy 11:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your efforts to deal with the situation in the TM article. Not sure what to do. I guess for now, I'll try to find alternate sources. At least Jefffire has been a lot bolder than I've been in deleting some very weak references contributed by opponents of Transcendental Meditation. On balance, his contribution has been somewhat positive. But I sure agree with you that his methods are wrong. And I really would like to reference TruthAboutTm in specific instances that Jefffire may not approve of. But we'll take it a step at a time. TimidGuy 17:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, your revert was really helpful. It encouraged Jefffire to more fully explain. (And note that subsequently he posted in the Talk page a suggestion to delete rather than deleting first.) I think that if he sticks around, he could play a useful role in improving the article.TimidGuy 11:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

You've violated the 3RR on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(immigration). (you've reverted one edit by the anon and two by myself). Please revert your last edit or you may be blocked. -Psychohistorian 17:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggesting that I review the 3RR rule. I did so before posting my message to you above. I did so after your recommendation. Obviously, even admins, such as yourself, seem to forget policy from time to time. With that in mind, I'll quote the relevant part. "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period". You violated it and here are the diffs to prove it, [[15]], [[16]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions_%28immigration%29&diff=82639652&oldid=82609409

]]. As requested already, please revert your last edit or you may be blocked. Thank you. -Psychohistorian 17:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's three. Where's the fourth? -Will Beback 17:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I didn't revert four times either. -Psychohistorian 17:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By my count [17], you did. -Will Beback 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn how to read military time. 15:58 and 18:58 are more than 24 hours apart.-Psychohistorian 17:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but 18:58 and 15:58 are less than 24 hours apart. -Will Beback 17:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can no longer review the edit summary you created, so I've created another one below. Here are the three (and only three) relevant reversions.

[[18]], [[19]], [[20]] -Psychohistorian 18:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user talk: 69.208.199.103

I noticed your block of this user per his multiple vandalizations (thanks for that by the way), and was wondering if a non-constructive rant such as this should be removed from an article's talk page? Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 03:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias

Hey Will, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoi khoi 04:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category Idea

What about this idea for a new category? Category:Scholars and groups accused of cult apologism ? I took the text of the new name directly from the article on Cult apologist. I figure if it's already there, and the apologists are already named as such in the article without objection, shouldn't be a problem...right?

I have created the category above. It pretty explicitly states people/groups can only be included if they're defined in the cult apologist article, which means it's not POV but based on sourced material. Let me know what you think. Smeelgova 15:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I am NOT requesting that you vote, but just for your information, only because you responded on my talk page and you might be interested, and I value your opinion, that I tell you that yes, it is up for deletion. Yours, Smeelgova 17:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Re: MEChA

Hi Will, long time no see. Hope all is well with you. I noticed those additions and there is no merit to them. More of the same old stuff. I hoped to disentangle some of it, but being very limited on time, I refrained. It is probably OK to just roll back. I also noticed some changes over at Save Our State, but haven't had any time to delve into them. Anything noteworthy to report?

I am still around. If you need my "expertise" on these issues don't hesitate to e-mail me, and I'll do whatever I can.

BTW, have I mentioned how much I love that picture of Baldy?

PAZ, --Rockero 22:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has something to do with Rockero's request. There's some serious edit warring going on over on the MeCHA and Chicano Nationalism wikis. I think Rockero, myself, and a few others are involved and it's really not going anywhere. Nobody really wants to talk so I think all of us could use some admin moderation over there. Thanks. Mosquito-001 18:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caligvla

please see my talk page. :)--Caligvla 23:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cults

I have changed the formatting of Template:Cults, so that it can now run down the right side of an article, like Template:ScientologySeries, and virtually all of the other templates within Category:Religion navigational boxes. Check it out please and let me know what you think. Yours, Smeelgova 23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

JarlaxleArtemis vandalism

FYI: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis —Psychonaut 02:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:M. Sharapova.jpg

Hi, Will. I think the responsibility holds the source, not Wiki (also because it provided a takedown request). Thoughts? --Brand спойт 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The URL is valid, I've recently checked it again (see the bottom of the page for citation). Let the source face the questions of such kind, I've also added some more info. --Brand спойт 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about {NoRightsReserved}? --Brand спойт 22:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:::CONCERNING Matt Slick and CARM article.

Are you aware the aarm discussion forums and links that are posted are not verifiable sources, anyone can open the page to aarm and see the libelous statements posted on the discussion forums, they attack Matt Slick and others by name with libel, and defamation, anonymous posters are not verifiable sources for links and we are instructed to protect wikipedia always, if libel posted and there is not 3RR Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material

Stated on Biography guidelines: "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel."Diane S 04:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bug you on this, since you just waded into this article to remove an erroneous signature, but I think the edit history makes it clear that User: Diane S is using sock and/or meatpuppets to evade the 3RR on Matt Slick and CARM - we've got a flood of single-purpose accounts and IPs making the kind of blind reverts that brought you to the page. --Hyperbole 06:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ericsaindon2

He's editing Anaheim Hills again under the ip:69.232.38.2 and has agreed to leave wikipedia for a year if we cave into his demands in regards to the article. Looks like its time to reset the block clock. AniMate 04:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

protection of Yoshiaki Omura

Hey, I'm the (current) mediator on the Omura article. I just wanted to give you my opinion on the article, in case you're not aware of it.

Although it's moving slowly, I believe that the mediation is making progress. The two editors involved are deeply entrenched, but at least discussion is taking place. The current problem arose when a new editor (User:Whiffle) came to the article. Please see the comments I left on his talk page.

I would like to, as quickly as possible, get this page back to unprotection, but Whiffle has shown himself to be less than willing to dialogue with me in a non-confrontational way. I wonder if you might take a closer look at what's going on and leave a comment with Whiffle. I'm not sure whether he's unfamiliar with WP policy and guideline, or whether he's not / improperly applying it, but I'd like to believe the former.

If you could just take a couple minutes to look, I'd be very grateful.

Thanks! - Che Nuevara 18:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to intrude on or disrupt your mediation, which does look productive. I had noticed a long discussion recently over the propriety of editing while in mediation, followed by Whiffle's major edits, and altogether it seemed like a good idea to cut short the bickering and edit warring. If Whiffle is reasonable I'm sure the protection can be lifted quickly and if not a block may be called for. Either way, feel free to remove the protection yourself at any time, or you can ask me to do so. Thanks for mediating. Cheers, -Will Beback 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you had disrupted anything, and of course outside comments on a mediation are always welcome. The edits during mediation discussion was actually separate from the business with Whiffle, but I do agree that a protection was probably the quickest and easiest way to get a hold on things. I think that the discussion about edits during mediation settled itself (relatively) peacefully, so I don't foresee it being a big problem in the future. I just wanted to make you aware of the current situation, as Whiffle has accused me of impropriety on multiple counts within the mere 12 hours he's been editing the article, despite my best efforts to level with him, and I wanted to be sure there was an outside party aware of this.

On a related note, I appreciate the gesture, but I won't be taking you up on the offer that I can unprotect the page when I see fit, because I'm not an admin ;) Nihonjoe is, however, so I may ask him when I feel the time is right.

Peace! - Che Nuevara 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane S

I'm sure you noticed by now, but I blocked Diane S indefinitely due to her planned legal action. The case seemed to be pretty clear. --Yamla 03:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism revert on Monroe Doctrine

Just a note about this edit – it reverted only the half of the vandalism. I've cleaned up the other half. --user:Qviri 13:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myths and Misperceptions About Texas

Will - I've got no idea what to do about the Myths and misperceptions about Texas page. I was the original nominator for deletion - I'm still of that opinion, but don't feel strongly about it. Still, it looks like others also think it might be a candidate for deletion, and the author has said that it would be ok to delete if that's the consensus. Does this need to go to Articles for Deletion? If so, I don't want to be the one to nominate it, given that I've already made my views known. I'd love to know your thoughts. Thanks.--TheOtherBob 00:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Will - I think that's a good decision.--TheOtherBob 03:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cities categories

Thanks for the comments, Will. I'll just go ahead and finish LA county cities in the "Cities in California" category since there's only a couple left. AManSac 21:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. Come to think of it, the categories did have redundancies. I bow to you. AManSac 21:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed something...shouldn't Cerritos at least have a category for Cities in Los Angeles County? It seems the other cities like Whittier and Beverly Hills are both in the parent and child categories for Cities in Los Angeles County category. I suppose we can always remove those redundancies as well if you deem it the case. AManSac 21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCIR

Thanks for starting the article. It has been a long time in coming. I have a photo of the beloved Ms. Coe; think I should add it, or shall I wait until she gets an article all her own?--Rockero 23:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.70.155.234

... having repeatedly harassed me with various nuttiness, has asked to be blocked.[21]. Might it be possible to grant this request?--Mantanmoreland 12:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point on the sock is well-taken. My sentiments entirely.--Mantanmoreland 13:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Horton

A quick question, if you have a second. I flagged the Matthew Horton article for deletion because it appears to be a hoax / vanity piece. (I can find no support for the idea that any "Matthew Horton" has ever won a Nobel Prize or fought a shark.) An IP address then removed the deletion flag. I suspect (based on the address's other edits) that it's a sockpuppet of the author, but I have no way to know that. Here's the question - I assume that re-adding the PROD would be bad form, right? What's the proper way to handle this type of situation? Thanks - --TheOtherBob 16:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at Al Gore III?

I'm trying to deal with partisan violations of WP:BLP, IMHO. If you defer I understand. BusterD 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a few of us have got it. Sorry for bothering you unnecessarily. I was starting to throw the net wider for support, if needed. BusterD 00:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney High School (Cerritos, California)

Please take a look at Talk:Whitney High School (Cerritos, California)#Vandalism. There have been real names revealed, and threats made, which from my reading of Wikipedia:Blocking policy can both be blocking offenses. Here is the edit where User:Jd27765 reveals who User:Jumping cheese is, and halfway reveals who user:Typer_525 is. And I think the comments by user:Jumping cheese on the WHS talk page are a coy but clear threat of physical violence that should not be tolerated on the Wikipedia. It bothers me enough that I've thought about contacting a school administrator. ^Blank ^Verse 09:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the matter is urgent. Anyway, it's the weekend, so they're not in school. Besides, I'd rather have it handled by a levelheaded admin from Southern California, than have it handled by some random admin at WP:AN/I.

From the user's talk pages, it looks like they briefly met this last week at school for the first time. I still think the situation requires a sterm warning, if not a short block. ^Blank ^Verse 09:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware of the policy against revealing other people's names. While that is a mistake on my part, I thought it was necessary as the user in question was a vandal who uses sockpuppets (named after Karl N., a student who had transferred to another school at least a year before the vandal attacks started), anon IPs (after his 3 sockpuppets were blocked) and recently created User:Jd27765 to start proclaiming his innocence. After tracing one of the IPs to the Whitney school network), I had hoped to identify the vandal to have a chat with him to resolve the matter. After a friend of mine (and classmate of the vandal) identified the vandal, I posted it on talk page for Jumping Cheese, a fellow Whitney editor who has helped in stopping the efforts of the vandal. Wow...I typed a lot...Anyway, thanks for telling me about the no revealing names policy. And seeing that you have removed the offending content, is it safe to assume that you have also removed it from the database? Typer525 ^Talk 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind my name being on the Wikipedia database, but seeing that any savy Wikipedia editor (or user) could find any of our names, I would like to request for this whole affair to be removed from the database. And would be okay if I notify you if any more vandalism occurs (in regards to the page)? Typer525 ^Talk 00:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this problem. I see too many problems on the Wikipedia that just continue to escalate, so I've decided it's best to be proactive at the minor problem stage, rather than risk the possibility that things will fester. ^Blank ^Verse 01:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! I got the message with the barring red stop sign on my talk page. I'm going to go ahead and take a lighthearted tone since you guys all sound stressed out. Concerning the "Karl" (not the vandal's real name...so I'm not violating some policy) edits and the whole not discussing identities rule, I was the one victimized when he reveled my full name. I was being "coy" when I teased "Karl" with "I can literally sit on [Karl]" (not really physically possible; not addressing Karl, but Typer 525; threat taken out of context from the clarification that followed: "(not like I would, but I could). Anyways, don't worry...I'm usually nice guy so I'll probably just talk to "Karl" if I do find him. ^_^")
Also, I wasn't aware that User:BlankVerse was bothered enough to consider contacting the WHS administrators, since he or she never left me a warning on the WHS talk page or my talk page (or email me). I'm troubled by how User:BlankVerse suggested that all parties involved to be temporarily blocked (I did get a stern warning), without even a warning.
When I talked to "Karl", he indicated that he could care less about Wikipedia...he only liked messing with it (and I did not threaten him or anything like that). Typer525 and me on the other hand actually do care about Wikipedia and tried to root-out a persistent vandal. Threatening us with a block is antagonizing the wrong side.
And yes, I would like my real name removed from the WHS talk page history.
Yours Truly, Jumping cheese ^Contact 02:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I had a chance to calm down...I would also like to point out that the whole "Karl" incident occurred because all three parties involved are currently enrolled in high school with a population of barely over 1,000. WHS has a really tight knit community, so everyone usually know what other people are doing. "Karl" apparently boasted of his accomplishments on Wikipedia (specifically the WHS page) to his friends and word eventually got around. If the exact same situation occurred in a larger high school (not to mention the entire world wide web), "Karl" would have probably never been identified. =) Jumping cheese ^Contact 06:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 07:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LoS/SPLC

Will, I respectfully request that you not continue to ignore the requests of several editors regarding the LoS and SPLC articles. I think you are acting contrary to policy and in an arbitrary manner.--Fix Bayonets! 09:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JJSockpuppet

Hi Will, It's been a while, but there may be a new incarnation of the various JJsockpuppets: Crud3w4re. Check out the similar language and behaviour (e.g. blanking) in his (gender presumed) attempts to defend himself against warnings and bans... Notice that the earliest edit for Mr. Crud3w4re is 22 September 2006, which fits in smoothly after the latest edits of the Jerry jones sock puppets that I know of. Thought this might be worth keeping an eye on. Ciao! Pinkville 03:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Editor Review

Hi, I just started an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil and am trying to get feedback on my edits. Feel free to leave a review or comment. Thanks and bye.--Jersey Devil 19:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:83.9.236.241

Hi. I recently reverted the talk page blanking made by possibly the same IP, however I just saw that the anon blanked the talk page once again. Just giving the heads up. Thanks -Moreau36 20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront

I came into the disambig page and it was absolutely barren. I didn't notice the reasons until I checked the history later. The other entries really need some description, especially the novel one. It seems appropriate to link to the author when we don't have the article for the novel yet. How else is anyone going to find any information about it? "Self-described" seems to be about as NPOV you can get, since it's basically in the name of their site. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without the apposition, people don't know if it's the particular website they're looking for, or the particular studio, etc. Someone else may have published an album or sci-fi novel by the same name, or someone may have created a different website named stormfront. Disambig pages are supposed to remove ambiguity. A bare link with only a title leaves way too much ambiguity. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Smith (Missouri politician)

Please use the move function, instead of copy-and-paste, when renaming a page. This avoids splitting the page history in several places. (I'll fix it shortly) -Will Beback 01:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know. Thanks for the FYI. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also did Calvin Johnson --> Calvin Johnson (musician) recently. You might have to "take care" of that one, too. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primerica Financial Services

Adding a critical website to the list of external sites is unfounded. There is no criticisms within the article. If you feel the article is unbalanced, please add a criticism section and then the critical site link. Primerica 21:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Is this your "papername", how you might sign a paper document, or a screenname? If it's a screenname, then I interpret it as a pun.

I have been attempting to resolve the "you-know-what" on the Desert_Hot_Springs,_California page f/ more than a month. Much like most regions, this city deserves various compliments & insults. It does need much improvement. However, the muddle that keeps getting into this article does not help.

Paragraphs should be well written. They should source to a verifiable website, newspaper, book, magazine, map, something. Despite the regulations, I would say that even a verifiable personal interview would work for me.

However, this person offers none of that. This person offers no biography,... no "papename",... no lead, no source of even a vague sort.

This person, sometimes, does not sign messages.

This person, or a group of several, has an array of ip signatures, over the past couple of months.

This person conflates these claims w/ the Census Bureau.

Thank You f/ your hitherto efforts.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 23:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at this?

As a neutral editor could you take a look at this discussion at Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Original_Source:_Uri_Davis.27_Book on the use of Uri Davis as a source in the article? Gehockteh leber 00:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Psychohistorian Brimba 05:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith

I haven't seen much "good faith," from my perspective. Respectfully, --Fix Bayonets! 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you issue a warning to Verklempt yesterday when he reverted the Williams quote 3 times? The Williams quote had been in the article for quite some time. It appears you are playing favorites, Will.--Fix Bayonets! 23:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your fairness is always appreciated, Will. As you can tell, I do care about the issue... I don't like arguing and I am not making a point of anything merely just to spew hot air. I really try to respect other opinions. But I don't appreciate biased garbage being included on the pages in question.--Fix Bayonets! 23:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Protection?

League of the South

Scot Ross

Discover the Networks

Thanks

Clay Aiken external links

Pre-emptive Primetimery!

Blanking

Requesting to Ban User

Oh, by the way,

Thank You

Need Third Party Help

Sweet and Lowe

Ericsaidon2?

Sons of Confederate Veterans

Medcom

Cerritos, California

Sources

Re:

Thanks

L.A. Vote

Alleged Cult CfD

SPLC as source

No problem

FYI

Thank you

Oops!

Hey

Categories

How to do a "Revert"

A username

Orme-Johnson challenged again in TM article

3RR violation

Muchas gracias

Category Idea

Re: MEChA

Caligvla

Template:Cults

JarlaxleArtemis vandalism

Image:M. Sharapova.jpg

:::CONCERNING Matt Slick and CARM article.

protection of Yoshiaki Omura

Diane S

Vandalism revert on Monroe Doctrine

Cities categories

CCIR

Could you look at Al Gore III?

Whitney High School (Cerritos, California)

LoS/SPLC

JJSockpuppet

My Editor Review

Joe Smith (Missouri politician)

Primerica Financial Services

Hello,

Can you look at this?

FYI

Good Faith