User talk:Will Beback/archive12

Citation request...

Hi Will Beback..

You left a request for 'citation" on Sahaj Marg page...I left you a message on the "discussion" page...

Thanks for the Assistance...

Don

Um, thanks for the Welcome!

... and you want to undertake the archiving of the 2005 and earlier talk for the California page? NorCalHistory 07:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Did it, despite the sweaty palms almost impeding me! NorCalHistory 08:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugliness

Thanks for your speedy response to the vandalism on the Ugliness article, there's definately some articles that are obvious targets for vandalism and they need to be protected, or at least semi protected. Bronzey 07:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thedrunkendialer.com

I am wondering of this site could be considered an internet phenomena or not. I know it is rather popular and extremely humorous. It features a guy who holds a weekly contest offering $100 via PayPal to the individual who leaves him he best Drunk dialing message on his voicemail.

I did not add this site to this article yet for fear that people would think I am self-promoting. I have no affiliation with the site and can’t find any direct marketing used to purchase products. I just think it is very funny and well known around my area.

I look forward to some objective input before I add, or do not add this site to the list. Take a look for yourself, you be the judge…

• Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. (Would this apply?)

• thedrunkendialer.com

Thanks, 69.167.102.181

P.S. I posted the same message on User_talk:Wavy_G for more opinions. Look forward to hearing from you...

I can understand why you may perceived my message as spam, and perhaps I should have not include the link or been less promoting, however, I did not intend to gain traffic. Good work on the David Duke artcle! 69.165.222.229

Erasures from User talk:132.241.246.111

Grazon qua 132.241.246.111 is editing User talk:132.241.246.111 to remove comments. He has previously been warned against doing this sort of thing as Devilmaycares and later as Grazon. —75.18.113.152 01:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

Could you take a look at Wbroun (talk · contribs) and offer some advise to this user? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryodox

Contributions Ryodox's Xanga Weblog He isn't racist, is he? 69.165.221.123

It's not for me to judge. The edits of his that I've noticed have been tolerable, mostly, and I haven't noticed him attack other editors. He hasn't been disruptive. While he doens't mention them on his Wikipedia page, he uses the same username elsewhere and his views a pretty obvious. I expect his edits here are reviewed by concerned editors. -Will Beback · † · 07:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that kid

Hi Will,

That's the kid we used to call the "North Carolina Vandal" (we deleted his LTA page under WP:DENY a couple months ago). He claims to have stopped vandalising, but he uses that term rather loosely, i.e. he does not count his numerous trolling attempts as vandalism; an example was his disturbingly successful imitation of User:Mike Church in October (here is an example [1]). I can dig out some diffs on AN/I if you want them. If he really wants to return as a good contributor rather than a vandal/troll, nothing is stopping him other than his relentless insistence on trying to get some of his former vandalism socks unblocked. By the way his principle IP range should still be shut down here [2]. Let me know if you need more info. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

TM article

Hi, Will. I see that you looked in on the debate on adverse effects and the reliability of affidaviits and The Skeptic's Dictionary. Sethie seems angry as a result of our debate and now seems intent on going through and adding any negative material he can find to the TM article. Things had been so civil up to now.

I deleted one time the new section on alleged adverse effects, but then added rebuttals instead of continuing the edit war: 1) The German study that's cited by Carroll was retracted by the German government as a result of a lawsuit. 2) And the lawsuit that the Denaro affidavit was in support of was dismissed by an appeals court.

Any advice on what to do? I was planning to do an RfC regarding citing The Skeptic's Dictionary, since it has so many problems with errors and sources. But now that things are getting out of hand, I wonder if it's worth it, given the onslaught of other material. Also, the RfC would necessarily detail the errors and problematic sources, likely making it several hundred words. Is that in line with the way an RfC works.TimidGuy 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I always panic when someone starts making lots of changes. Things have settled down. But I do hope you will share any thoughts regarding RfC.TimidGuy 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Will, for sharing your thoughts. I meant that the critique would be on the TM Talk page. For some reason, I'm only able to read your comments in the History. They're not showing up on the Talk page. I'm surprised that Carroll has that high of standing. His TM article is so flawed. Apparently the rest of the book is better. TimidGuy 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanking you once again. It was such a breath of fresh air -- almost a relief -- to have a neutral voice appear. Your perspective on Carroll is really helpful.TimidGuy 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Daily Illini IP

FYI: Reported the IP from Daily Illini at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_reinsertion_without_sourcing.--Kchase T 07:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Return

Sorry, had other matters distracting me, but yes, I'm in. How can I help? --NovaSTL 08:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in. Also, good luck with your ArbCom nomination! Per the voting guidelines, I am only posting votes from one account (which isn't this one). But please rest assured that you have my support from my primary account, as well as my best wishes. --NovaSTL 09:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's Sixty-Three

Will - I left you a few messages in the discussion page of the article. But, I just got a message out of no where from andonicO saying - PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING. I'm not sure why i got that? I've been trying to be a really responsible contributor, to add rich, referenceable true information. I've been using good grammar. I've taken your suggestions. I've been trying to address things with logic and rationale. I spent alot of time earlier adding references to the site. There was no explanation - can you help me? Am I doing something wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.163.173.154 (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Freeze Tm article?

Hi, Will. Is there any chance you could freeze the TM article? Sething is making all these changes without any discussion. I've posted comments on the Talk page pointing him to the guideline on consensus. Some of his changes, I feel, are good. But others are damaging the article. He just inserted a section that duplicates something that's already in the article. He supported a point by quoting from allegations that were made in a suit that was dismissed by an appellate court. He cited an award of damages by a jury, but that award was overturned on appeal. These are things I could point out if he'd go back to discussing, as I've encouraged him to do, rather than just pasting in anything he can find on anti-Tm sites. Some of that is valid criticism, but other stuff is bogus. I'd like him to discuss first. This sort of contention is new to me. The article had been fairly stable, and changes were gradual. Thanks.TimidGuy 17:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. When I was looking at the archives on the Talk page I saw that it had been frozen last July in a similar situation. The problem is that he's making changes rapidly without discussing. It don't see how this is a routine editing dispute. It's carelessly and significantly rewriting the article. I don't know how to revert to an earlier version. I've got other things I have to do now and can't continue to monitor his changes. I guess we'll just have to let him go at it.TimidGuy 18:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, every time I panic then things settle down a bit. Still, there's a lot of stuff in there now that shouldn't be there, including some egregious errors -- like quoting Ross's paraphrase of Canter and attributing it as a direct quote of Canter. Will be work to clean things up. Anyway, thanks much for you post on my Talk page about a criticism article. I hadn't know about that.TimidGuy 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Big "oops"

Wow, I sure made a huge error on the TM page! Thanks for pointing it out and presenting a possible explanation. I think the reason I might have been editing the whole page was because I wanted to add a new section rather than edit an old one. What's the best way to start a new section on the Talk page? To add this section I edited the most recent section and added my new section at the bottom. Is that the best way. Thanks! Tanaats 02:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response on my talk page. Another question please: If I want to edit an article's "introduction" (the part at the very top before the first section) I'll have to edit the entire page, correct? Thanks. Tanaats 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fame

I saw that a while ago. A character by the online handle Exterminance was in contact with me as a result. For some reason I don't think they like me much. AnnieHall 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

South Gate, California

Will: Could you look at talk:South Gate, California#bigoted point of view. I stumbled upon the discussion today. I personally agree with both points by the anon editor (and there are certainly enough other references to the recent news event in the article), but the other editor appears intent upon edit warring over the issue. TIA ^BlankVerse 13:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom vote question

I've responded to your inquiry about my vote on your ArbCom candidacy at my talk page -- as I very much respect and trust you as an editor, I'd be very grateful if you could just clarify some matters. Best wishes for your candidacy. theProject 22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Vindictive actions

Dear Will Beback,

I have been nothing but respectful with you, however I must say that I am slightly offended to be referred to as an “admin shopper,” accused of spamming, along with being the recipient of condescending, sarcastic, and muddled facetious speech.

Perhaps I made an error of poor judgment in requesting a general consensus from Wikipedians prior to editing an article because that seemed to be the most logical method at the time prior to making a submitting new content. I now know the there are more appropriate methods of achieving the same feedback.

I know for a fact that you would feel rather slighted to find yourself in my situations when your intentions were genuinely good. I do not appreciate the manner by which you and your fellow editors have responded to my situation. In fact, I believe that many of your contemporaries have violated your No Personal Attacks policy in itself.

Had I been an actual spammer, I would have reverted back all your edits to maintain the amount of listings of that “particular” external link, yet I have nothing to gain or lose by adding that “distinct” site to any article, thus dripped the issue.

I think you and you cronies should be less arrogant when dealing with newcomers in the future, especially should they make an honest mistake as I did.

P.S. You knew I never attempted to spam!

• 69.165.222.229

If you read WP:NPA, it clearly says things like, I disagree or "this is spam" are not considered Personal Attacks. Sethie 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I would like to hear that from Will Beback, because it is his talk page, futhermore I was speaking to him. 69.167.97.81

A) I already responded to you on your talk page. B) You've sent this identical letter to several admins. It refers to comments that I didn't make and actions I didn't take. C) I've always treated you respecfully. D) I'm sorry if you feel you haven't been treated right. You're welcome to stay and contribute. -Will Beback · † · 07:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

All I would like is an acknowledgement that my intentions were pure, and I did not spam wikipedia purposly with the objective of promoting traffic on a website I am not even running. In addition my IP is not static, thus I will make an account to make things easier to communicate. 69.167.97.81

I can't attest to your motives or intent. I do assume your good faith. Now let it go. -Will Beback · † · 08:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I shall let such go, however I would greatly appreciate your nsight regarding what makes a site notable aside from the information found in WP:notability. I do not care about the external link I had posted before, notice I have not even mentioned it since your reprimand. Explain to me how a link with a low alexa rating, or few visitors, yet is pertinent to an article could not be included. Help me understand your train of thought, not simply some litigious blabber that acts a a GDL whatever disclaimer, just don;t speak to me as if I am some idiot off the streets who is attempting to ruin your lunch break. 69.167.97.81

Let's cotinue this at Talk:Drunk dialing. -Will Beback · † · 08:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Okay I am there... 69.167.97.81

• Do you have an e-mail address I can contact you on so that wikispace is not wasted upon this conversation? 69.167.97.81

I don't see much left to talk about, but if you want to talk privately feel free to click on the "E-mail this user" link. -Will Beback · † · 09:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point, this has nothing to do with the external link! 69.167.97.81

Paul Williams (songwriter)

Hello. I did receive the emails from the source website's email address, so assuming the email headers weren't forged the anon can be taken to be the site administrator. But having said that, she said that she didn't write the text, that Paul Williams himself wrote it, and then asked for it to be submitted to Wikipedia. I'm not sure how this washes with GFDL licensing. Anyway, it's gone now. - Mark 14:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia activism

Just wanted to let you know I've tried to improve Pedophilia activism. Any help you can give would be appreciated. I see this page as a test of Wikipedia's ability to objectively, carefully represent mainstream views in the face of a very engaged minority. 216.104.211.5 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and suggestions. I have been an active editor in the past and still have a user name, but I choose to edit certain articles anonymously. 216.104.211.5 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The very sound of "improving Pedophilia activism" is disturbing. 69.165.187.96 12:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Will, you have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Landmark_Education. FYI, I have decided to recuse myself from being a party in that mediation as well as from editing that article during mediation, as I feel that the opposing parties need to be helped in a manner in which I was unable to do in with my involvement. I may contribute here and there in talk during mediation if I see that it can be useful to the process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I note that you struck yourself as a party in the response. Any insight as to why? Thanks in advance. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, as long as you don't consider yourself a major party. I was just wondering if you were refusing to be in the mediation, or what. Thanks again. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Pipe trick

I knew about the pipe thing for defaulting link text. The funny thing about using it is that the wikitext that gets saved is actually the same as if you type it out completely, so you can't tell whether or not someone has used it. Mike Dillon 22:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

More Primetimery

I've notified Commons, as best I can, of their latent Primetime sock commons:User:HQCentral and his likely violatory images here. You may wish to comment or make sure that I haven't omitted anything or incorrectly described the situation. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 04:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see you've done so previously. Hopefully this one will get a better response. 68.39.174.238 04:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Even more!

Thanx for that reply to his infamous trolling. I was wondering if I should or if that would be "feeding the troll", so I compromized and did what I've seen done on contentious AN(I) sections. 68.39.174.238 06:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

AARGH!!!

Now look @ this: commons:User:Temp! I'm going to see if I can't get this dealt with... 68.39.174.238 06:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

72.148.105.57

FYI: 72.148.105.57 again attacked Council of Conservative Citizens (see this diff), an article that you previously repaired after an earlier attack by him/her. —SlamDiego 05:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

BDORT S-Protection

Hi Will, I think there is a very high likelihood, given that we have 2 tendentious editors blocked, and several anon-IP's reverting to a similar pro-BDORT version, that they are either sock or meat puppets. Given also that we currently have 4 established logged-in editors supporting a single consensus version as a basis for future improvements, would it not make sense to S-protect the BDORT entry? It would help a lot. Thanks, Crum375 03:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

Hi Will, thanks for the help on BDORT. If you are still around, I need help on (unrelated) Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. An anon-IP there is trying to modify the Talk page using bogus archiving. I suggest blocking the IP for now, and if they persist via socks, to re-protect the Talk page (it was s-protected for quite a while, the article is hard protected by Office). Thanks, Crum375 04:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also look into Crum375 violating the 3RR rule with regard to Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. He has been blocked before for violating this rule on other areas of Wikipedia. 67.177.149.119 04:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Omura protection / arbitration

[3] Smart move, re-protecting the Omura article. I was thinking about asking for it, but I extracted myself from the situation.

By the way, are you aware of the ArbCom case about it? You might want to take a gander.

Peace. - Che Nuevara 04:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I guess I should have done that myself, but maybe it's better given the conflict for a third party to do it. Much appreciated. Crum375 04:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Will, would you mind checking this? It's the same IP from yesterday, now un-archiving selectively, 'because of an ongoing legal case against WP'. This involves his posting into the current Talk page other people's comments. Since the IP is apparently one of the socks that were prohibited from the article and Talk page before, and were subject to ArbCom action, I feel very uncomfortable to have my comments re-inserted into a page by what appears to be a very involved party. I also have no easy way to verify that the comments are not tampered with along the way, as the diff tools can't handle this selective re-insertion process (AFAIK). Thanks for any help. Crum375 15:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice requested on how to handle a dispute

I'm hoping you have the time to advise me about something. I'm involved in a dispute in the ABBA article with only 1 or 2 other editors. I filed an RfC but after several days no outside comments have been submitted. The issue is whether to include an External Link to one fansite, which I support, while the other editor prefers zero links to fansites. He points to a consensus on this from April, but that was comprised of only two registered users. Incidentally, my feeling as to why a link to a fansite is appropriate is that pretty much all the other band articles have them (at least the ones I checked), and it seems like poor journalism to list only the official source, but my reasons for my position are kind of beside the point. My question is what to do in this situation when there's no outside participation in the RfC, I disagree with 1 or maybe just 2 other editors, and the issue isn't important enough to request mediation or arbitration? It seems that my options are (1) Walk away, (2) Edit according to my position, or (3) rally support for my position. I don't know how to do (3), and I'm not sure (2) is appropriate if I'm outnumbered or if there's a consensus precedent, even if it's a weak precedent. So that seems to point to walking away. Is that really the best option? I appreciate your counsel. -MichaelBluejay 07:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on how to handle the above. I wasn't aware that there was a WP policy discourage linking to fansites, which surprised me since most of the articles about bands I've seen seem to have long-standing fansite links (which was in fact why I thought it was appropriate for the ABBA article to have one, too). I'm tempted to think that common practice may have made the policy a bit outdated, but even if that were the case, I don't think I could justify adding a fansite link to the article given that I'm the sole proponent against (I think) two opponents, and given that there was an earlier consensus, no matter how weak. It's not an important enough issue that it's worth pursuing, so unless more people appear who support my position, I think the best solution is for me to walk away. In my previous disputes the difference was that the issue was actually important (to me at least), or the other side capitulated, or there were enough editors to get a meaningful consensus. This one was new to me because there were a tiny number of editors on a fairly insignificant issue. Anyway, thanks again for your advice. -MichaelBluejay 11:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Staples Center

See User talk:67.52.107.52#Canon Theatre. Since you're one of the admins who's either warned or blocked them in the past, I thought I'd give you the 'fun' of playing whack-a-mole by giving them a good bitch slap.

It looks like there has been low-key, but persistent spam from them for www.barrystickets.com. Do you think that it is worth it to contact meta:Talk:Spam blacklist and have them blacklisted? Just for the practice of copying Wikipedia articles without attribution, I think they should get their knees capped (see www.barrystickets.com/hockey-tickets/index.php on the NHL). ^BlankVerse 09:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanx.

I didn't report barrystickets.com to the Spam blacklist, but I did report them as a non-compliant mirror. Unfortunately, that area doesn't seem to be that active on following up on reports, which means that I'll probably have to send the emails and make the phone calls. :-( ^BlankVerse 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WWST12

see page move log. ^BlankVerse 04:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ceyockey RfA

A generic but nonetheless warm "thank you" for your generous words of support in my RfA. I'm glad that you affirmed Radiant's nomination and I'll be measured in my use of the cleaning closet's contents. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Los Angeles categories

The categorization under Category:California is, in general, a mess. So instead of tackling all of that, I've decided to work on a smaller, but possibly more contentious segment—the naming of Los Angeles categories. I've made a preliminary stab at the WP:CFD renaming nominations at User:BlankVerse/Sandbox4. Could you please take a look at it. FYI: Some of the notes that are on that page are really notes for myself and Southern California WikiProject participants and will be stripped out of the final CFD nomination. In my second pass through that list, I'll make them a different color or something so they will be set apart from what will be in the final nom. ^BlankVerse 11:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Will: Chapman University is getting hit daily by students who think it's cute to add their name to various buildings and institutes on campus, with most, but not all of it coming from IPs on campus. I'm getting tired of it. Could you semi-protect the page for up to a week? And the IP 206.211.148.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) had a final warning a few days ago, so maybe they need to be spanked as well.

The silly thing is that it is students who are probably using their real names (or the names of friends). One of the names is someone on the Crew team, and one is in student government. When it is that blatant from students, it is oh so tempting to think about calling the Dean of Students, or the Crew Coach, even if it is pretty minor vandalism. ;-) ^BlankVerse 09:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Extra vote

Sorry, I meant a support vote. not quite sure how that happened. looks like you got it any way. congrats! Kiwidude 02:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hello, I am the mediator for your case. Please remember to keep things civil, and I thank you for choosing voluntary mediation for your dispute resolution. Please respond on the case page within 96 hours with what you would like to see come from this mediation. Somitho 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Commenting

"Comments alone are not a reason to block someone."

That's not what I remember your position as being. Has my memory failed me? Everyking 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My deepest sympathies regarding your chagrin. Everyking 11:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest

Quite aware, thanks. User_talk:Primerica Please read the article, specifically, WP:COI#Conflict_of_interest_in_point_of_view_disputes. Primerica 15:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute. Not sure what you're playing at, but I'd ask that you, too, read the WP:COI.

Your latest edits to the Primerica article seem non-neutral and I question if you have a conflict of interest. Reading your user page, you state you're an administrator and a neutral editor, however, you latest contributions ([4], [5]) seem to be contrary to that.

I reference the Sahaja Yoga case, simply, because I feel your issues/edits with the Primerica article are similar. I feel the current article is very fair, as opposed to its previous versions. The majority of the article pertains to the history of Primerica and its current state. It also includes criticisms about the company. Both sections have sourced material. However, the need to add three sources to, "back-up", the criticism about the company being an MLM is a little over-kill, in my opinion. I'm sure you'd agree. Especially, if I tried to add multiple sources to contrary.

I'm all for keeping with [WP:NPOV], especially when there are conflicting views. But your latest edits, seem directed, specifically at me, as the editor. I can only guess it is because of my username. Primerica 19:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, really, I mean, the fact that they named themselves after the company is no reason to go assuming that there's any kind of POV there. Seriously! Anazgnos 23:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding multiple sources seems to be necessary since critical sources keep being removed. You can't expect me to believe that someone who names themself after a company, only edits the article about that company, apparently has access to company archives, and repeatedly removes criticism of that company does not appear to have a conflict of interest. It's OK to have a COI, but it means that one should be extra careful in one's editing. -Will Beback · † · 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles D. Provan and the BJU page

CyberAnth and I disagree about the notability of one Charles D. Provan, who CyberAnth thinks should be posted on the "Former students" list in the Bob Jones University article. I think Provan is a nonentity. My fear is that if Provan is officially notable, it's going to be harder to keep everybody's uncle off the Bob Jones lists. It would be helpful to have another perspective on this question. Thanks--19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)John Foxe

Thanks. I'm satisfied.--John Foxe 22:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche link removed from Pushkin

I added that link; could you please explain why you removed it? Thanks in advance. Errabee 22:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. I was not familiar with that ArbCom ruling (before my time), and found this article to be helpful in establishing a background for Pushkin. Too bad it isn't allowed. Errabee 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

La Rouche and the Schiller Institute

Please read my input: Talk page Jose Rizal .KaElin 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

External links report

Hi Will. I've been working on a Java-based bot framework for interacting with the new MediaWiki API, as well as the legacy special pages such as Special:Linksearch (which isn't part of the API yet). I have an example report created offline by the bot code at User:Mike Dillon/Lyric farms (working from User:Mike Dillon/Lyric farms/Worklist). Would you be interested in using this for the LaRouche links? I haven't yet requested bot approval, so I am manually posting the output for the time being, but I'd be happy to set it up for you and run it occasionally.

I'm planning on adding the ability to use a whitelist to ignore "allowed" links (keyed by URL+Wikipage) and at some point I'll apply for bot approval and give the code the ability to edit pages. I may make it able to email out reports in the meantime, since it is pretty easy to add and I don't need approval for that, but I'm not sure yet. Let me know what you think. Mike Dillon 01:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the report being useful so much because of volume, but because it can be automated and all you need to do is see if the count changes. Like I said, I intend to add whitelisting at some point and I can see how it wouldn't be too useful for the LaRouche case until then. Mainly, I'm just looking for test cases to build out the framework, so I went ahead and ran the LaRouche report anyways ;)

Let me know if you change your mind, especially once I have this thing automatically posting reports to WP. Also, let me know if you'd like to see the output of the report for the sites listed at LaRouche movement. There are currently 137 total links in article space. Mike Dillon 02:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Socks

As you know, sock accounts may not be used to edit the same articles or otherwise skew the consensus. If you continue I'll have to start blocking some of them. -Will Beback · † · 16:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• What? Omnivore Oprah 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no other. This is bizarre. Omnivore Oprah 16:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I always assumed that this user was part of a group of accounts, one of which Senator Cooter stalked me for awhile. I am making no accusations but if this user has more than one account, they all need to be blocked. Jasper23 04:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jasper23 tends to assume that when several people disagree with him, it is either a conspiracy or sockpuppetry. Omnivore Oprah 21:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-activated possible sock account....Michigan Blueneck. Could you check it out? Jasper23 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This one for sure. Hill Williams Jasper23 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Mootstormfront

A tag has been placed on Mootstormfront, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —Pilotguy (ptt) 02:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

RE:

We made the damn page, bitch, you're the one fuckin' with it. -- 10:29, 23 December 2006 JonesMama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Alexander Parvus and Lyndon LaRouche

Thanks for your patience with the Lyndon LaRouche material. Your last edit is perfect, fixing the nearby {{cn}} problem. (The Lyndon LaRouche texts is in fact quite interesting.) -- Petri Krohn 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah

I saw you blocked Halaqah for 31 hours. Is not that a little excessive? I know he has been blocked for violating the rule before, but I do not see the point in blocking him for so long. His reversions were not that controversial. Please consider reducing it, if only to 24 hours. KazakhPol 19:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

But have you found that these longer blocks are actually working to deter future violations of the policy? More often than not, dont longer blocks simply anger new editors? I would suggest counseling the editor rather than giving him such a long block. KazakhPol 21:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga Article

I've been reviewing a number of articles on controversial NRMS, where the edititors are not able to handle their conflict of interest, where pro and con disputes often require mediation and even arbitration. I have reviewed Sahaj article and the talk history. The article reads like it was written by the group, with only a proforma mention that there is criticism. I agree with you, there is clear evidence that several editors have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, that they are exhibiting Wikipedia:ownership, that they are not following the principles described in Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest, and that they are not editing in good faith WP:Faith. Furthermore, I submit there is evidence of Wikilawyering, WP:LAWYER, the technical exploitaton of selected guidelines for purposes not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Usually, as is the case in this article, the primary issue is imbalanced suppression of information, which can be by those either pro or con, by advocates, sympathizers, or in some cases, simply zealous deletionists who do not acknowledge the impact on NPOV. The fact remains that Wikeipedia clearly states that in partisan and religious disputes, the statements of both sides are subject to caution regarding reliability and verifiability, there can be no a priori assumption that one side is more reliable than another. Because this same dynamic is found in lots of articles, Wikipedia should really have a guiding essay. However, until then, the following logic has been recognized as relevant (see for example Ken Wilber talk):

As an inclusionist, I am particularly interested in maximizing NPOV, and the idea that websites and blogs can be appropriate depending on what is available, and in particular that when the subject of an article opens the door by using self-published materials like a website or blog to communicate ideas and respond to critics, critical websites or blogs, if they are the best available sources and the person who wrote them is noteworthy relative to the subject and can be identified, can be considered.

In this case, the subject is a controversial religious guru, which triggers some caveats in the Wikipedia guidelines. Because of dispute between inclusionists and deletionists which occurs on this and related sites, a few of us have developed a frameework regarding the inclusionist response in these matters as follows:

WP:V#Self states that: "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as it is: relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." But, in this case, a religous claim, that of the groups founder being an Avatar, and claims about other religious figures and movements, are being made. This advocacy, and the dearth of independent, objective consideration, makes the essentially self-published sources from Sahaj advocates themselves of limited verifiable reliability. The Sahaj material is contentious, arguably self-serving, makes claims about events not related to the subject, and makes unverified claims about third parties. Additionally, WP:RS states: "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." The Sahaj organization makes subjective and even exclusive religious claims about its leader and serves a religious function, supporting the mission of its guru founder, and deserves the same initial caution as critical material. Therefore, under Wikipedia principles and guidelines, both the advocacy and critical publications and websites related to this subject must be treated with appropriate caution, with a NPOV result in mind, meaning there is no excessive burden of proof on critics vis a vis proponents regarding religious groups. Because WP:V, WP: NPOV and WP:NOR complement each other, "they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another". Relying only on published material or websites of dubious reliablity, while excluding based on reliability and verifiability issues all critical material from known, noteworthy critics familiar with the subject (to whom the organization has responded and thus opened the door), when that is the best available source, impacts NPOV. In these cases, selected critical material, including sites and blogs of former associates/followers and those notable within the NRM for analysis of NRMs, may meet the "particularly eminent" criteria relative to this subject alone (NRMs alone do not determine who is particularly eminent among their critics) for inclusion where other sources are not available and where the material is not libelous. The alternative view, which assumes that there is a ready economically justifiable market for published and academically reviewed books critical of a Sahaj, and that everything else, simply isn't realistic, and erroneously assumes the Sahaj material is presumed more reliable. It is particularly interesting that Sahaj advocates find the even University of Virginia site unacceptable, since the site is considered by NRM critics to be apologetic. Again, the lack of formally published, academically reviewed material is an unavoidable by product of the relative lack of mainstream academic interest in Sahaj. The article needs an appropriate balance. That is why I continue to urge that we need to balance WP:V, WP: NPOV and WP:NOR here, both in letter and in spirit. I hope you take some of this into consideration.

Based on the history of the talk section, I see no alternative but to seek neutral mediation (any suggested mediators) if critical information continues to suppressed, and if necessary, arbitration. The article as it stands is so suspect, so far from NPOV, and so below Wikipedia standards as to be unacceptable.--Dseer 00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Regarding your question about the Sahajist's deletion of any article that reports a relationship between Rajneesh/Osho and her experience with Muktananda, yes, there is far more evidence (pictoral and statments) to support that [6], than the claims of spiritual superiority over other sects made which the Sahajists have no problem with. The sahajists are using Wikilawyering methods here to supress criticism of their group, and use the classic NRM technique of turning the question on the questioner and their motives rather than dialogue in good faith. What you are dealing with is positions drawn from carefully crafted propaganda and revisionism by the NRM, diverting attention from the fact that their extraordinary claims bear an extraordinary burden of proof and that those claims about the founder are those of a tiny, even extreme, minority, and as I've said, that in fact such extreme religious claims have no more presumption of validity than those of knowledgeable critics and NRM scholars under Wikipedia guidelines. That Wikipedia is being exploited to create favorable publicity requires attention from more NPOV editors, and if this is allowed to happen, other controversial NRMs wiil demand the same treatment. --Dseer 22:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Agree wholeheartedly. I've jumped into the mediation, complete with a more extensive argument, since I now have a personal example of being falsely accused of deleting and COI by Sfacets. Under Wikipedia rules, once an editor with an admitted COI (Advocating for an Advocacy based NRM belonged too or close association with) is told they are doing COI editing by good faith editors (several have told them, and non have a clear COI), they are required to modify their editing accordingly, which they have repeatedly not done. I think the mediator will see through the smokescreen and recognize COI based POV editing is the root of the problem here. BTW, I would say that yes, the subject of the article gets more space and a certain bias but with the caveat much of that evaporates when the subject is partisan, religious, or makes extraordinary claims, as it generally becomes in NRMs. In that case, all sides share an equal burden of caution until lack of credibility is established, even if the subject does necessarily get more space by virtue of being the subject, but then it doesn't require a word for word response to make the point. If you frame the skeptical critical section right, which is missing in that article, you are really sourcing that the defined issue/dispute exists, and then reliability standard goes more to is that assertion reliably documented than is the truth of the allegation adequately documented (except where there is legal liability, of course). I submit is ok to say for example, that:

"Nirmalla Shrivastava is alleged to have been associated with Rajaneesh/Ohso in 1970 just prior to founding Sahaj Yoga by some ex-followers and critics who publish on their site pictures and published dialogue with Rajneesh they claim support this assertion (XXX link). The organization disputes this claim." The wikilogic I would use is that the link with the pics only has to be a reliable source for the nature and fact of the contradictory claim to the origins of the NRM by itself, and which disputes a doctrine based assertion of the NRM to be treated with caution, so there is no greater burden of proof on the one disputing that claim, and so it doesn't have to be proven 100% correct by some third party, it is not originating an assertion, it is responding to the NRM's suspect assertion, and stating isn't taking sides. You can't reasonably sue some one for saying an assertion has been made about a controversial public figure if it has been said and it isn't reckless. Some of us Inclusionists are starting work on a wiki-essay the basic outline of key points being what I submitted here on the Mediation page to clarify these shifting burdens and NPOV issues related to NRMs/Religions is general because it keeps coming up and you'd think the mediators and arbitrators would be greatly relieved to have something more to work with. I'm going to be referencing it on my talk page and if you'd like to help with some comments, let me know. The more consensus, the better chance of getting it approved --Dseer 10:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Chuck0

Just bringing it to your attention that Chuck0 just reverted out the Rothbard section in the Anarchism in the United States article again after being warned by you. I didn't revert it back so please don't include me in any punishments. I also put a dispute tag on the Chuck Munson article to prevent edit warring instead of reverting things there but he removed the tag itself. What's to do if someone like him just keeps deleting well-sourced material and even deletes dispute tags that let people know there is a dispute going on? I'm at a loss of how to stop him.

Re: Congrats!

Thank you for your confidence in me, and congrats on your strong support as well! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Quixtar

Will, to the best of my knowledge, and checking google seems to confirm it, Wikipedia Talk pages are not indexed by search engines, I expect through instruction by robots.txt or similar. --Insider201283 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not in robots.txt. I believe it is done with the ACLs on the Squid caches based on the User-Agent header. Mike Dillon 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, IPs 84.165.255.190 and 84.165.221.226 who have at various times added links to Scott Larsen's website (amquix) and youtube account, are dialup IP addresses in Saarbrucken, Germany [7]. Mr Larsen currently lives in Saarbrucken, Germany. [8]. You may draw your own conclusions. --Insider201283 09:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hey Will, sorry to see that you did not make it to the ArbCom this time, but 241 votes was indeed a pretty good showing, and a Top ten is nothing to be humble about! Hope it goes better next time, if you decide to re-apply. Take care. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Some "natural history Icons/Standouts/Notables

I have been working on Trees of, Birds/Avifauna of, Flora, and Fauna of, .... and then trying to fill in the natural history category: i finally started with where I live: Category:Natural history of the United States; I first added: Dutch elm disease and Dust Bowl. The great thing, is one cannot just search your mind. While looking under Nicaragua "What links Here", I added to my new start of Category:Natural history of the Americas, the Mesoamerican pyramids, then while eating the: Incas jumped into my mind !: Inca road system was my late weekend addition. So, when i did this for the america's, I kept thinking about the people who helped do MY(american) country, Mexico, Canada etc., S. Amer. So that led to the desire for a Subcategory for those people of Natural History. I tried first to think of a name. And I foreshortened U.S. to reduce its length, because the important part is the: "Historical" and the "natural history".

Some obvious people jumped out and when I saw what categories they were already in, I ended up at the timelines for the U.S., as well as the Sierra Club notables. So Muir, Ansel Adams, Lewis and Clark, Teddy Roosevelt came quickly, then the Alvarez's for the K-T discovery(tho worldwide, I mentioned all the Dinosauria fossils referred to for U.S., Canada, etc). So some of the others, related to Arbor Day, conservation. One half the people I know nothing of, unless I have looked at their page. Audobon was overlooked, until his name popped into my mind by conversation. The only woman Rachel Carson, I knew of, because it is when I grew up, the DDT thing and all. I was going to put the Ehrlich's on the list, But I think a Separate category for more recent individuals would be more appropriate: Historical people of .... versus the modern day workers: People of U.S. natural history, or Modern people of... .

There are some biochemistry, relationship tree (Tree of Life) people now overlooked over time, but they knew, and studied all these relationships before modern DNA, with the Cytochrome C studies. I think one fellow's name was also Alvarez.

So: Watson and Crick; the New Taxonomy relationships are now aided by that science, so they probably need to be on the list: I was trying to find more women, or other less common folk. I think one Third, to one Half, are less commonly known people. ..... Unless one is totally Earth Science related/knowledgable.

(Pulling up list: ..)...Powell came to mind because I live in GrandCAnyonKountry, but i didn't know Bonneville opened the Oregon Trail stuff, to the Calif.GoldRush. So I am still learning.(the list):ONe third I barely say I know about (for now). So:

1—A trailblazer (Morton: Arbor Day) (I'm toying with a different type list to formulate.)

2—Known, (to some extent)

3—U.S. studies/Work, (but not always American?)yes (ex: Agassiz and the N. Amer Ice Sheets)

4—A collaborator or a standalone: individualist.

Anyhow, i am making this up as I go. But like I say, I have been trying to populate the Natural History categories. What i started for the state of Washington, has departed like a Rocket, because of the glacial outburst flood regionality of WashOregonIdahoMontana, so I am just trying to create. [An example of how people take off mistaknly, or they opportunistically go in a direction. Montana was one of the first states i tried, and there is Grasshopper Glacier with the fossil locusts of the "Great Plains". It was put under Nat'l history because the glacier had fossils. But the Montanans decided to put some other notable Glaciers in the category. I at least alphabetized some of them so the page wasn't overly junked up.] (I did the Caribbean, and the Central American stuff, and this weekend pulled all the Geography of North Amer. stuff that was supposed to be in those two locales)... (after doing Birds of, Trees of, for all the islands, it only took about 2 hours to do that.) I am only giving you my data guidelines. A cursory(Quick) glance at the list gives most people an idea of the famous types, and the page-Articles fill in some of the Specific Details required. from the ArizonaDesert.. (sonora-desert)... -Mmcannis 04:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I also looked at Timeline of environmental events.. Mmcannis 04:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to your talk page=

What does the nice little symbol (†) used to link to your talk page mean? cairoi 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Will, Thanks for squaring away that autoblock issue—I appreciate it! I hope the holidays are going well for you. DickClarkMises 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Amway/Quixtar

Excuse the lack of civility, but in the context of which you are aware - you utter hypocrite. You delete the link to Quixtar's (the successor company to Amway in the US) response to the NBC Dateline allegations, but you leave the allegations themselves in, even though they are about Quixtar, not Amway. Shame Will, Shame. --Insider201283 00:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Quixtar, Amway, and Alticor are more or less the same company perhaps it'd be sompler if we merged the articles. That would keep these issues from arising. -Will Beback · † · 00:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I refer to my earlier comment about editing articles where you lack knowledge. Do you think the pepsico and quaker oats articles should be merged? Same companies. How about KFC and Pizza Hut and PepsiCo? Until a few years ago they were the owned by the same parenty company. Should they have been merged until they were spun off? Amway does not operate in the United States and has not since 2001, it still operates in other countries. Quixtar has operated in the United States since 1999 and does not operate elsewhere. As I have pointed out, Quixtar does things and has products Amway does not do or offer elsewhere, and vice-versa. Alticor also owns many other companies including hotels and manufacturing companies. Just today one of it's subsidiaries announced partnerships with Motorola regarding a major new technology that has previously been held propriety in an Alticor product. Something worthy of writing about in Wikipedia - except of course you've decided that only non-experts can edit any articles relating to Alticor, so pretty much nobody can. I again recommend you refrain from editing articles in areas of which you evidently have little knowledge. --Insider201283 00:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Quaker Oats press releases belong in Pizza Hut articles. If Amway wants to make a statement about the Dateline piece then I'd be happy to include it. The Quixtar response doesn't even mention Amway. -Will Beback · † · 00:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very close to smashing the damn computer screen. Do you actually know anything about Amway and Quixtar and how they are related? --Insider201283 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't get violent. So far as I can tell both Amway and Quixtar are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Alticor. -Will Beback · † · 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And Quixtar is the successor to Amway in the United States. Even that ignorance is NO excuse at all for allowing the dateline episode on Quixtar to be included and deleting Quixtar's response with the justification Quixtar was not Amway. That is blatant POV editing. I also think it's not exactly unrelated that you are doing such editing only after you've effectively "banned" me from patrolling such POV edits. Your behaviour is utterly disgraceful for a user, let alone an admin. --Insider201283 00:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that relationship. The Dateline piece mentions Amway and Alticor. The Quixtar response does not mention Amway. Do you think it's OK to include links to webpages that don't mention the subject of an article? -Will Beback · † · 01:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The dateline piece doesn't mention Amway enough for it to be notable enough for this article either. In any case, Since 2001 (or maybe 2002) Quixtar is the successor company to Amway in the United States and as such has the legal right to respond. Which you'd be aware of if you did know the relationship. So you either don't know the relationship or are knowingly editing in a POV manner. Advising you of Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-28_Will_Bebeck --Insider201283 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you planning on listing every lawsuit Amway has been involved in, even when only peripheral like this one? Alticor (and previously amway) is one of the top 30 largest private companies in the US, with a nearly 50 year history. If I go check the other top 30 on wikipedia is it going to list every lawsuit they have been involved in? At present I have seen you editing only from one side. I'm yet to see any "positive" changes at all. Any particular reason you'd care to share? And you seem quite happy to link to a POV website, Robert Fitzpatrick for god sake! --Insider201283 10:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when is a self-published CV a valid source under WP:RS? --Insider201283 10:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not allowing factually false claims and blatant NPOV, WP:RS violations to stand (you cited a CV on a personal website for heavens sake!) and have made factual and fully sourced edits to the Amway and Quixtar articles. --Insider201283 13:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that better source. -Will Beback · † · 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

<--I was going to remove the Mediation_Cabal request as I thought you'd been acting a little more NPOV - but to add "of three" to the XS Energy Drink article without any evidence to support it, and the reference indicating it is false, shows you're still struggling. What on earth was your reasoning for that edit? --Insider201283 17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

See, here's the problem Will - any particular reason you're allowing POV edits such as "cult-like scam" to remain? --Insider201283 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Which edit to what article? -Will Beback · † · 00:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Quixtar --Insider201283 00:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And why are you actively allowing a section in an Amway article that implies Amway was banned in China for being a "pyramid scheme" when it was just caught up in a blanket ban on all direct selling? --Insider201283 02:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write it, but I've edited it to address your complaints. -Will Beback · † · 06:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I have reviewed the mediation request between you and Insider201283, and if both of you find me an acceptable mediator, I am willing to take the case. Please see my general notes and notes about this case. Reply on the case-specific page, and I will update the main case with the outcome. Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 07:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to a comment from Insider at User_talk:Willscrlt#Your mediation with Insider and Will Beback. I wanted you to be aware of it since I mentioned you and a possible concern you might have. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 23:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your congrats and condolences

Hi Will, Thanks for your kind words (and condolences:-) Going to be interesting, for sure! Looks like I need to hit the ground running... Take care, --FloNight 14:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Unorthodox Sahaja Scientific, Medical and Health Claims

I think a good case can be made for serious pruning of the Sahaja Yoga article where it makes Scientific, Medical and Health Claims. Wikipedia standards are mcuh higher for that portion, and I'd actually within my rights to prune them immediately. But I want to be collaborative. The article is about an NRM. This is what I put on the Talk page:

Links (7) through (20) are being cited as evidence for Unorthodox, Scientific, Medical and Health Claims for Sahaja Yoga in an article about an NRM. The primary subject of the article is the NRM. This is not an article on state of the art scientific, medical and health thinking. Wikipedia is not for advocating fringe claims medical benefits associated with the practices of a given NRM like Sahaja over others like Reiki, TM, etc. The guidance for sources on scientific matter begins here: [[9]] and ends here: [[10]].

The statement "Water is spiritually vibrated to increase its benefical qualities and to purify it.[7]" is only a religious belief. If it is a significant belief, there is no need to link to that specific section of the Sahaja website, simply list it as a key belief since the general website lists the beliefs in great detail. Something like "Sahaja Yogis believe that water can be spiritually vibrated for benefit and purification", period.

The very title "Sahaja Yoga in medicine" implies scientifically validated medical claims are being listed. None of the medical statements made has been widely accepted as "proven" in mainstream medical thinking. Even the second statement caveats by saying "some" of these claims have been scientifically confirmed. The section needs to be retitled. Something like "Claimed Health Benefits"

These statements below are exceptional claims and the "evidence" provided is insufficient under Wikipedia guidelines to use of terms like proven, scientifically confirmed, etc. There is no supporting, mainstream peer reviewed raw data to confirm these assertions or their medical significance, and for example, the other "generic" meditations are not defined, Simply list the medical claims that Sahaj Yoga makes as beliefs and claims made by the NRM and reference the one site that lists these cites. The extraordinary claims of a hospital run by the group explaining "miraculous" cures is a highly dubious source. The health claims of the so-called "liver diet" have not been supported by mainstream nutritionists, the benefits of fruits and vegetables and yoghurt are common knowledge, too much ginger can have an adverse effect, and the claim that "white cane sugar and white rice" are cooling is not only unscientfic but ignores the common assessmetn that refined sugar and rice are less healthy than less processed sweets and and brown rice. These are simply beliefs, not science.

Thus the following needs to severely edited, and the whole section can be shortened to simply list the Sahaja beliefs without all the frills:

Sahaja Yoga meditation has proven effective in addressing various medical ailments, including asthma[8][9], epilepsy[10], and ADHD[11]. Some of these claims have been scientifically confirmed. For example, some case studies have shown that test subjects who were practising Sahaja Yoga meditation had "significant improvement in VCS (Visual Contrast Sensitivity)", and that meditation appeared to bring about changes in some of the electrophysiological responses studied in epileptic patients.[12] Other studies showed that Sahaja Yoga meditation results in fewer and less acute epileptic seizures [13] According to the Medical Observer Weekly, Sahaja Yoga was found to be more effective than other generic forms of meditation in the reduction of stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms.[14] Short-term effects on asthma have also been noticed, by both objective and subjective measures.[9]

Sahaja Yoga claims that it has cured patients of "high blood pressure, asthma, epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, etc."[15][16] SY's commentary on a study by Mishra [RK], et al., 1993, suggests that an observed increase in beta-endorphins for meditating males could explain "so-called miraculous cures"[17]. Mishra reported that Sahaja Yoga meditation resulted in a "significant increase" in beta-endorphins between control and meditating subjects. [18]

The organization runs an international hospital in Mumbai, India, the Sahaja Yoga International Health and Research Centre, which uses Sahaja Yoga methods. This hospital claims to have been successful in curing incurable diseases such as (refractory) high blood pressure, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis.[14][19]

Shri Mataji has developed a liver diet to promote better health. White cane sugar, white rice, yoghurt, ginger, fruits and vegetables promote the "cooling" of the liver. Alcohol, fried foods, red meat, fish, cream and chocolate are among the foods that are "heating" and thus may be harmful if taken in excess. [20]

Something like this would work fine (links would still need to be resolved, but recommend this general one takes care of most of the claims [[11]]:

Claimed Health Benefits

Sahaja Yoga meditation claims to be beneficial for various ailments, including asthma, epilepsy, and ADHD, and in superior reduction of stress, anxiety, and depression. Sahaja Yoga also claims that it has cured patients of "high blood pressure, asthma, epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, etc." [19]

The organization runs an international hospital in Mumbai, India, the Sahaja Yoga International Health and Research Centre, which uses Sahaja Yoga methods. This hospital claims to have been successful in curing incurable diseases such as (refractory) high blood pressure, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis. [19]

Shri Mataji developed a liver diet claimed to promote better health. She claims white cane sugar, white rice, yoghurt, ginger, fruits and vegetables promote the "cooling" of the liver, while alcohol, fried foods, red meat, fish, cream and chocolate are among the foods that are "heating" and thus may be harmful if taken in excess. [20] --Dseer 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Driving school

Well, I don't feel too strongly about mentioning it, or providing a weblink, so you can remove either if you want. I thought that it could be relevant, since the schools contracted the driving instruction to one company. WhisperToMe 00:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine :) WhisperToMe 22:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Spammer block

Thanks for picking up on the sockpuppetry. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Tags

I see you added some editing tags to American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. Can you specify on the talk what issues need addressing? Thanks, -Will Beback · † · 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The article has been conflicting for a long while. I am inviting other editors (According to Wikipedia "Policy") to add any new information, and cite any new sources of information. Please refer to the "Talk" page". I am also adding a "Dispute" tag that references to the "Talk" page. New and established editors will be coming in and reviewing the article and its validity, disputes, etc.

Cheers! --Roger the red 02:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The "reflist" template

Hi Will. Would you mind helping me with my ongoing WP education? I am curious as to what improvement there is with the "reflist" template that you substituted on Amway in place of "<references/>". Thanks! Tanaats 16:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

May the new year bring you peace, happiness, love, and hope for all things you wish for. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)