User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive6

• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive1
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive2
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive3
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive4
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive5 July 2005
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive6 August 2005

RE: User:66.133.213.116 (Talk)

Normally doesn't an admin go back through and delete all the External (commercial plugs) links that these guys (User:66.133.213.116 (Talk)) add? WikiDon 19:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can revert spam that doesn't significantly help the articles. Admins can do it a little more easily, when they have the time. ;) -Willmcw 00:29, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Not Spamming

Hi. Thank you for visiting me about your concern for spamming. I have been doing some additions about American Film Foundation, a non-profit production company run by Academy and Emmy award-winning filmmakers Terry Sanders and Freida Lee Mock. My understanding, and that of my wife (Designmotif), is that because their work is considerably valuable we have created the appropriate internal pages about them and their remarkable films because much of Wikipedia is lacking in information about them. We begun adding the articles in the hope that other users will contribute. And we've added specific external links where appropriate, linking directly to the films, many of which are difficult to find. The question of spamming is a good one, given that Amazon.com (IMDB site), Sony and other major commercial websites have been allowed to add their external links with no real reference to the pages they are added to either I might add. I'm getting very annoyed by the accusations of spamming. We are going by guidelines here. So I will return the page to it's previous condition, as it's not spamming. Please don't target American Film Foundation and their vast body of work as spam.

Thanks, JaimeyWB 06:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

National Vanguard (American organization)

Hey Will. Some anonymous user has been repeatedly deleting the statement that this article is referred to as a White supremacist organization. It would greatly help if you take a look at this article. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 18:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll keep it on my watchlist. However I think that since "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" seem to be two names for the same thing, and since one is offensive while the other is (apprently) not, I'd suggest leaving it with "nationalist". On the White nationalist article you can clarify the relationship between the terms. "White supremacist" may be accurate but, as we saw with List of White supremacists, it leads to editing problems. (Almost everyone on that list would object to being called a "supremacist" but would embrace "nationalist", I expect.) Cheers, -Willmcw 18:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Scoopex

Thanks for the heads-up. I wasn't sure how to construe the claims of permission on the talk page, but after another, more-awake look, it appears that you're right. Zealously yours, NatusRoma 02:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia stalking

This user has been engaged in a stalking campiagn against me. I have to assume at this point that Willmcw is "Bill White", given his interest in posting personal details to the entry about me. I'm asking that this editor cease and desist from making any more edits to the entry about me. If this user persists, other measures will be taken. 24.94.181.211 19:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"You" meaning Chuck Munson, aka user:Chuck0. The "personal details" you refer to include your educational background, which is standard biographical info, taken from your own blog. If you wish to keep this info private, you should not post it on the internet. Alternatively, if you wish, we can nominate your biography (and all the other articles on your projects that you posted) for deletion. However while they are here please do not censor information from them. They are not "your" articles. Please note that I have left numerous messages on the relevant talk pages regarding this issue which you have ignored. Regarding me being the same person as Bill White (activist), making such an assumption makes you appear to be ill-informed. Please be more careful before assuming things. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have every right to assume that you are Bill White and I will tell people on Wikipedia that you are the same person as long as you continue your obession with my entry. I have good reasons right now to prevent personal information out of my entries. In a few weeks, I probably won't care, but you need to learn to have some respect for a person's privacy. You may see this as a little hobby here on Wikipedia, but this information being on the Internet affects my ability TO PAY THE RENT AND EAT. Do you understand? Chuck0 22:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello User:Chuck0, since you are blanking my notices on your talk page I will comment here. Whether or not you are in fact the same person as the one described in the Chuck Munson article, please stop removing information which is publicly available elsewhere on the internet from the Wikipedia biography, this is considered vandalism. Hall Monitor 22:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Chuck0, can you please explain how posting the name of your alma mater prevents you from earning money? The same information that you have posted onto your own blog? I'm afraid that I do not understand how posting the info on your blog is harmless but posting it here damages your career. Again, if you do not want articles about yourself or your projects then we can nominate them for deletion (though there is no guarantee of how the vote will go). And, if any of the informaiton is wrong then we'd be happy to correct the information. However please don't simply delete it. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Chuckle

del "superhottie" based on blog vote -- unencyclopedic info [1] -- You mean to tell me this was actually voted on?  ;) Hall Monitor 21:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In my view, only the three top superhottie judges should be noted. Otherwise we'll have partisans of all the contestants trying to spam is with the info. We've got to draw the line somewhere. -Willmcw 21:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I too have had numerous troubles with Bill White Steve EspinolaSteve espinola 02:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

User Crosstar

Hi will, I just wanted to let you know that Crosstar has begun to make legal threats against me. The edit summary of his last edit to my talk page was "Lawsuit anyone?", the contents of which you can read here. I'm beginning to run out of patience for his belligerence, but I'll wait and see what happens with the copyvio requests. Cheers. Kaldari 04:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Though he's hasn't said one way or another, the user is very likely to be Barrett or a deputy. The "movement" seems to comprise a few marches and speeches, and lot of lawsuits. I don't think it's really worth getting into a fight to keep the images. We can always post an arrow-star and say "it look like this but with a red background." I think that the logo-fair use exception to the copyright laws is sufficient, but since he objects so strenuously why fight it? The images don't reveal any particular truth, just Barrett's face and his silly, unoriginal logo. Well, ok, those are important truths. However, this is a long-term project. If we have to wait a dozen years to add his photo then that'll do too. Maybe we should delete the images for now and move to have him banned for legal threats. That'd remove both his cause and the disruption. But if you feel the images are important then I'd try to help. -Willmcw 04:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the issue: I think having the logo in the article is important. Having information available about hate groups and their tactics, symbols, etc is a valuable service to the public (although perhaps not Wikipedia's first priority). I think Crosstar doesn't have a leg to stand on legally (but I'm not a lawyer). Personally I think Crosstar knows this and is bluffing. If he's not bluffing, I think such a case would be an important legal precedent for Wikipedia (either way it turned out). I'm sure there would be no shortage of lawyers who would want to represent Wikipedia pro bono on the matter (maybe even Lessig). In short, I can't see a down side to fighting it out. BTW, I find it extremely ironic that an organization known for defending free speech is now trying flagrantly to repress it. If you feel strongly that a cooling-off period is the way to go, I can go along with that, although given Crosstar's apparent fanaticism, I doubt it would make much of a difference. I also have my doubts about banning him, given the Arbitration committee's reluctance to adequately reprimand problem users. Is it just me or do they always seem to give trolls a slap on the wrist? I suppose it's good to offer people a 2nd chance, but at what cost? But maybe that's just a poor impression from the last few RfAs I've followed. What do you think? Kaldari 21:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Without delving into the RfA issue too much, I'd say that banning is not the right way after all. The policy against legal threats is weaker than I thought it was. So is Crosstar's case. In sum, I take back most or all of the advise I gave above and see the merit in working to retain as much verifiable information about this group as we can, whether the info be text or graphic. ("Verifiability" is the rub - Crosstar wrote all of the articles and we're still trying to bring them into proper shape.) Thanks for standing up for what's right, in the face of bullying. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

nationalist.org

you've probably seen these, but just in case you haven't; [2] --Duk 08:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do I feel as if we've been set up? Thanks for the info. -Willmcw 08:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also check this out: [3]. — © Alex756 15:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Chuck Munson

Likes like User:Ruy Lopez has decided to edit-war on Chuck's behalf. Check it out. --Calton | Talk 11:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I saw he VfD'ed Chuck Munson, which could be interpreted as benefitting Chuck (Wikipedia).... Chuck didn't need help, but maybe User:Ruy Lopez will be more communicative than Chuck. -Willmcw 19:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Lopez sure likes to "rv". Whew. -Willmcw 19:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific metrology

You removed anti-metric movement from pseudoscience. Fair enough, but the issue is that the anti-metric movement seems to have spurred lots of pseudoscience of metrology (usually based on numerology). The purpose of which is of course to prove that the English foot has divine properties which can be traced with absolute accuracy back to Mesopotamia. Or Stonehenge (see Megalithic yard). -- Egil 13:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Megalithic yard appears to be a clear pseudo-science. But the issues you mention are not included in the anti-metric article, and I don't think they are relevant. The article on metrology doesn't mention anything pseudoscientific, so it served just as a definition of a word that we could leave out. Thanks, for being reasonable. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've now collected various material on Pseudoscientific metrology in general. Great fun, really. Seems that at least some of the recent activity is clearly anti-metric. I'd appreciate it if you would review it. -- Egil 12:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

To Willmcw from Aperey

I have, for the moment, withdrawn from the editing war with Outerlimits and the organizations he is evidently representing. I think the section he is contributing so voluminously to -- and so unfairly to -- should be reverted, as you thought possible, to just after the article was opened up. Persistence and volubility do not mean one is telling the truth--only that one is better able to make one's version stick better. He is relying on false accusations to make his story look acceptable to you and others, and to bully the opposition and anyone who might agree with it. It is a fact that creationists quote Darwin to make their case--they do make Darwin look like an anti-religious lout and a dangerous man--but Darwin is still right and stands more for revererence than they do. The analogy is a pretty apt one, as Outerlimits has no shortage of quotes--only he is wrong in the impression he uses these quote to give. -- Arnold Perey

I'd have more sympathy for you if you were not the editor who started, without prior discussion, a major re-write of the agreed-upon section that we all worked on while protection was in place. The "trick" is not to outlast your opponent - the trick is to find a compromise which is acceptable to everyone (and then stick to it). Also, can you clarify is user:Ethiopianrunner is, or is not, one of your accounts. If it is, please do not use it to edit the same articles that you edit with the user:APerey account. Otherwise it makes it appear as if you are two separate people, which is misleading. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes at Swami Kriyananda

That link reorganization is intelligent and really cleans things up. --jocosley 00:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Biff Rose

Huh? You write a good deal, but not very well. Shut up and let the words go on with the gooders. 216.175.113.48 04:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Stormfront

Hi Will. Just to let you know that the link you left in the new "Controversies" section in Stormfront happens to be a secure website that creates an account for some online newspaper. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 07:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Tom Dooley (humanitarian)

You removed the section on his humanitarian work, on the basis of a potential copyright violation. If this was because of its similarity to some of the text at http://www.freewebs.com/tomdooleyfund/ then I believe there is no violation: the author of that website was the contributor of the section and, although similar in factual content, the text was edited to be different. On that basis, will you object if I reinstate it? Fibula 12:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I didn't note which site came up as having the same text. I believe it was probably the "freewebs" site, but their server is down so I can't tell for sure. Since you were the contributor does that mean that you are the author and copyright holder? Based on the small amount of text, and the lack of controversy over its inclusion, I wouldn't object to it being reinstated. However do be careful in the future. If you are uploading your own copyrighted texts then you might note in the edit summary that you are releasing it under GFDL so that future editors won't also assume them to be violations. Dooley was an interesting individual and I'm glad we have an article about him. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for spam... I notice you added a test note...

I am currently in discussions with Ozemail regarding persistent vandalism that has been occuring from the following IP addresses in their network:

• 203.166.96.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I need assistance with all the specific items of vandalism. I have setup a page to gather this evidence at User:Ta bu shi da yu/Ozemail.

I need your help! Please use the format:

• 13:30, 5 August 2005
  • Added abusive text to Ta bu shi da yu user page

We'll see just how good their service is at responding to this sort of thing - we should be supporting any company that assists us. Therefore, I'm hoping that the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation and immense amount of volunteers will help with tracking down vandal edits.

If Ozemail gives a good response, we can use them as an example of a good ISP, and maybe even shame AOL into assisting us (we get lots of vandalism from them).

Ta bu shi da yu 01:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Falsified source

The quote[4] you attribute to "Darwin's Engineer," an article that you claim to know is not available online,[5] does not appear in that article. We both just want these pages to be the best they can, so that readers can come to them and say that that article is a model of neutrality and fairness --even though we all dislike these figure's views. --Nectarflowed ^T 04:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC) (P.S., use bugmenot.com to bypass the free registration)

I know the article is not available online because I immediately checked it back when the issue came out. But it's in there. You'll have to go to the library. -Willmcw 04:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

My mistake - I'd finally thrown out the magazine, and when I'd checked at the time the article was not available. I know I've seen that quote around somewhere. We'll find it. Thanks for being vigilant. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Presume good faith. Cheers. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 05:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag again

Can you please block him for another break of the 3RR [6].Heraclius 01:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. I wasn't the one who violated the 3RR. How come when I violated it you blocked me, but here you just protect the page?Heraclius 03:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It looked to me as if you had violated the 3RR. Why don't you spend the time that you would have been blocked by trying to settle this dispute? If not, go write some new article. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Biff Rose

I understand that you are trying to get the information out and avoid vandalism. Unfortunately in the case of Biff Rose, you merely take the words of his'fans' and not that of his detractors, casting some very useful information into the wastebasket.

This makes the point that you are not editing as merely presenting your opinion.

Rose has some very racist remarks on his website, has said them in live performances, clearing out whole rooms, and recorded the mon his records, as far back as 1974. He has been a proponent of anti semticism for some time.

IT bears more research than a simple post on Rose's own messageboard. I understand you are on here trying to make the wiki a better space, and I applaud that effort, but please know, there are not only critics who manipulate and vandalize, but those who have the good intentions of extoling the truth about a person place or thing that they report on. Rose is indeed anti semitic and racist, as well as Misogynistic. It's in his lyrics, on his website, and in his performances, and has been for quite some time. PLease take a closer look, and realize that perhaps this information does equal the positive side of Biff Rose, and should be included in his wikipedia record.

Add whatever sourced material is available, positive or negative. But please do not remove information. That is just vandalism. You'll see that I haven't removed charges that his current websites have apparently anti-semitic material. They do. But that doesn't mean he didn't write some hit songs way back when. There's room for both. -Willmcw 19:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Vacay

Blah! Not happy. Yesterday morning I was lying on the beach. Today I'm at my desk. Actually I'm wearing sandals today that still have sand in them. Thanks for the welcome back. I'll be leaving again in a couple weeks for Costa Rica, so I've got to work fast to get caught up around here. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Espinola?

It seems obvious I've stumbled into something, and I'm not sure what's going on. All I removed was an entry at User:Steve espinola, which contained a personal attack and little else. Even if User:Steve espinola is a POV-pusher himself (and I'm not saying he is--I know nothing of this case), his userspace is still his own, and if he chooses to have it red, he shouldn't have it defaced by attacks on him. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 21:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but if it's a case of impersonating a (minor) celebrity, then I'd say that it is appropriate to somehow distinguish that the user is not the celebrity. I've left a second note on your page regarding a proposed solution for establishing who is who. Your help, as a disinterested party, would be appreciated. -Willmcw 21:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

My identity

Yes I can prove that I am indeed Esteban "Steve" Espinola. I was born in Ciudad juarez in Mexico, in 1974. I received my green card at age 11 with my parents emigrating to the United States.

But you know what, why do I have to prove anything to you? You mess with my user page, and I don't like it. Leave me out of your petty indignation, look at my history, Biff Rose, is but a fly on what I'm trying to do with Wikipedia.

Please leave me alone. You are a troll, and I've alerted more people about you. If you erase this, then please leave my own user site alone!!!!Steve espinola 22:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Steve Espinola

Can you please add a statement to your user page or talk page to the effect that you are not the famous singer named Steve Espinola? That would clarify the matter. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Steve Espinola here

YOu want me to say I am not a musicianm but I live and record in L.A.

I think the 'famous' singer Steve Espinola maybe pranking you on my background.

The relevance is that the singer Steve Espinola is an associate of Biff Rose. By impersonating him you appear to be a friend making denigrating edits about Rose. The coincidence of names is rather far-fetched. If you clarify who you are then this won't be a problem. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

This is giving me a headache. I'm Biff Rose's friend Steve Espinola, a piano playing songwriter. I'm the guy who has been posting as "Sojambi Pinola," and made revisions to the Biff Rose page under that name. I don't usually email from SteveEspinola.com, as it forwards to my regular aol email. But if you send an email from my webpage I can respond from my aol, and prove it's the same guy. hmmm... I have some ideas.

Someone with an email address similar to your name has written to a guy named Joe/P.Dickle, who is also a friend of Biff's, and Biff has forwarded these emails to me. I suspect that those emails are legit, but this vandal guy could have been impersonating you, so I dunno. ughhhhh.

-Sojambi Pinola August 9, 2005

Yes, I did send some emails to him, originally to ascertain if the websites were real (they are pretty wild). So then you are also user:216.57.63.47? It seems plausible, as that is a NYC IP and the singer Espinola is supposed to live there. For me that is sufficient to establish identity. We are still trying to establish the identity of user:Steve espinola (small "e"), who now claims to be a Los Angeles musician from Mexico. Sorry for the hassles, but considering the situation it seems important to make clear that the editor who has been adding an apparently anti-Rose POV to the article is not the Espinola who is an associate of Rose. Whew. -Willmcw 00:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think both of you are making trouble. I'm exactly who I say I am, and have an earthlink account that I've used for years. But since this has developed, I'm worried about internet harrassment. Look at my other edits, and judge for yourself if I'm some vandal out to wreck this site, which I was invited to work on by a friend, and have done some strong edits for. I am Esteban 'Steve' Espinola, and I livei n Los Angeles. I play Norteno and Banda variants of the Ranchera style music. I do it professionally. Becasue of downtime I thought htis would eb a good way to help others, and create inroads into this excellent idea. I'm new to this place, but from what Ican tell, your behavior, in lauding me as some vandal, has in itself been libelous and vandal prone.Steve espinola 01:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't called you a vandal, I told user talk:Jonah Ayers that deleting material can be vandalism. I have called you a sock puppet, and I think you have picked this particular username to confuse other people, just as you used user:Biffrose previously. I think that you are also user:Dearth vader, who made grossly fraudulent edits in order to disparage Rose,[7][8] and another edit attacking user:Sojambi Pinola.[9] I think you are also:

• user:216.175.116.151, user:216.175.121.239, user:216.175.116.198, user:Biffrose, user:Jonah Ayers, user:Varg Virkennes, user:Bad apple, user:Mmmmmmbo, user:Efrim walzer, user:Steve espinola, user:Peace through superior edits.

Most recently, I think you are user:Peter Pie who added a photo to Biff Rose just 3 minutes after you uploaded it with this username.[10][11] I think you have some particular vendetta against Biff Rose, and have been deleting his achievements while adding unsupported and libellous accusations about him to this encyclopedia, and while attacking anyone who attempts to defend Rose. -Willmcw 05:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

---

(revised answer) Indeed, I posted as 216.57.63.47. I was lazy. Sorry. (Is all time-stamping manual, by the way?) We are unlikely to "resolve" this "dispute" in a civil manner; It's not really a dispute, but a guy making trouble. Why is he doing it? Why do people commit crimes? All evidence suggests that the guy is a sociopath, or at least a guy bent on revenge. Unless I am missing something, his claims about posting as SE on Wikipedia are easily proven to be false. I don't think the other "Steve Espinola" posted on Wikipedia until this week, though he claims otherwise on his user page. That is to say, he did not post under that name, though he's obviously posted as some ten to twenty different people. By the way, I find it charming and kind that you referred to me as "famous." I have a humble following, though I've played with some better-known people.-Sojambi Pinola August 9, 2005

You can easily sign and date your talk page comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. I'm sorry if I've mislabelled you - not everyone wants to be famous, or is (beyond their Warhol-mandated fifteen minutes, of course). And I don't know if you're a friend or fan or what of Roses - I happened to see you conducted a taped interview with him so I assume you are some kind of associate. None of this would normally matter, but if you are a known associate of Rose's, and if another user comes along and uses the same name, then it it makes that choice of name appear intentionally misleading. -Willmcw 05:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Harrasment by Willmcw

I joined wikipedia the past week. Instead of being welcomed with open arms, as my friends who also joined recently, I was assaulted with accusations by this user. He called me things I had no idea about, and implied wrongdoing where there was none. He is a sockpuppet of Biff Rose, and is working agaisnt the guidelines of wikipedia. He tries to bully users, implying he has more power than he actually does. And he does not adhere to the wiki rules, he has indicated he would try to get me banned. He will deny this, as he has on my own user page. I didn't want to visit hiss page with this talk, but he keeps adding insulting and untrue things on my user discussion page. Willmcw is a SOCK PUPPET of Biff Rose, and has been posting on Rose's website, then posting Rose's words directly onto the wikipedia entry on Rose. BAD WIKI USERSteve espinola 00:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. What is a sock puppet? ok thanksPeter Pie Peter Pie 23:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Mexican Steve E", On your user page you claim you've been contributing to Wikipedia since September 2004. Here you say you are new. Which is it? Your story is not consistent.

Sojambi Pinola 9 August 2005

Willmcw hasa sock puppet called Sojambi Pinola

It is you who very well seem to be serving as a sock puppet for biff rose. I have just joined this site. But when I went ot Biff Rose's website, I found you had posted to not only that site, but also to a friend of rose, in order to discredit anything I had written. But if you had stayed at the site long enough to look around, you would have found a host of lyrical postings to the tune of racist and anti semitic quotations. I'm exactly who I say I am, though I've noticed in all your attempts to identify me as someone other than myself, you have never fully identified yourself. Is sojambi pinola a sock puppet of your cerations, I think so. You keep attempting to control me, and yet I think it is very apparent you have completely disavowed the way of Wikipedia in your path to please Biff Rose, and keep things to his advantage on the posting. Read his lyrics, and look at his postings where he makes fun of the African American children whose faces he has just painted. Then try to deduce how my edits are truly vandalism, which you in fact did say, and then vandalized my own page, prompting meelar to fix it, and notify me of the action. You must stop harrassing me. Each of these has been sent to different editors and mediators to mark the trouble you have caused. You may be tenacious, but I am not going to stand for the unjust actions of a sock puppet who practices fascistic edits. This is supposed to be a place of learning, not of close minded ness. Listen to the songs of Biff rose. I hate that you equate me with people who would lie about him. I never have added anything that is not based in the facts of his websites, most notably the message board of biffrose.com and on biffrose.biz, and jewmanity.com. Steve espinola 06:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Completely debased and defaming me. Terrible Wiki user P.S. Now willmcw has libeled my edits though he hasn't read the previous versions of what I've edited, and has claimed I did no editing whatsoever. Now they may have actual mistakes still inside, but I have actually fixed the more glaring misinformation and poor grammar. I think it is terrible to launch this kind of accusation. You are boorish and thuglike in your behavior, you realize that by smearing my name, more will believe you than me, and I will be tord assunder. Well it's not right, you are a diseervice to a grand idea, and I have alerted the editors and requested a mediation because you refuse to stop meddling in my user page.Steve espinola 06:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

AMA request for assistance

I thought I'd let you know thisos one of the places I've gone to get help from the barrage of your insults and baseless accusations. Where haveI ever accused Rose of being a child molester? I have never made aany statement at all in that vein. I have called his lyrics anti semtic and racist, which I think you will find there is a strong dose of if you further inspected his site..well actually I believe you to be a friend of Rose's and working either in cahoots with or sock puppeting Sojambi Pinola. Who claims to be the only Steve Espinola in the world. I never claimed I was that Steve Espinola, but a resident of Hollywood, and a musician of norteno music. Anyhow, hopefully you will refrain from contacting me, or posting on my page, as we wait our mediation. But if you continue to post on my page insults and untruths and speculation and accusations I will be forced to reply on your page to what I surmise is a clever but wholly unfair way of discrediting me further. Leave off my page til the end of our mediation. I have noted with other mediators in subpages about this posting, so even if you erase it, it has been noted I posted this to you.Steve espinola 06:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

A perusal of the actual claim by me says NOT that I am the only Steve Espinola, nor that there are "only four Steve Espinolas," but that there are "at least four Steve Espinolas." Willmcw makes a good point that if there is a Steve Espinola who is an associate of Biff Rose's (um, that would be me, and I can prove it to anyone who cares), then the claim of another Steve Espinola who is invested in Biff's biography is, to say the least, a little suspect. Willmcw seems like a perfectly decent person, trying to contribute in a positive way to a world community project. He's obviously deeply involved in this encyclopedia, with credits to prove it, and you'd have a hard time successfully defaming him. Why are you involving him in your vendetta? Sojambi Pinola 13:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

The mop is mine!

Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion ^talk 08:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Nablus again

Hi - Could you please re-lock Nablus and maintain this indefinitely until there is progress to your satisfaction on the discussion page? I found some activity overnight that seems to indicate a compromise has not been reached. Thanks Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that User:Dbachmann is editing. He usually does a good job. Let's let him work and see if the outcome is acceptable to everyone. Cheers, -Willmcw 14:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

OMFG!!! Steve espinola !!!

OMFG!!!

I spent *hours* migrating September 2004 cleanup archives to the new system, and then I look at this espinola's contribution list and i go, wtf?! I migrated *all* those! I'm relatively new to wikipedia (started late July) and I don't know what to do, but it is incredibly frustrating :-) I think he outright vandalized some pages too (by deleting lots of good content), such as Canning revision.

Is there a wikified way of citing particular revisions? I just quote the entire URL.

HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The Mmmmmmbo Connection

Holy carp [sic]!! The *other* guy who reverted several of my cleanup tags in articles that *seriously* needed work has a comment on Steve's talk page

I think your version is great Mmmmmmbo

It sort of beggars belief that they arent in on it, and since Mmmmbo's account is 5 days old and involved in several edit wars, I believe it might just be a shell for anonymity. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Citation

Thank you for your CCC citation. I'm pretty sure they don't qualify as White supremacists however, based on your cite, and the definition of white supremacism. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I just read [12], so I guess you were right again. Good job. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who say unkind things about the CCC. Frankly, I'm unclear about the distinction, in the real world, between so-called white supremacists and white nationalists. In any case, they've been called both. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Its similar to the distinction between racism and racialism, more an intellectual or philosophical split than something that neatly divides. Basically, a white nationalist wants to run away and hide, or kick out minorities. A white supremacist wants to enslave/kill other races, and rule over them. So Hitler would be a White Supremacist, and white separatists would be white nationalist, in theory. In practice, individual people have their own opinions, and often neither they nor their organisation neatly fits into these catagories. I'm a bit surprised at the Council of Conservative Citizens being accused thusly, due to their ties to successful politicians, but whatever, your cites are good enough. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Espinola + Peter pie

Check out Image:Hit-9.jpg!! I found this ... a duplicate pic was put up by User:Peter Pie in the Biff Ross article. So, there are at least three sockpuppets with this guy. User:Sojambi Pinela User:Mmmmmmbo User:Peter Pie User:Steve espinola. All created since 4th August. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

Willmcw, I want to thank you for supporting my adminship, very much appreciated! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 18:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Sorry I've been lax in responding to you guys. Are you ready to start mediation? Andre (talk) 20:18, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for asking. When last we tried to start the other party didn't want to use email as a communication method. I would like to any type of confidential, non-public mediation that can be arranged. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Harry Dexter White

I would object to the inclusion of IHR materials on the Harry Dexter White article. There are other sources that can be used on the Morgenthau plan, namely the Morgenthau Diary. Why the exception in this case? nobs 01:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

What exception? Why do you want to remove their link? -Willmcw 01:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I stuck my nose in on this one and ditched the holocaust denier link. Holocaust denier sites are not reliable encyclopedic sources (except, of course, when discussing holocaust denial.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That may be so, but until we're sure that we've remoevd all of the information sourced from it, and from other publications by Kubek, I think it should stay. To present their POV without giving any hint of its source would be misleading. Quite a number of assertions use the "Morgenthau Diaries" as their source, but without specifying if they are relying on Kubek's 81-page introduction or the actual source material. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Then that's the exception Nobs01 was asking about. On general principle, I delete ihr.org links on sight. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks jpgordon; excerpts from the Morganthau Diary may be available and would be a much more authorive source. nobs 01:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw: Also, I will do a reversion to the original article if there is a question regarding the insertions of the alleged sockpuppet Coqsportif. nobs 01:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Dinsmore Alter

Nice work on Dinsmore Alter. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate, much appreciated. — RJH 23:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stalking

I agree with you entirely that this is not a semi policy and that the new version of the template:guideline template doesn't work since it has not been accepted by community consensus, instead I put back in a version that I use every once in awhile user:Jtkiefer/guideline it is more like the old guideline template and I think the wording fits, if you disagree I'm always up for discussions on it but I think that the wording of this fits. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

That'll work great once this essay is accepted by the community as a guideline. However that has not happened yet, that I am aware of. Please see the steps at Wikipedia:How to create policy. Unitl is has been approved, it is not a guideline. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, if you have any idea on how best to word it to make it a good guideline please don't hesitate to leave a message on the page's talk page, my talk page, or just make the edit yourself, it seems to change quite a bit with every person who edits it which is another reason why it probably isn't ready to be a guideline yet. Thanks. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:51, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I also left a little note at Wikipedia_talk:Stalking#guideline_tag about probably not using it until after the community has noticed and accepted it since as far as I know most of wikipedia hasn't even noticed that it exists yet. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Admin powers

Cool. Admins can tracelessly undo calls for votes for deletion. Must the crackpot Liquid Nitrogen Economy article be sheltered from a VfD for some deep Wikipedian reason? I think the article needs more scrutiny and I also think it's not an appropriate encyclopedia topic; this article is now the (Web) world authority on the topic (mostly because no-one elese is considering wholesale substititution of liquid nitrogen for oil except my esteemed co-editor pcrabb). --Wtshymanski 17:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A: I don't know what you're talking about. B: Admins cannot do anything "tracelessly" that I am aware of. C: Nobody is suggesting replacing oil with Nitrogen, it's only a storage medium like a battery. It is no more "crackpot" than using Hydrogen for the same purpose. D: If you don't like the article then you are free to VfD it. -Willmcw 17:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

A - Sorry, then, my mistake.

B - Noted.

C - The article says a future economy in which the primary form of energy storage and transport is liquid Nitrogen and refers to the oil crunch later. It is more ..let's say impractical than hydrogen becaue of the huge losses inherent in making liquid nitrogen.

D - Done! (again) Thanks for your interest. --Wtshymanski 22:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

John W. Ratcliff

Thank you for your kind words in your reminder about the 3RR. I will not make any more reverts to that page for the next 24 hours. (Editing for accuracy and clarity is still okay, no?) Obviously, the page is being pulled in three directions. We would still like a ruling on Wikipedia's policies regarding the use of that profanity-laden quote on the controversy section, if you get the time. Personally, I think its inclusion makes the article less NPOV than its exclusion would. --Hyperbole 19:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Puerto Rican people

Hi, thanks for re-adding the cats, I had forgot about them. We were still trying to decide whether or not to keep it, so I added the desc text for now. Thanks again. ∞Who?¿? 20:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, I just saw your note on Kbdank71's page on Walter Mercado. Yea, I try to at least find cats for the orphaned ones, or add {{CatNeeded}}, if I can think of one of the top of my head, then I will try to add it. I also fix errors as I go, so its a little better than a bot doing it, but there are always going to be some stragglers and mistakes, especially with the mass re-cats. I don't expect someone else to have to cleanup the mess, but I do realize other users monitor the articles, and feel confident that another cat will be added eventually. With some of these, I fealt that the list would suffice.I have added cats that article. Thanks for the comments, I try my best to categorize properly. ∞Who?¿? 09:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Question re: categories

Hi there! Is it possible to somehow automatically include all items in, say, Category:Streets in California, Category:Streets in Manhattan, and so forth, as items in Category:Streets? It seems like there's got to be an established procedure for this, but I'm at a loss. Thanks for any help.

IP 66.173.44.202 01:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Bioconservatism

Please see my question at Talk:Bioconservatism#Conservatism?. Thanks -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comment on my discussion page

I am unsure why you felt compelled to comment on my discussion page. I deleted user:JamesMLane's "warning" because he is a POV warrior and his "warning" was just part of a concerted an effort to harrass anyone who tries to introduce NPOV on the pages of liberal politicians. In this case it was the Ted_Kennedy page. I deleted a "warning about bad behavior" because there has been no bad behavior, at least on my part. user:JamesMLane writes on his user page that he is "hostile to the right wing." I am hardly right wing, but I certainly have felt the brunt of his hostility. --Agiantman 02:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You deleted several warnings or commetns on your editing behavior. -Willmcw 02:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Matt Slick article

There happens to be a small group of us all using COMCAST cable which is just about the entire EAST Coast that you plan to block. If you block all of COMCAST users you will block half the country using this ISP. :o) There are a group of us linked through comcast, now I do wonder how you plan to handle blocking the three different users with internet cable using COMCAST accounts? As for frauds, and liars that should not be editing on Wikipedia? We are documenting every bit of this article and the fact that the edit of this wikipedia article has been turned over to a group pushing their propaganda with their POV edits being permitted. I found other users, a Lillian, that also tried to edit... You have ignored the rules of Wikipedia Mr. Willmcw, it is documented time and again in the discussion and history that you handed this over to hyperbole who is known to participate in a CARM 'hate'site and is using this web article to defame Mr. Slick. Any idiot can see that your bias is hanging out and that the propaganda a.a.r.m. posters are using this article and they are using you..... I hope it is worth it to you.

What do you mean by "us"? You claim to be a group? Please get one username per person and stick with them. Group accounts are not allowed. If there is more than one person using these IPs then then each should get a username. The current editing scenario makes it appear as if these IPs are being used by one person and will be treated as such until other arrangements are made. If you are one person then you may not user multiple accounts, sock puppets, to make it appear as more users. Using schemes to avoid our rules shows bad faith and may be punished by long-term blocking. Please follow Wikipedia policies and there won't be any problems. Since you claim to be many people I don't know who I've said what to, and who has said what to me. But whoever there is on the other end please be aware that the complaining, bitching, whining, pleading for punishment of your opponents, and legal threats are not conducive to civil editing. -Willmcw 07:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

ps: On review I see that you are a part of a different pool of IPs, from a different ISP, than the problem user. My apologies. -Willmcw 07:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Will, if you'll please check out the Matt Slick article now, you'll see a ridiculous and transparent attempt to get past the 3RR. Between the constant legal threats, personal attacks, knee-jerk reverts, and deceptive tactics of "Tom S 48"-slash-"Interested Party," (none of which I have to repeat here) I simply don't think this person can be worked with to make a good, NPOV article. I am fairly confident the person is here for one single reason: to remove evidence of criticism of CARM and Matt Slick. I think we agree that this evidence shouldn't be removed, and all attempts to work toward a version of the criticism acceptable to all parties (I've edited the thing ad nauseam) have failed. I am of the opinion that "Tom S 48" will be content with nothing other than a POV article in favor of Matt Slick. Can anything be done? --Hyperbole 02:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

First off, don't worry. This is a long term project. Every article doesn't have to be correct and complete 100% of the time. None of them are. We just try to keep things moving forward. Part of our "ratchet" mechanism is the history function. No matter how badly an article is messed-up, just wait until the dust settles and then bring back the best prior version, incorporating worthwhile changes. It's like playing a video game and returning to your saved game. Hang in there.

Secondly, I don't really care much one way or the other about these articles, and my main interest is wikipeace. Somehow that seems to have translated into being a sort of referee. That's the least fun position on the playing field, but may be necessary.

Third, bad editors are not welcome, and eventually leave. Regarding user:Tom S 48, he seems to have violated the 3RR, and has been brushing against it for days. Once it became apparent that he'd already been warned and cited in the past, I applied a short block. I didn't check your edits as carefully - I hope you haven't done so either. Many of us fall into that bad habit (see below). It's never successful, and almost always it's better just to wait a day if a second revert is needed. (write note to self).

Last, don't worry. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Take a look over at the CARM and Matt Slick pages, and you'll see that user:Tom S 48 has returned as "Peggy Sue" and "Interested Party" in order to evade your block and continue reverting. This is after I spent the better part of an hour working constructively with a German Wikipedia moderator on rewriting the criticism section on CARM to meet Wikipedia's standards. I'm sorry to bother you with this, Will, and I'm sorry you got pulled into the middle, but this seems like a pretty blatant move to undermine your attempts to keep the peace... I really will try not to stress out about this, but it really does bother me when people try to wage information warfare by censoring anything that isn't complimentary to their group. --Hyperbole 23:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Trolling patronisation is unwanted by me and Rangerdude

Keep it to yourself asshole! Quit stalking Rangerdude and allying yourself with troublemakers. Bigelow 08:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I just came across the Wikistalking section on the village pump and from there to Rangerdudes talk-page. That's pretty horrible behaviour from his part! Have you considered starting an RfC? Ofcourse, I haven't seen both sides of this argument, but it seems to me he is way out of line. gkhan 09:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nice

Thanks. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mark Weber of the IHR

Someone claiming to be Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review is complaining on the Talk: page there. Perhaps you would like to respond. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

RfAr

This is to notify you that a Request for Arbitration is being filed against yourself and SlimVirgin for harassment and wikistalking Rangerdude 23:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Question to Willmcw re: previous opposition to a Wikipedia guideline on stalking

According to the following text by Willmcw posted on July 5th regarding the establishment of guideline provisions of the same purpose as this for wikistalking, he wrote:

A problem with this proposal is that it assumes bad faith on the part of the accused stalker. That seems entirely at odds with the overarching policy. It goes to the intent of the user, which is unknowable, rather than the value of the edits themselves. We already have a policy about personal attacks that covers incivility. If being simply being corrected is harassment then everybody on Wikipedia is continually harassed. If an editor is making substantive contributions in a civil manner it should not matter what articles are being edited. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 22:00 (UTC) [13]

As these sentiments convey a position of opposition to the establishment of an anti-stalking guideline to reflect the Wales and Arbcom decisions, as is the purpose here, and as Willmcw is actively editing this guideline proposal and, of recent, denying his opposition to it, he is requested to clarify the above comments from last month, indicate if he still believes in them and if so in what way, and state whether he supports or opposes the guideline proposal that is the object of this discussion. Thank you. Rangerdude 19:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that text (why is it even here?) referred to your attempt to add wikistalking to an existing guideline, Wikipedia:assume good faith. Please stick to drafting and seeking approval for the current proposal, not a different proposal in a different place from a month ago. -Willmcw 20:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Will - I'm asking you specific questions to clarify your position regarding this guideline proposal based on your previous expressed opposition to similar proposals. The statement from you that I quoted above expresses open hostility to the idea of having a wiki-stalking guideline provision. Since you have been engaged in heavy editing of this article after the proposal was anounced and since you opposed its provisions previously, it is in the interest of this discussion's participants to know whether you support or oppose the current item on the table. If you support it you should state so openly. If you oppose it then you should refrain from making major revisions to the proposal as they could be seen as attempts to weaken it, vandalize its text, and obstruct its consideration by the Wikipedia community. You're free to comment on this proposal, Will, and make good faith contributions to it but you are not free to disrupt or vandalize it with bad faith edits done for the purpose of disrupting its consideration. So I'll ask you once again, Will. (1) Do you support or oppose this proposal? (2) Do you or do you not still agree with the position you took on this subject in July as quoted above? (3) If you still agree please clarify in what way, and if you have changed your mind please indicate the reasons why. Thanks in advance for answering. Rangerdude 22:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I would encourage Willmcw to continue to make reasonable edits and propose revisions to any new policy. He has generally shown a good grasp of how Wikipedia works (and should work), and I welcome his opinion and contributions. I say this even if he does oppose the policy—I don't pretend to read minds, and I don't want to. If he can temper or modify a new proposal to a form he believes will be more acceptable, that's probably a good thing.

If Rangerdude is concerned that something important is being lost from the proposed policy, then he is free to separate out specific provisions to be considered independently. In many cases only parts of new proposed policy are eventually adopted; it's part of the consensus-building process here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

My wikistalking "crime"

From late July to early August I particpated in migrating the old cleanup archives to the new system. It entailed surveying thousands upon thousands of links of backlogged cleanup archives from July 2004 to July 2005 and deciding which needed to still be cleaned, etc. Days of work. I did probably 90% of the entire job myself; Beland did 1/2 of Sep 04 and some one else did the short months of Jan - March and the long one of June.

A few days after I was finished, I decided to start cleaning articles. Howwever, it sort of blew the breathe out of me when I discovered that the Aug - October categories were vacant of articles. I soon discovered that a sockpuppet that had been vandalising Biff Rose repeatedly had summarily gone through the cleanup archives and frivously removing cleanup tags in virtually every article, vandalising every 10th article or so. So, I went down his contributions list one by one seeking to rectify the damage. Fortunately Willmcw had already taken care of about 75% of the articles; but had it not been for our combined wikistalking of this and other sockpuppets, the cleanup process would have been significantly hindered by vandals.

I say this because time after time, at the very beginning of the conflict, before it had escalated, [some one who advocates a prohibition against wikistalking] had *obviously* wikistalked Willmcw and put on every sockpuppet talk page where Willmcw had excoricated him/them to obey wiki standards, [this person] the following rebuttal of willmcw...

Exact quote:

Greetings and welcome to wikipedia. Please excuse the rude treatment you've 
received from the administrator [Willmcw] ... You should not let a hostile 
reception deter you from participating here and I hope you will stay.

Well, they did stay. In fact, they became emboldened. The operator of the sockpuppets *continuously* went to administrators complaining about how we were "harassing" them...different accounts would claim the same "advocate" and generally gave up all pretense of being unique users. During this time they started the vandalism of the cleanup pages.

I do not contend that wikistalking is bad, and thus do not judge any one for having done so. All I'm saying is that having such a rule could *easily* backfire when vandals become emboldened as up above. Wikistalking seems to be the only way to track and correct some vandalisation and therefore if there would be such a thing as wikistalking it would have to be limited. Maybe to, say, following others around and hostily critiquing them with no evidence -- on other people's talk pages. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 14:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

400KB usertalk page

Is quoting the KJV verbatim in the scope of 400 KB an abuse of wiki policies? Better run over to espinola's talk page. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 14:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Liftarn at List of political epithets

I have run into what I consider disruptive behaviour and WP:POINT at List of political epithets. In my view, User:Liftarn has been removing material and asking for citations for material which has already been cited, and has been insisting on citations exclusively for, and inserting NPOV notices in, Jewish-related epithets, when no citations have been provided for any of the other epithets on the page, and when he has raised no specific objections in Talk:. Could you possibly take a look? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have actually not removed anything, it's just commented away awaiting citations (real ones, not invented). As Jayjg is pushing his POV in those areas it's ofcourse those areas that get attention for NPOVing. It should be noted that who first started requiering sources for everything was Jayjg. // Liftarn

I have to apologize to you both. Try though I might, I can't work up an interest in "Judeofascist, Judeo-Nazi, Zionazi". I keep meaning to go take a look, but last time I went over there I got into topic instead. Talk:List of political epithets#Blue dog v Yellow dog. Sorry guys, you're on your own on this one. (However, without knowing all of the issues, my general perspective is that more sources are always better). Cheers, -Willmcw 12:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Notice of reply to comment

Notice of reply to your comment at another page- Please see More about sliced breaad... Thanks: Scott P. 17:56:18, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

Whites

Why did you revert my edits to Whites? The article as it stood was about an inch above utter nonsense, and is largely written from a racist POV. Did you actually read it before reaching for the rollback button? Are you aware of Wikipedia's policy on not describing people as "Whites" or "Blacks" but instead to use the colour words as adjectives? Do you think that lists of who's in and who's out have a place in Wikipedia? Are you not aware that in Arab countries, as an example, "whites" include people who would, without question, be considered "black" in other places? Do you know that in the current conflict in Sudan, as an example, the northern Arabs call themselves "whites" and the southern peoples "blacks", even though some of the Arabs are darker than some of the southerners? Do you know that in some places, notably in west Africa and India, people use skin lighteners to try to make themselves "white" (in other words, they see "whiteness" purely as a function of how pale your skin is, not anything to do with "Europeanness" -- in India they have been prizing "whiteness" since before they encountered Europeans). How is that conveyed by suggesting that "white" means that you come from Europe? This may be what it means where you come from but it doesn't mean it elsewhere. I rewrote the article to reflect that "white" is a purely relative construct and removed a lot of the completely unsourced nonsense that littered the article. An example of that is the suggestion that "White" implies "Anglo-Saxon" (which, I agree, in America it mostly does), which has nothing to do with "Anglo" (linked to Angeln!) and "Saxon" (linked to "Saxony"!). Well, "Anglo-Saxon" in this context means "deriving from England" and is used to describe the Anglophone, white colonial nations. There are people editing this article, Will, simply to insert their nationality into the list of "Whites". Are you supporting that? By reverting edits that tried to tone that down -- without any explanation -- you certainly seem to be. Clair de Lune 23:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Check this out: [14]

This is User:Antonucc, whose work you reverted to, Will. I'm astonished that you did that. Clair de Lune 00:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I misread part of your edit to Whites, which made it appear like vandalism.[15] On more careful reflection I see that it was not. I apologize for reverting your edit so hastily. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:25, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Good luck

Sorry I wasn't of more help, and good luck in arbitration to you both. Andre (talk) 02:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Alex Linder

This article looks good to me. In my opinion, I see know gossip, then again that's just my thought. Anyway, looks like Alex Linder himself has been working here at Wikipedia as evidenced in this thread I found at VNN. What do you think of that? Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 03:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for double checking. It;'d be typical if Linder is involved. These folks are only interested in editing articles about themselves, their friedns, and their enemies. It's hard to tell if the letter is from Linder himself, as he may just be reprinting this[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=225536&highlight=wikipedia]. Either way, user:Amalekite may be worth watching. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:07, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

Thought you might be interested to know that Rangerdude is belatedly pointing out a potential violation of the three-revert rule on your part. See User talk:Rangerdude. --Michael Snow 06:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Upon review of my edits I see that Rangerdude may well be correct. I'll report it over on 3RR. Thanks for mentioning it. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've looked more closely, I don't see it after all.

• 1st revert: 20:24, August 17, 2005
• 2nd revert: 07:18, August 18, 2005
• 3rd revert: 07:38, August 18, 2005
• 4th revert: 07:46, August 18, 2005

The first edit is labelled as a revert to another editor's version, and the other three are to conventional reverts. Of course, even two reverts is more than ideal. In any case I'll refrain from editing any of the articles that Rangerdude edits until the block clears - we both need a break from it. -Willmcw 07:03, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please check CARM pages history...slandering in history

To Willwmc and Irmgard: List here a link to your talk. Hyperbole is lying in the history of CARM. Tom, Peggy, Interested Party, will give you our phone numbers to discuss the edits, and we told you they were slandererss on the aarm board and is why we were originally using only Interested Parties to sign. Now we ask that you remove the false accusations from the history edits of hyperbole, as we will give you our phone numbers and IP numbers and ask to speak with you on the phone in order to PROVE he is lying and that the three of us do live in New Jersey. Which is why we are editing with IP's and not signing on, he accuses all three of us constantly. Peggy00:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matt_Slick" Here is my email diane13dj@yahoo.com. If you emai, I will give you the three telephone numbers to Tom, Peggy/Diane, Interested Party. I want no further accusations from hyperbole, enough is enough.00:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

moved from User talk:Willmcw/archive4 -Willmcw 00:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

As I said to you on one of your talk pages, here, User talk:68.44.255.244:

I'm not interested in playing games, talking on the telephone, or proving that anyone is lying. I am interested in achieving NPOV, comprehenisve, concise articles that summarize verifiable sources. I am interested in seeing editors working together collegially and with consensus. -Willmcw 00:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'll add that if there is a specific factual mistake in the article then please describe it on the article talk page, with a source for the correction. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism

Have you seen the nonsense going on a Terrorism? User:Zephram Stark and an IP sockpuppet parade have reverted the article over a dozen times now! Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa

I see you everywhere I go here, and therefore, I give you this Barnstar of Diligence D. J. Bracey (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Pejorative terrorism

"It's not easy finding a two word phrase that generates zero Google hits, but that's one." LOL!! My mind instantly flew to theorist of conspiracies, but no, it's out there, independently of WP. Foucault was one, it seems. Figures. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Theorist of conspiracies" has a fine and noble history. "Pejorative terrorism", on the other hand, leaves me scratching my head even after having read the definition. At least Wikipedia continues to amuse and amaze. ;) Cheers, -Willmcw 05:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

As Commodore Sloat wrote: "Gee, looks like there was a pejorative-terrorist attack in Jordan today." ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Jones University

Why did you remove the link to the accrediting agency on Bob Jones University? I just corrected that link today. There was already a link to it but it was linked to an invalid Wikipedia article so I linked it to the appropriate external site. I'm not sure why you'd find it neccessary to remove a valid external link. - Sleepnomore 06:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Why do we need a link to the homepage of an accrediting agency of a college in the first place? If we linked to the webpage that mentions BJU then it could serve as a source, but just the homepage doesn't do much of anything for anyone. A red link is not an invalid link, it is a link to an article that needs to be created. Do you think we need an article about a small accrediting body? Why is that link important, but the famous rules are deleted? -Willmcw 06:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Like I said in the article talk page, I'm not opposed to mentioning the rules in an NPOV way and stating that they are criticised by most people who don't go to the school, but are respected by most who go to the school. We could then link to the schools list of rules. The link to the accrediting agency that was in the page before you reverted the article was to an external site. Once you reverted, it linked to a non-existent article. I've since corrected the link again. - Sleepnomore 06:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

User RobinEvans trolling

How come you are allowing User:RobinEvans to use WP talk pages to promote his anti-cult Yahoo group? You know that it is against WP policy. Would you do the same if a Sai Baba follower used the talk pages to promote Sai Baba? --ZappaZ 15:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd probably remove the link if it had ben aded to those articles. But those were polite requests on talk pages. Removing all of those is more like censorship. -Willmcw 19:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Will, they were not "polite requests". The user spammed 13 different talk pages with links to this group. And if you visited the group's page, you'd see that it's virtually empty: 7 messages total. I know that removing comments is a touchy subject but this is spam. Some of the talk pages were completely irrelevant: Talk:Cult film, for example, has nothing to do with actual cults. I would have no problem with a short note on a single talk page, but spamming 13 talk pages with a four paragraph ad crosses the line. I'm removing the spam again. Rhobite 20:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

On reflection I think that you are correct. -Willmcw 22:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Forrest

Hi -- The Klan stuff in the Forrest article looks factually correct to me, although it is brief. No problem if you want to copy over some info. You'll find a lot of incorrect statements on the web that he founded the Klan.--Bcrowell 23:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Archival Methods

Please leave personal discussions outside of article talk pages. As far as addressing your issue with my method of archiving, please refer to Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page for more information on archival. It is altogether appropriate that sections be archived as I have done. Furthermore, keep in mind that Wikipedia:Stalking is being considered as a new policy and is considered inappropriate. - Sleepnomore 02:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I initially left a message on your talkpage, but you immediately wiped it away. Then I left one on the talk page of concern, and you ignored it. Where can I leave messages for you that you will see them and respond? Thanks, -Willmcw 03:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Socks

You have some damn amazing socks I must say. Redwolf24 02:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm very proud of them. However, I, in turn, am a sock puppet as well.[16] There are only five actual editors on Wikipedia. The rest are all sock puppets. -Willmcw 03:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Minor Barnstar of Diligence

Lol, I mark nearly every edit a minor edit!  :) The only time I don't is when I create an article, etc. Thanks for the kind words, , take care,

D. J. Bracey (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Eli Siegel was an anti-racist in 1923 -- some background

Dear Wllmcw,

Just to be absolutely clear, in case there is any doubt, I give more reasons to see that Eli Siegel's magazine essay "The Equality of Man" is an anti-racist work. The modern reader wouldn't be expected to know the background that was vivid in the the 1923 reader's mind--the reader for whom Mr. Siegel was writing.

First, of course, he did not use the term racism in this essay because it didn't exist. "The term 'racism', according to the Oxford English Dictionary, emerged in the early 1930s as distinct from the 'theories of race' which had existed for at least a hundred years before that." [17]

I do not believe it was necessary to use the term "race" in the essay either--a word much misused and which is almost impossible to define, even today. His readers knew what he meant.

It is clear that Mr. Siegel was criticizing the racial theory of hereditary intelligence. He names five particular writers--the big names of the day--whose point of view the essay is a refutation of--a refutation solely by means of clear logic, blasting apart their fake arguments:

[Siegel wrote:] "The world has always been carried on as if men were unequal....the Galtons, Nietzsches, McDougalls, Termans, and Menckens are the present enunciators of the theory...that to some men nature has seen fit to give so much more intelligence than to others, that these first are fit by birth to rule the second....This writing will aim to show that Men Are Equal--in the clear and full meaning of the words." [The Modern Quarterly vol 1, no. 3, December 1923]

People reading "The Equality of Man" in 1923 would know that Galton, Nietzsche, McDougall, Terman, and Mencken (and their followers) promulgated the racial theory of inferiority. Even Siegel's title "The Equality of Man" contrasts dramatically with Galton's most popular title, "Hereditary Genius." Let's look at these five men one by one:

1. Galton. The readers of Siegel's article would know that Galton (Sir Francis Galton) was for racial INFERIORITY:

"One of the historical peaks of scientific racism was the establishment of eugenics. Francis Galton, who happened to be cousin to Darwin, is conventionally held responsible for the beginning of this scientific study of breeding and its improvement. In the chapter of his book Hereditary Genius - published in 1869 - entitled "The Comparative Worth of Different Races," Galton uses a sort of grading scale to point out [the place of] each race in the classification system he used....

"The works of these authors [Petty, Darwin, Galton] have been used to justify many atrocities, including slavery, colonization, and racial genocide during the period of the authors' lives to more recent violations of human rights and attempts to keep races 'pure' - i.e. Adolf Hitler's notion of the Final Solution and the master Aryan race." (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web1/hossain.html)

2. Terman. The readers of Siegel's article would know Lewis M. Terman, psychology professor at Stanford University, was for racial INFERIORITY.

For example:

"Chorover credited Terman with 'injecting race into the IQ debate.' Terman claimed that mental deficiency is very common in Spanish-Indian and Mexican families...and also among Negros. He also warned that "if we would preserve our state for a class of people worthy to possess it, we must prevent, as far as possible, the propagation of mental degenerates." (Lenny Lapon, URL: http://www.truthseekers.freeserve.co.uk/truth/tr8murderers.html)

"The beginning of the IQ-testing movement overlapped with the eugenics movement — hugely popular in America and Europe among the "better sort" before Hitler gave it a bad name — which held that intelligence was mostly inherited and that people deficient in it should be discouraged from reproducing." (http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/other/iq.html)

3. McDougall. The readers of Siegel's article would know that William McDougall of Harvard University was a racist.

McDougall was given the William James Chair of Psychology at Harvard University. However,

"McDougall was not well-received at Harvard, due to the racist nature of his views on eugenics and his opposition to behaviorism." (Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology. URL: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0005/ai_2699000543)

4. Nietzsche. The readers of Siegel's article would know that Friedrich Nietzsche was was for racial INFERIORITY.

Nietzsche wrote, for example,

1. "The negro represents an earlier phase of human development." [pp. 199-200](http://www.friesian.com/nietzsch.htm)

And 2. "...Let us face facts: the people have triumphed -- or the slaves, the mob, the herd, whatever you wish to call them -- and if the Jews brought it about, then no nation ever had a more universal mission on earth. The lords are a thing of the past, and the ethics of the common man is completely triumphant. I don't deny that this triumph might be looked upon as a kind of blood poisoning, since it has resulted in a mingling of the races, but there can be no doubt that the intoxication has succeeded. The 'redemption' of the human race (from the lords, that is) is well under way; everything is rapidly becoming Judaized, or Christianized, or mob-ized -- the word makes no difference...." [p.169-170]

[The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals, translated by Francis Golffing, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956.]

5. Mencken. The readers of Siegel's article would know that H.L. Mencken was for racial INFERIORITY.

"Mencken considered everyone inferior to his 'superior men.' But, he believed Jews and blacks to be most inferior of all." [Commentary: Mencken and the inferior man

Posted by Mac Diva on April 03, 2004 11:49 AM (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/03/114957.php)]

And this is some of what Mac Diva quotes Mencken as writing--and this is what readers of Eli Siegel's refutation, "The Equality of Man," would have had in their minds in 1923:

The negro, no matter how much he is educated, must remain, as a race, in a condition of subservience; that he must remain the inferior of the stronger and more intelligent white man so long as he retains racial differentiation. Therefore, the effort to educate him has awakened in his mind ambitions and aspirations which, in the very nature of things, must go unrealized, and so, while gaining nothing whatever materially, he has lost all his old contentment, peace of mind and happiness.

And Mencken also wrote this:

The fact remains that the Southern whites have to deal with the actual Negroes before them, and not with a theoretical race of African kings. These actual Negroes show actual defects that are very real and very serious. The leaders of the race, engrossed by the almost unbearable injustices that it faces, are apt to forget them.

[Men versus the Man: A Correspondence between Robert Rives La Monte, Socialist, and H.L. Mencken, Individualist [1910] (http://www.io.com/gibbonsb/mencken/megaquotes.html)]

Eli Siegel was against this horrible, ugly way of thinking, writing, talking, feeling, and even legislating from the very beginning. The U.S. eugenists, including these 5, were used by Hitler as models for his goal. It was racism. Siegel hated it. --66.114.86.135 18:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this info. I'm quite familiar with the Eugenics movement. I wish that Siegel's essay itself was accessible. Meanwhile, I'll study what you have provided. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Epigraphs

I answered your query at my Talkpage --Wetman 00:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC).

Placing users in danger

FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Will, I saw you'd asked a couple of people about Linder. He says here [18] that he's Amalekite, and also here [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=225536&highlight=wikipedia]. It's at the end of the first post in both cases, I think, and he also later talks about having been blocked. Someone then posted anonymously here [19] [20] indicating that he knew what we were discussing, signed it Amalekite, and didn't say he wasn't Linder. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:38, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Protoscience

There is a Category:Protoscience - you might also want to look at Aetherometry to see how usage can be controvertial. Guettarda 05:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ugh - I've resisted looking in on Aetherometry becaused I sensed it might be a time trap, but I'll take a narrow look on your recommendation. I see that both string theory and Wilhelm Reich are in Category:Protoscience. The better category for Reich would be "protoscientists". ;) -Willmcw 06:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Look at aetherometry merely as an example of what can go wrong when people disagree as to whether something is protoscience or pseudoscience. Beyond that, if you value your sanity, keep away.  :) Guettarda 06:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Alex Linder

Hi Will. Did you know that the article about Alex Linder is up for VfD? I would like you to take a look at this. Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 08:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd just noticed and am still trying to figure out what this all about. There is a rumour going around that Linder is/was user:Amalekite, who caused a ruckus. -Willmcw 09:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

He says so on one of his Stormfront sites, I don't know which one off the top of my head. Zoe 18:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Research...

...all done! But I also added volcano. I've also sufficiently scared my mom by explaining how I'll be renting a 4WD and driving up an unpaved track up the mountain to Monteverde. I figure that about covers me for trip prep. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sir...(sorry that I don't know how to sign on properly). I had written a note to you (but evidently rather stupidly put it on your July archive page...D'oh!) about some vandalization of an entry on me. It had been brought to my attention by a student. I just noticed that you replaced a link to a "critique" of my views on Iraq. I have no problem with people knowing that other people disagree with me, but the link was not to a critique of "my views" on Iraq, but to something quite different. If you follow the links you will find that Mr. Raimondo did not link to anything I wrote, but only to another thing that he wrote, which took a statement I wrote completely out of context. Here is the evidence: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/018290.php . So by all means include links to criticisms, but they should not be based on maliciously dishonest distortions of someone's views. My views are frequently controversial enough that they should not need distortion to generate honest criticism.

Rudolf Steiner

Since you are implicated with this sort of stuff, please pay attention to that entry, it is far from being neutral. All the controversy of racistic reincarnation from the "Inferior" Black to "Superior" "Aryan" in his philosophy, and those of the school teaching racism are missing there. It seems that the major contributors are either from his schools or burocrats working there. Fadix 03:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Erik Sigerud

That's understandable - it's not the Erik Sigerud page which is up for deletion but the Erik sigerud one... (Here's the VfD.) The user has simply created a duplicate. If you have a better knowledge than I have of the art world, your input into the VfD debate would be greatly appreciated. / Alarm 11:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the use of the words "fair comment" in a court decision

Hi!

I noticed that you have edited my article "fair comment". Thank you for your good work. Since you seem to be familliar with the matter can you give a 3rd opionion on this:

Do you think that the ruling of the court in this sentence was refering to the laymans understanding of fair comment or to the legal definition?

...and in the 1980s, the Supreme Court of New York state ruled that calling LaRouche an anti-Semite was "fair comment".

Because slimvirgin belives the following:

"I'd say fair comment means a matter of opinion, both in law and in layman's terms. The judgment means that it's not defamatory to call LaRouche an anti-Semite."

Now who is right? Would the N.Y. Supreme Court really use these words in the way slimvirgin understands them or would they mean the legal term "fair comment"?

What is your opinion?

Thank you for your help in this matter and if you can not help me can you suggest somebody who can help me? I have already asked Coolceasar but he could only clarify that the N.Y. Supreame Court is not the highest court.

But following the last exchanges with cberlet there seems to be some movement... Anyway a 3rd opinion would be most welcome...

--Zirkon 17:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Kind & Supportive

Hi Will. Just wanted to return your note, and thank you for your kind and supportive attitude. Cheers! --Lockley 19:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Crosstar color.gif

Hi Willmcw; thanks for the note. You've left me slightly confused (although this is probably because I'm so new to processing copyvios). I removed the copyvio notice from Image:Crosstar color.gif because as far as I can see we have a legitimate claim for fair use. I haven't deleted the image as your message on my talk suggested. It probably should go to IfD, since it's an orphan, but I've not taken any action to delete it. Can you clarify your question? Cheers. --Ngb ^?!? 21:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hehe. I can see how you would have thought that. :) Not to worry. Is it worth using the image in the Nationalist Movement article? If not, I will list it for deletion. --Ngb ^?!? 21:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There's also a Crosstar article. Both have had their images removed as a result of the dispute. The Arrowstar is virtually identical, and has been used as a replacement. User:Kaldari has been involved with these files too. Personally, I'd like to merge Crosstar and the Nationalist Movement. Either way, it's helpful to have an illustraiton of a logo. However, there are at least three crosstar images, and we certainly only need one. The Image:Crosstar color.gif is probably the best, and the other two are lesser versions. -Willmcw 21:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest adding the Crosstar_color.gif image to the relavent articles as that one seems to be the most accurate. Kaldari 13:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Ratcliff et al

Hi Will: Thanks for your message. I agree with you assessment of the background. We will only achieve consensus when the various editors accept wikipedia values or move on. In this case we all need to accept that encyclopedia articles are not platforms for attacks on, or promotions of, their subjects. We also need to be able to differentiate acts from opinions and recognize that the reporting of an opinion is not an endorsement of it. This could involve some repeated explanations. —Theo (Talk) 00:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

About Don Black article

Sorry about that, I wasn't sure how to source the stuff myself, seeing as I didn't have a copy of the book available to me, thanks for fixing that up, Derktar 01:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC).

• • About the CARM and Matt Slick articles. Will you please research the topic, you continue to misrepresent CARM for months. CARM is not about discussion boards and has 26,000 members, plus 6000 to the boards and you do need to get the facts here, if you are going to participate in the article. www.carm.org Check it out, thousands of articles, Matt is a published author. Posted in the discussion. Are you ever going to really check into CARM as one of the TOP apologetic websites, we are not discussion boards, that is aarm, not CARM.

To Willmcw: ONE MORE TIME Will, I have told you this many times and you either don't read or refuse to listen to me. CARM is not about discussion boards. CARM is an Apologetics ministry, with a Theology and Apologetics School, and articles on Christianity, with the boards a very small part of the ministry. Matt Slick is a published author and speaker, he has written thousands of articles for CARM. He is a Calvinist but doesn't write about Calvinism on CARM. CARM has over 26,000 members receiving news letters not 6000, but FIVE TIMES THAT, and 25,000 hits to the Home Page articles weekly. CARM is not a group with 6000 members, you keep referring to CARM as to the discussion boards which are the least popular of all of the ministry, it is not a blog, is not just discussion boards that are just part, a very small part of the ministry. The CARM discussion boards don't even deserve mentioning other than a sentence as to their importance to the article about CARM Apologetics Ministry and its features. Again, CARM is not, simply a discussion board, that is what aarm is about, not CARM. The most visited parts to CARM have NOTHING to do with the discussion boards. This article, and the Matt Slick article focus on the boards and should not, the ministry is an Apologetic Ministry, one of the top on the internet. We receive letters from Universities and Churches that the articles are used by students and pastors for teaching purposes. The aarm boards and J. Ratcliff are known to no one but a handful of people, that are just a discussion website and CARM is not. First of all, aarm just started less than a year ago, is not a website is simply a chatroom set up to mock the CARM ministry. The aarm boards have less than 200 people registered with about 20, if that regular members. AARM doesn't deserve mentioning anywhere, but the two people here focused on the CARM boards have left a WRONG impression, CARM is not a discussion board, why you keep saying that is bizarre. Have you even looked to see what it is. The boards, linked at the bottom of the website as a service, but again, CARM is not a discussion board, AARM is a discussion board just created. CARM is a Theology school, an apologetic Ministry. Posting this two places so that MAYBE you will see it. You don't even know what CARM is after all this time, it is NOT A DISCUSSION BOARD, why are you listening to these people from aarm, they are focused on their aarm boards trying to make CARM look like it is about the discussion boards, and the boards don't matter at all to the article on CARM. Sigh!Peggy Sue 16:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Bagoas

Hi Willmcw,

Looking at Bagoas there were several date references using BC notation and one at the start of the article using BCE. This usage was added in a recent edit. Clearly only one format should be used in an article. BC was the majority usage in this article, and reflected the intention of earlier editor(s). Therefore I replaced the one exception. I have to admit that I prefer BC/AD but leaving my personal preferences aside it still made sense to go for BC in this article. Regards, Arcturus 22:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)