User talk:Will Beback/archive2

• User talk:Will Beback/archive1 - January 2006
• User talk:Will Beback/archive2 - February 2006

University of Miami criticism section

Thanks for helping with the deletion of my post earlier. However, the issue does not seem to be resolving itself. I posted a clear evaluation of the reasoning behind the changing the section, and after waiting five days with no response I changed the criticism section. The edit that is involved is simply citing a source, and clarifying a statement (or so I feel).

To clarify: I very much feel that the two individuals involved want to give a certain perception of the group on campus. Specifically, that the group is small. A qoute from the president of the university (to whom the campaign is directed- not exactly a nuetral observer) is not cited as the source of the qoute, but rather simply put that "the group is [considered small]". Am I wrong to think that a source should be refrenced to its actually author?

The other change involves refrenceing what the "union process" means. Its really vague why the president of the univerisity feels she has to be nuetral on "the union process" when there is no refrence to who or what that process is in refrence to. Not somthing i feel strongly about, but i think we should worry about the clarity of the article.

One other change was that both student gov and faculty senate voted on a resolution to a living wage". I cited my source in the discussion (the campus newspaper), its wholly accurate, and it only adds a few words- and certainly is relevant in terms of how the student body felt and perceived the issue.

I can't imagine how these details could be that serious for these two individuals, and maybe I'm wrong about them. Nontheless, i feel at this point in time (considering they changed it without discussion and addressing the issue) we may need to be refrenced to arbitration. Can you add to the discussion what you think, as a nuetral observer? (review the previous descussion for a few posts, and the changes that were made, perhaps). I would greatly appreciate it if it helps us reach a resolution.

MLK Edit

Will, I was trying to reword something in the paragraph, and I lost some words where I placed black. I am sorry for the error. I didn't realize about the reasons for edit box was required, and I don't know where it is. KansasCity 03:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Usenet

I'm sorry for butting in but you just deleted just about every single thing I edited. Please try to be more collaborative and friendly. Usenet isn't reliable for outside information but that's not what I linked to Usenet for at all. All of the things I described with Simpson and Epperson are about events that happened on Usenet itself with Sebesta. All three of them post there all the time. Simpson and Epperson are always criticizing Sebesta, and Sebesta always uses Usenet to do his political campaigning. He is rather (in)famous for all the stuff he does on Usenet. You can even email Sebesta, Epperson, or Simpson and they'll tell ya the same stuff.

Be that as it may, you used the Usenet as the reference. The Usenet is not reliable, nor do we know that those who claim to be certain people are actually those people. -Will Beback 08:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Epperson and Simpson post on soc.history.war.us-civil-war This is a moderater-controlled Usenet group (Epperson is one of the moderaters) so you can verify who their postings are. They block impersonaters to the non-moderated ones, and all the posts I gave match the UNIQUE logins and isp's used by Simpson and Epperson on their moderated group.

Let's discuss this on the article's talk page, Talk:Edward H. Sebesta. I'll move your comment over there. And please don't forget to sign your comments. Thanks, -Will Beback 08:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

dab

You signed dab's rfc twice. — goethean ॐ 16:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing protected pages

I just mentioned the articles on the Lolicon talk page in case someone was interested. I only thought about putting them in seriously when I got curious as to policy on admins editing locked pages. I've never been there before and the policy doesn't specifically say you can't. I just wanted to get a buzz on what others thought. --DanielCD 02:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I read that, thanks. It says not to make substantial changes. It kinda leaves minor changes out, as if they are differed to judgement. It's not really a big deal; I'd just hate to make a minor change to a locked page and have the "locker" admin get miffed. I guess if it's a minor change, it can probably just wait though. Cheers x2. --DanielCD 02:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to delete/vandalize by Infinity0

Please tell that to User: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Infinity0

Since he was constantly trying to vandalize the article, I did not delete anything anybody else had written, all I did was prevent him from deleting relevant materials that had not been discussed.

Peter Deunov

I think this is more than I really want to deal with, but will continue as I have if it seems constructive. I'd appreciate a bit of coaching when you have time, however. Also, how should the posting of long non-English missives be handled?--Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look at this article and for your help with it. Mostly, I'm pleased to know that I'm more or less on the right track so far.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Kevin B. MacDonald

Re: Talk:Kevin B. MacDonald#Paleoconservatism: Jacrosse seems to be adopting a pattern I've seen before: if people give reasoned argument on the talk page against his edits, but don't jump in and change the article, he doesn't provide counter-argument. As far as I've been able to tell, the only way to engage him in discussion is to edit-war, because he sure won't walk away from a disagreement while a version other than his is in the article. I find this really annoying, myself: I'd rather settle things by discussion. In this particular case, I think he's factually wrong, but I also don't think the issue is terribly important. What do you think about this (either in specific of in general)? - Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding on the general issue. More specifically: do you think the MacDonald matter is worth pursuing? - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Virago talk page

There is a note on the Virago talk page that you moved the contents to: Talk:Virago/Classical anthropology, but, of course, nothing appears there. We need to have access to that content via links, so I am restoring it to the Virago talk page. I think it best to leave it there for now, unless you have a better idea. Sunray 15:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, oh, I couldn't locate the material at all. It is no longer in the history of Talk: Virago. Would you please fix this? Sunray 15:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to have access to the material. I'm not sure what can be done about it, but it does need to be documented. Some of the material on that talk page is evidence of a particular POV that is being pushed. Sunray 17:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that material to the temp page. Unfortunately it is of a later vintage and very similar to what he has been saying more recently on Talk: Asian fetish. The material I am looking for is part of a lengthy discussion on Talk: Virago, before the AfD. I'm sure it exists somewhere in cyberspace, so will keep looking. If you have any thoughts on this, they would be most welcome. Sunray 17:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

One of his early postings on the Virago page had some information on German anthropologist von Eickstedt's classification of races. When I googled some of the terms used, I got white supremacist sites. I would like to be able to show that link. Sunray 00:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Sunray 08:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Alex Padilla

Alex Padilla is a huge mess; it's driving me crazy. If you read the edit history from the start, it's clear that a pro-AP editor and an anti-AP editor are battling mightily over how to characterize him: Satan, or God. Since they seem to delight in mass deletions, my solution has been to just make sure everything stays, good and bad, so long as it's reasonable and/or properly sourced. Thoughts? jengod 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jonah Ayers

Hello Will, having encountered more of Jonah's sockpuppets (User:Severine and others) on User talk:SlimVirgin, I began thinking about two things. While I fully support blocking these accounts forever because of harassment, I'm sure that others are uncomfortable with it. Additionally, what do you view, if anything, as the long term solution to this problem? Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I suppose you're correct. I for one do hope that he eventually gives up, and it seems that that's all we can hope for. In any case, thank you, and I will keep trying to help however I can.--Sean Black ^(talk) 18:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cosmotheism Disambiguation Page

Will, I am registerd user "Oklahoma" I anonymously edited the Cosmotheism page and was banned by Mel Etitis for "Vandalism". If you look at the history you will see that what I did was not vandalism. Since then I have registerd as user "Oklahoma". The issue under dispute is whether Mordecay Nesiyahu "created the term" Cosmotheism. I gave evidence on the discussion page that he in fact did not, but Mel did not respond, he just changed it back and locked the page. Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to work? I think that it gives Wikipedia a "black eye" when someone puts up information that is demonstrably false. Could you tell me why Mel Etitis would do this? Some help in restoring truth to the Cosmotheism Disambiguation page would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, registerd user "Oklahoma"

Mel Etitis has banned me

Will, Mel has banned me because he thinks I am "Paul Vogel". I am not Paul Vogel. I would think he could or you could verify this. He has banned me for simply proving him wrong about who "created the term" Cosmotheism. Now he's edited the page to read "prominent user of the term". I would submit that that is nonsense. Now, I'm not suggesting that Pierce be listed as "prominent user of the term", but he is more "prominently" connected to the term than Nesiyahu. What is Mel Etitis' motivation? Let me repeat, I am not Paul Vogel, I am the guy you had discussions with about Cosmotheism links on the white supremacy page. I am only interested in upholding truth and accuracy. I should not be banned. If you can't, or won't, help me with this then please tell me who I should talk to.

Thank you, Oklahoma

Categories are the connetions

Categories are the connections by which we browse the information. George W. Bush, which you admins maintain, is in the "Worst Actor Razzie" and you have the gaul to tell me that he is directly connected to that? Categories are infomraiton. A lot people are not "directly connected" to their almaa maters any more, but we maintain that information. I go and maintain all your dip-shit musical band categories that have become orphens in Special:Uncategorizedcategories just to keep the list down to size and you applaud me for that junk, and then this idiot who trying to maintain the "sacred space" of a dead woman who "got a little bit of publicity" in March 2005 and you give him the green light to once again destroy that infomation that I have just finishd building up. I, sir, finished all of the HARD articles in Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Nature_December_2005/Errors that everyone else gave up on when Xmas rolled around and never got back to just so that I could tell Jimbo that the damnned list was finished.

Are you a citizen of the U.S.? Believe it or not, Acts of the Congress of the United States MATTER. They are Important. Some important information is not-so-obviously "directly connected" as who-the-hell recorded a song on what C.D., and if wether they are deth metal or grunge, buddy. Do you conceed the point or do we take in up the line?

AND STOP THAT STUPID PERSON FROM RIPPING THEM OUT SO FAST! IT IS EASY TO DESTROY WHAT IS HARD TO BUILD UP. -- Pinktulip 22:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Look buddy: We some grunge band goes into the studio and cut a track for their next CD, that is about it. Real simple. The way that laws get passed in the United States is a little bit more complicated than that. The relationships are not so trivial. That is why it is good to be inclusive on the Important categories. The grunge bands can go ahead and be just as exclusive in their categories as they want to be, for all I care. On the Important stuff, I do not conceed the point. -- Pinktulip 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following your comment. I am concerned about your usgae of the category:Terri Schiavo. I don't know what grunge bands have to do with it. -Will Beback 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Buddy: Terri Schiavo is like Abraham Lincoln. She belongs to the Ages. Laws were passed with her name on them at the national level. Once that happens, there is no turning back. For something of such Importance, worrying about hurting the feelings of dead woman is just not good enough of an excuse to remain Ignorant about What Happened. -- Pinktulip 22:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Even people of the Ages have follow Wikipedia:categorization. I can see where either category:Terri Schiavo or Terri Schiavo should be in category:pro-life, etc., but not the other way around. -Will Beback 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You can see that User:Marskell is to destroy/revert first and then smugly defend the status quo. If he wants to discuss each one in his destructive campaign, one at time, one per day, that would be great. But he has rather a sense or urgency about hiim, does he not? -- Pinktulip 23:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss the edits you make. I don't care about Terri Schiavo or User:Marskell - I care about the edits you are making to articles. Everytime I ask you a question you reply with a non-sequitor. -Will Beback 23:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: While he has been given the green light to quickly destroy the infomation, which he is doing without any discussion, you are going to force a discussion on me about a long list of past edits, one at time, until, I expect, Marskell current destructive impulses are sated. First edit you insist on disucssing:

• TS_cat and/or TS_article and prolife_cat. One lousy edit. Do as you see fit. Next? -- Pinktulip 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You gave him the green light, no disucssion. You leave me waiting here, stuck, while the destruction process continues. What kind of mediator are you? Are you there? Why did you take this case if you only have time to give him the green light and me the red light? Where are you? -- Pinktulip 00:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not taken this case as a mediator. I've tried to discuss this with you repeatedly, and you've changed the topic to George W. Bush, grunge bands, and other unrelated topics. Please read Wikipedia:categorization. I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for admin help

If you're on now I'd like to discuss a request with you. I'm in the IRC channel #wikipedia and on AIM as JamesMLane. I have an ICQ account number around somewhere if you use that. Thanks. JamesMLane t c 23:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Nicolaus Copernicus

Hope this isn't a bad place to ask, but I'm getting sick of the reverting to article Nicolaus Copernicus. The revert concerns, predictably, his nationality. Due to some evidence of his German ethnicity, and the ambiguous political situation of Prussia during Copernicus' lifetime, some users wish to delete the atribution "Polish", or place "Prussian" or "German" or "German-Polish" in its stead. The Polish users are, perhaps understandably, taking a hard-line. A message on the Polish wikipedians notice board reads "We have a troll denying he was Polish. Usuall stuff, but some monitoring is needed before this vandal gives up and goes away" (See: Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Nicolaus_Copernicus), but there is more than one person opposed to the Polish line, and none of them can accurately be described as "trolls". I myself tried to negotiate a way to end it, but it didn't work. This is why I appeal to someone wish some experience and offical clout, so that the tiresome revert wars can come to an end. Perhaps a mediator will help both sides compromise, and perhaps also help establish some article-specific precendent that prevents the issue coming up again. Regards, - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 23:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Hey bub. Before warning people and threatening me with blocking like you so rudely did [1] why don't you keep your own house clean first? You reached the three reverts limit BEFORE I did and you have the gall to give me a warning? It's the same with all you liberal types - the rules apply to everybody but yourselves. Oh, and here's the evidence - all done before I reached #3 and before you took it upon yourself to "warn" me. 1. [2] 2. [3] 3. [4]. - Crawfishboil

Page move

It looks to me as if either you or the template got something garbled in your listing on Wikipedia:Requested moves. The move you've proposed is: The Nation (U.S. periodical) → The Nation (U.S. periodical). I'm going to be bold and change the first article to The Nation. I'll also add a link to the prior discussions, which ended up on the talk page of the dab page. JamesMLane t c 05:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - Crawfishboil

Revert #1: [5] Revert #2: [6] Revert #3: [7]

Thanks

[8]--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Portlanders

Yeah, it's slightly more complicated than face value. User:BalooUrsidae changed it to "born in Portland" because he believes that the definition of the word "Portlander" is someone who was born in Portland. (It's not.) I tried correcting it, but he switched it back. I tried confronting him on the issue, but all he does is insist that I'm "deliberately mis-stating". I'm hoping to let the thing diffuse a little before stepping in again. -- ChrisB 07:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Language

In talk pages or national notice boards using native language is accepted. --Molobo 10:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Haiku

Will: I need a little help from an admin, but I don't think the problem is big enough to take to WP:AN/I. There has been an anon adding a brand new, single-issue haiku journal to the haiku article. I have been deleting their not-yet-notable journal from the external links section. They have escalated to deleting the other (very notable) haiku journals plus other external links when they re-add their link (see this diff). This was the second time they have re-added their link AFTER I had left a warning message on the user page for their IP yesterday. I think that it's time to escalate to a 24 hr. block. See 82.109.147.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). ^BlankVerse 11:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Normally I'd give a spammer a few more chances, but additionally deleting the other links without an explanation is too much. My guess is that this person simply doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Let's hope a short block will get their attention. -Will Beback 12:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

From the list of contributors, it looks like it is going to be an interesting journal, but a quick look at some of the pages also showed what I considered a high degree of variability in quality. I guess that's to be expected from something that says it's experimental.

My personal opinion is that since they deleted the links for a third time AFTER the warning, it was done deliberately to see if there was any teeth to the threat of being banned. ^BlankVerse 12:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Guerillas

I have listed the category you created, "Guerillas," as a candidate for speedy renaming. If you object, you should do so soon. Thank you. --Descendall 21:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My Watchlist

File:Moving-camera.gif

He will be vetting your edits

Warning: You have been added to my watchlist. I will be watching your every edit and contribution. Expect anything you put down to be immediately vetted. Any false info or lies and your information will be deleted and your actions will be noted on your talk page. Enjoy the rest of your time at Wikipedia. 21:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)GreatBarrington

On my talk page you asked what you did to deserve this. The answer is that I've recieved reports from friends and relatives that you have been editing some of their materials when they posted true information. I will say you shouldn't at all get the idea that I'm going to go around deleting everything you write. As long as it's true and unbiased I won't touch and in fact I'll thank you for it, given the dearth of quality contributions in many areas of the Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatBarrington (talk • contribs)

As long as GB is objective you have nothing to worry about :) Oh well. David D. (Talk) 22:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop Leaving Messages on My Talk

I don't know you, nor do I want to. Quit leaving messages on my talk.-CaneMan 00:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Conflict resolution request

I added to the discussion section of the criticism part of a University of Miami [[9]] article. Unofortunatly, someone deleted my discussion section piece- twice, and did not respond as to why nor adress my points. Instead, the individual replaced my points with their own. I would very much like help mediating a resolution in terms of the grievances addressed (found in the history section of the discussion-mostly clarification of the article's sentences and refrenceing an author of a qoute). I'm not completely sure what the problem is, to tell the truth. However, the "crticism" section's discussion is long (its not until the very bottom that my part comes up) and I think theres alot thats been running back and forth, and this may have somthing to do with how this person(s) responded.

I feel, though, that citing their source to a qoute and clarifying the articles sentences is needed, at least. I would very much appreciate some of your time for mediation, please review the history part, at the very bottom of the page, of the criticism section of the University of Miami article. Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.49.177 (talk • contribs)

Please get a username so that other editors can communicate with you more easily. I've restored the deleted comments. Let's assume good faith, the other editor may have blanked your comments by mistake. Thanks for discussing the dispute on the article talk pages. I'll keep an eye on the matter - let me know if you need more help. Cheers, -Will Beback 18:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Got an account at "Reefgecko". Stay tuned. --Reefgecko 05:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Pinktulip

Yes, certainly an odd character. Crossing the line from odd to dangerous, however, and that's what concerns me. Anyways, this is all connected with the reason I deleted AN yesterday, we can continue this conversation via email if you so wish. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. I'm glad you didn't have to do the restoration of 13,601 edits by hand. I doubt we've seen the last of this character. -Will Beback 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Sure What You Mean

the comment that you left on my talk page... are you refering to the links that I put on conspiracy related disscusions about a conspiracy based wiki? or to links I put on articles? cause neither fit the criteria. I would hardly call any of them private web site ors a commercial site (since its contained within the wiki group). Plus since I dont know you you may want to tone down how you speak to me. dont come flying onto my page accusing me of something without telling me when I did it (using italics on the word content... I took that to imply that you somehow felt I had never added content to wikipedia.) I dont mean to be rude I just want some clarification but I do feel that you were being a bit sharp with me(obviously looking at this board I'm not alone) you may just want to make it a bit more clear what in particular someone did when you nag them about it. To be honest i felt that this was the most indirect way to centest my actions and it made me quite upset. Just tell me what when and where I did it instead of asking me to "please stop adding commercial links" because I have never ever done that ever in my life. --Matt D 22:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• That clarifies a lot. Live and Learn.--Matt D 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Gangster on the wiki....

Will, I'm thinking of filing an RfC against User:70.35.25.53. He or she keeps reverting Onterio Varrio Sur to an unsourced version. He/she also makes "gang" edits on other SoCal articles. I'd like to see a permanent block so they have to go to the library if they want to edit, but at least two users must warn the offending editor first, and since you offered your help when you welcomed me, I thought I'd ask. If you'd prefer not to get involved, I can probably ask someone else. Gracias, --Rockero420 05:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

These edits are a bit reminiscent of 68.65.23.41 (talk · contribs), who added some of the same text, ("Sgt Phil Brown" to San Bernardino, CA) a year ago. In any case, let's try to communicate with the person and see if they can be made to understand our procedures better. That's preferable to a block. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I do see references (more than for many articles), but the formatting and copyediting are rough. Writing on gang issues is dicey, because there are so few reliable sources. Mostly newspapers. Anyway, let's not jump on this editor too hard. -Will Beback 08:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in no rush. Thanks.--Rockero420 21:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good edits on Mark Levin, but someone's on a POV rampage

I thought you made some wise edits on the Levin page, and your paring of the quote section to five was sound. I've said as much on the Talk page. There seems to be a particularly strident fan of Levin who is intent on peppering the article with pro-Levin propaganda, and censoring links to any sites that remotely criticize the article's subject. I'll be checking in frequently to remove POV, but just wanted to keep you advised. Also, someone has restored all of the quotes. Eleemosynary 18:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Need some help please

An anon is repeatedly editing the Aiken entry against consensus. I could use some admin support here. Thanks! -Jmh123 04:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input. I hope you can answer a question for me. User 207.200.116.204 appears to have signed one of his edits tonight with two IPs and then deleted one. His edit on the history page shows one IP ID, 71.138.238.243, but the talk page shows the other. What does this mean? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clay_Aiken&diff=39320361&oldid=39319318 Thanks! -Jmh123 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your response. You are probably right about the IPs. There is an organized effort to spread this story on the internet and beyond, and it does involve a number of sock puppets & some very savvy trolls. Watching them at work has been a real eye-opener but has probably made me too quick to suspect others. Thanks again! -Jmh123 21:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Richard Barrett and the Crosstar Image

FYI: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Richard_Barrett_and_the_Crosstar_Image Kaldari 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I got an email from Jimbo on Feb 15 saying he had recieved my message and had forwarded it to their legal department. Since I haven't heard anything else since then, I assume we can safely keep the picture in the article. If not, I think someone would have said something about it by now. Kaldari 22:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Help please on Mark Levin page

Anonymous user 68.116.251.13 is continuing to revert at will, restoring blatantly NPOV edits and deleting anything that isn't a paean to Levin. Then, he threatens and screams about it on the Talk Page. Any help you might be able to give would be great. Eleemosynary 20:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and help. The anonymous vandal has stopped commenting, and is now reverting at will. I've reported him for 3RR and vandalism. Eleemosynary 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Swedenman

Hi! Just FYI: It has been proven that user:Swedenman is identical with Filipman on the Swedish wikipedia. He has been blocked 7 times so far, see [10]. Filipman a.k.a. Swedenman has been engaged in unreflecting edit wars for a long time. On top of that he has abused other wikipedians. Probert 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay! My sockdrawer overfloweth!

I am once again honored to share a sentence with you [11]. Have a great day! =) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 12:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No nazi website

It's not vandalism. Nazi website is onley shit. The can doing more people to nazi. Swedenman 20:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to delete artice. I onley wont have the nazi website deleted. Swedenman 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewish liberals category

A rather bizarre category, and the person maintaining it has an "unusual" way of looking at things. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister

Northmeister (talk · contribs). I'm having a great deal of difficulty asuming good faith with this person- I'm not sure if he's a sockpuppet or just disruptive, but either way, it's innapropriate behaviour. I can't really say if there's enough circumstantial evidence to use WP:RFCU, though that may be the next step if you're so inclined. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Another new LaRouche account is user:NathanDW (though he claims disinterest). After being caught using sock puppets before, the presumed puppet master is probably too careful to be caught using the same IP addresses but it's worth a try. However, the editing behavior is certainly similar. Checkuser is not strictly required to bring an enforcement for sock puppet abuse. "Any admin" who believes they are the same user many apply the penalty. -Will Beback 04:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If your going to discuss me then do so with me. I am not a 'sockpuppet'. Nor am I in any way dishonest. The above statement (another new Larouche account) indicates why I have contacted the parent corporation of this website. Sean, I bring up relevant points you did not answer and others attacked me. The point's I made, I did not only make on that page I made them to the above group including providing my full name etc. I am very displeased with the tactics used here and the labeling going on and the abuse I see. I have a right to state my protest. Further I have a talk page and email link. You could discuss this with me there, especially my email and I would more than provide you with any information on me as far as the sockpuppet charge that has been made. I've been called a LaRoucheist, Sockpuppet, and my edits are put to a greater test than what policy would indicate. I am constantly having my edits stalked by this user and I protest in the highest manner. I am unsure of why this is being done, but again I have forwarded my protest to the board. --Northmeister 04:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Read over the three arbitration cases involving HK and "friends", if you are not already familiar with them, and then you'll see why certain users get more attention than others. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The last thing we need is a fourth ArbCom case. I already told him a block was incoming if he did it again [12]. At this point, we shouldn't need the ArbCom's intervention- whatever the case with Northmeister is, we need to use our own judgement ("1) Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.").--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the previous ArbCom rulings are sufficient. -Will Beback 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. I'm flattered. --Smack (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Liberty Dollar

I've nominated the page "Liberty Dollar" for nomination and am notifying you accordingly since you are a contributor. BrianGCrawfordMA 23:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

More Liberty Dollar

After further research and reflection, I've come to believe that the Liberty Dollar entry should be merged with "Private currency" or "Community money" and redirected accordingly. This merge would help put this controversial topic into a broader context it desperately needs. Thank you for your participation. BrianGCrawfordMA 18:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

RfM

Would you look over and consider taking Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Romanization of the Russian language? No special reason, I'm just matching available poeple up with available cases. If you're agreeable, would you leave me a note on my talk page? Thanks! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for Neutrality with the SRF

Thank you for restoring the link (Has SRF lost its way ) criticizing SRS. Achieving neutrality. Neutrality can be a very uncomfortable task for administrators.--Jondel 06:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Neoconservatism mediation request

You are, or were at some point, involved in editing the neoconservatism article. Due to Jacrosse's continued inability to dialogue, I'm requesting mediation. I thought you would want to know this. Hydriotaphia 05:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request is here. Hydriotaphia 22:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bugging you, but you're the only one of the "involved parties" who hasn't agreed to mediation yet. If you could do that, that would be great—I'd like to get the ball rolling as soon as possible. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 03:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Got your message about not wishing to participate. That's fair. Is it allowed if I erase your name from the list of "involved parties"? I don't know what's kosher and what's not here. Hydriotaphia 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Viper Room

We seem to have a revert war underway at Viper Room over one user wanting to delete references to certain groups and accusing me (an admin) of vandalism when I basically decided we shouldn't mention any groups. I think this needs a third-party viewpoint and since you had previously reverted the change I invite you to comment on the article's talk page. Cheers. 23skidoo 22:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Boxer

Why are you removing the fact that Barbara Boxer is pro choice from her article? 69.218.181.192 00:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The article claims she is practicing Judaism, but she is also going against rules of the religion she practices which makes them go together. 69.218.181.192 02:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

requesting help again

In order to avoid a spitting contest with unregistered user rabinid, I'm asking you for help with the John Paulus entry that he has added to Wikipedia. I tried to give it a more neutral angle, but he has reverted most of my changes. If you check his history, you can see that his singular goal is to publicize Paulus throughout Wikipedia. I hate seeing Wikipedia used in this way, and do not believe it should be what this encyclopedia is about. Would you check this particular entry and let me know what you think, and make changes if you see fit? Thanks. -Jmh123 03:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not unregistered. I have a legitimate Wiki account. As well, I'm not seeding this info throughout Wikipedia as accused. I have many other Wiki edits and a long history under a different account. I created this one strictly for this particular info because of the feelings associated with it. That said, I loathe sourcable on-topic info being removed or denied inclusion simply on the basis that it may be perceived as disparaging to a subject. In this case Jmh123 is an avowed Clay Aiken fan who has made it her mission to only "seed" wiki with what she believes is positive information on Aiken. It's her right to do so, but only if that info is NPOV, on topic, relevant and sourcable. In particular with the info removed from John Paulus], I did not revert all of her edits to the entry, only the ones that were non-sourcable, as well as summaries of content that was already supplied in the form of links to the MP3s of the actual content. These are all legitimate NPOV edits, sourcable and on topic. I would urge you to double check my work --Rabinid 09:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is entirely about his tryst with Clay Aiken, except of course for the part where it goes on to say that he's now got a career in porno. (Along with helpful link where folks can pay to see more.) I'm inclined to AFD it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The subject doesn't appear to be notable. -Will Beback 21:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is his allegations that put him into the public eye. I argue that that is notable in and of itself, putting secondary his notability now as porn star. I have continued to add other biographical information about him where sourceable and I note, in the other cited examples on the sex scandal page that there are other instances of where the originating info in those scandals also only came from one source. Clarence Thomas for example. All the info related to those allegations came from one source Anita Hill. Similar with John E. Brownlee or Uno Sosuke. You may not think this qualifies as a scandal, but read the intro paragraph for sex scandal: "A sex scandal is a scandal in which a public figure becomes embroiled in a situation where embarrassing sexual activities (or allegations of them) are publicized. These often involve adultery or some other form of affair." If that doesn't define this situation, what does? --Rabinid 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If Anita Hill had only made her accusations on the Howard Stern Show I doubt that her story would have gone far. When Paulus testifies under oath in front of a congressional panel then their cases will be comparable. The other scandals listed for entertainers are all based on well-established events, such as court cases. When the police become involved it may be comparable. However there is no allegation that any laws were broken, or even any marital vows. One guy sleeping with another is not a scandal, in and of itself. -Will Beback 22:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, completely. That was truly a ludicrous comparison. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well good thing for us then that this guy has made his accusations in far more places than just Howard Stern. Just so I have this straight and on record then, you two editors are holding the position that a sex scandal must have a form of legalities or marital vows attached to qualify? Because I'd argue that is a simply absurd position. However, to play by your nebulous rules, I would note since current U.S. law prohibits homosexuals from marrying, and in many U.S. states homosexual behaviors are still against the law, there arguably does exist "laws that have been broken". The point of the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas comparison was only to focus that the example, among others, is one where only one source's allegations exist. I believe on that point alone the argument is valid. --Rabinid 01:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to agree that one guy doing "kiss and tell" between consenting adults (even if he tells in multiple places) is hardly earth shattering. I am at a loss as to why it is even IN Wikipedia. There is no other reason for John Paulus to have an article at all. By that token we should have a page for every bimbo that slept with every star out there and then let it be known. I think the term for that is "StarF*cker". Hardly a sex scandal. Hardly the reason for which Wikipedia is intended. Michigan user 14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0, Michigan user, I agree with you. This article should be deleted. The sources for this article are tabloids, shock jocks, and gossip columns that attribute the National Enquirer. Inserting this story into Wikipedia creates the appearance of trying to make news where there is none, when Wikipedia isn't in the news business at all. -Jmh123 14:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I note that Rabinid has re-added Aiken Paulus to the sex scandal page. -Jmh123 14:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0 - do you know HOW to get a page deleted?? Michigan user 17:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm being accused again of adding material where I have not. I sign ALL my contributions. Since my edit was reverted by Will I have not readded it. However, I would suggest again you all read the main intro to sex scandal again. The appearance of this information in Wiki does not create news, only merely serves as a point of reference and cites that the allegations exist. That is notable, not to mention his marginal notability as a porn star now. As disgusting as you may find it, I note Wiki includes lists of gay porn stars and articles on almost all of them. --Rabinid 21:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Who, besides yourself, has called this a "sex scandal"? The fact that allegations exist does not make them notable. And appearing in a single scene of a porno movie hardly makes one a porn star. You seem to be pushing this matter. If it's truly notable it'll still be notable next year. -Will Beback 21:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User:JJstrokey

Actually, User:JJstroker might use this username as sockpuppet. adnghiem501 06:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, User:JJstrokey only contributed by removing Category:Jewish_liberals from several articles. He added the category to User:JJstroker's userspace, but then I reverted. adnghiem501 07:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "to jump the gun by emptying it"? I'm just asking you about the category deletion in question. adnghiem501 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Jewish_liberals nominated for deletion. The deletion tag says "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." On 2/21/06 the CfD closed and the category was deleted. A wikibot usually does the chore of removing categories from articles. There is no reason for someone to create a name that mimics the original creator, to duplicate that user's page, and to empty the category prior to its deletion. If you know anything more about the matter I'd be interested. -Will Beback 19:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche editors

Sounds good. WP:ANI is probably the best place for it. I'm working on some other things at the moment, but I'll see what I can dig up. Taking a stab in the dark, I'll say that Northmeister (talk · contribs) and NathanDW (talk · contribs) are the primary accounts you had in mind? Anyways, yes, seems like a good idea.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fuck truck

True, edit summaries do help and I should have used one. But this does not mean that it was proper for the user who accused me of vandalism to violate Wikipedia policy by not preuming good faith -- if he would have simply followed the link he would have seen that this was no joke. Interestingstuffadder 13:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's not a big deal...But if I am going to be successful in my goal of adding notable bu controversial content (see my userpage), I need to maintain credibility as a good faith edotor and helpful contributor to Wikipedis. Wrongful vandalism accusations do not help that cause. Thus, I make a habit to respond publicly to them to set the record straight. Interestingstuffadder 00:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Ann Heneghan

Hi! I'm not sure why Ann Heneghan was deleted, but it seems to have been recreated under the title above. You may want to consider if you think this should be deleted too; if not, it should probably be moved to Ann Heneghan. Lupin|talk|popups 02:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Username

Hey, how come you switched your user name from willmcw? Infinity0 ^talk 23:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Because. -Will Beback 23:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always assumed it was a variation of Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie quote: "I'll be back" ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 23:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Naw, just trying to riff on a common phrase that incorporates "will". "Will Begood" was the runner-up, but I wasn't sure if that'd read as an assertion or an admonishment. ;) -Will Beback 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:LS Studio

The many suggestions on this page that some editors have downloaded child pornography should be removed lest LE were to envoke probable cause. This would undoubtedly cause trouble for Wikipedia; why should we keep these unnecessary comments around? Ineloquent 23:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please ask the editors to remove them, if they so choose. It's not our job to handle law enforcement activities. -Will Beback 23:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. So I guess we ought not to delete libel from talk pages, too? Ineloquent 23:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Petaluma

i think you are over-reacting on the POV issue. i wrote this intro...i am a scientist who has studied Petaluma and authored 12 different documents on this city. the terms used are in fact objective in the urban planning context. Thriving is an objective term, normally used of an urban core to denote a positive rate of change of commercial activity, which Petaluma has. Residential charm is an adjective in city planning used to denote historical preservation, extent of mature landscaping and permanancy of residents.....do you know Petaluma at all?...i intend to rewrite and essentially revert this intro, but i shall wait and give you the courtesy of responding to this note. In a larger context, it is important that the encylopedia be NPOV, but not at hte expense of providing the reader with useful substantive information on its subjects. regards, Anlace 22:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

issue with another user

Hello, I have had difficulty with 67.105.241.226. There were problems with the same "disclaimer" that you deleted from the Senator Biden article, which I repeatedly edited out (the disclaimer bit). I now believe that the owner of the afforementioned IP created a user id similar to my own, by reversing the "n" and "m." Is there anything that can be done against this user? I apologize if I should have submitted this to some sort of committee, however I am reasonably new, and since you had faced the same issue as I have. Thanks Nmpenguin 04:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it already. The user has been blocked for an inappropriate username. I've got the Biden page on my watchlist and will semi=protect it if the mischief continues. -Will Beback 06:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you loads. Nmpenguin 12:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell, Mises Institute anti-semitism stuff

Will, would you mind stopping by Talk:Lew_Rockwell? Dick Clark 16:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This has all the makings of a revert war. Would appreciate your perspective. Dick Clark 17:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kaiser Permanente, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Thanks

Hey Will,

Just wanted to thank you for stepping in on the Lew Rockwell article today. I'm really glad that we were able to find a concensus in contrast to the many situations that just turn into blind editing wars. I really tried to reason with Dick Clark and find some middle ground. -Roger

Do you think a solution would be to put these notes after the "notable contributors" section of the site, since this is information about them? -Roger

Dick Clark is a perfectly good editor. I've found that, by and large, the Golden Rule applies around here. Treat other editors the way you'd want to be treated, and it all works out.

PS - Why don't you make your suggestion on the article talk page? Also, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes ("~"). Cheers, -Will Beback 07:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll agree that I've treated you and Dick Clark with nothing but respect? I actually did make the post on the article talk page, I just know that when you write on someone's talk page it comes up to them as a message so that was more of a means of letting you know I had posted. I'll be more clear about that in the future. We'll probally be working together as I see you spend a lot of time editng libertarian oriented articles, and libertarianism is one of my main interests. 07:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Roger

Will, just wanted to apologize about the blocked from editing bit I wrote on the Rockwell discussion section. As you can guess, it was in response to the fact that you had left the exact same message on my talk page. It frusturated me because I've been working in good faith to try to paint a fuller picture of Rockwell in the article. When I came upon the article, it was clear that it had one-sided information about him. I hope that we can work together to paint fuller pictures of the people involved with LewRockwell.com/Mises Institute, as right now it seems most of their Wikipedia articles are basically the same thing as the biographies posted about them on the Mises site itself. Rogerman 20:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Roger

About that Railroad...

Thank you for catching my OOPS. I did omit the words "scenic mountain" which gives the Mount Lowe Railway the distinction of being the only scenic mountain, electric traction railway ever built. Magi Media 13:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Thanx

Thanx 4 the welcome. R u the author of Dunkirk Departure? ;)

• DallasMonkey.

Jacrosse

Hello, Will. Thanks for your response, and apologies for removing my two cents from your talk page. I try not to bother people unnecessarily, and I really hate internet battles (Jacrosse is the first on Wikipedia I'm dealing with). FYI, I've reported Jacrosse to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. Feel free to send me any thoughts or recommendations. Thanks --metzerly 18:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Liberty Dollar reversion

Could you please explain why you think this action was an improvement: 23:41, 22 February 2006 Will Beback m (Reverted edits by Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) to last version by JesseRafe) You seem to be re-introducing all the things people were arguing about: Bashing the organization at the beginning of the article & a sales pitch at the bottom. Are you sure you meant to do that??? Thanks, --Lance W. Haverkamp 02:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You simply reverted to your last edit months ago. That was certainly not an improvement. Please feel free to dicuss your proposed changes on the article talk page. -Will Beback 02:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Lance, please don't dlete (sic) large amounts of material without discussing the edit on the article talk page. Thanks, -Will Beback"

I'm willing--find me someone else working on the Liberty Dollar page who is actually interested in a factual article rather than debating POV's. Every time this article has gotten close to "just the facts" someone who disagrees with the organization puts a huge negative tone over the entire article, then the NPOV header goes up, then anyone trying to turn-down the POV gets told to "discuss it". This is a recurring, self defeating pattern!

I'm not sure what administrative changes need to be made, but two things need to change:

1) "Contributers" (and moderators, for that matter) who continually spin articles away from facts (in any direction) need to be controlled somehow--the controls in place now aren't working.

2) When the NPOV header goes up, the article shouldn't be stuck, week after week at it's most contentious point, by telling everyone who is submitting POV-minimized content to "discuss it" with the very people who added all the POV!

I'm really not looking to pick a fight with you, it's just that you're the person (this time) rolling back POV-minimized changes to the more contentious version of the article. Our goal should be returning to the facts as quickly as possible, rather than rolling-back to the worst-possible version until the opposing sides stop screaming at each other. If you've got any ideas how to quickly clean-up the article I'm happy to help. --Lance W. Haverkamp 00:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good, let's discuss your concerns at the article talk page. -Will Beback 01:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! It had been so long since I got one I had to solicit one from someone :) I always appreciate unsoliticed ones! ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 14:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)