User talk:Will Beback/archive25

Selective Editing Practices to Our Site

Will, the first citation is mentioned in the Accreditation section with a reference for a website embedded. Thus, the statement in the tag "This article does not cite any references or sources." is not factual. Secondly, there are numerous universities which site much more extensive information without any such tags being added to their descriptions - I will list them all for you so that you can reprimand them if you wish. Finally, there are numerous universities which also use the templates. The templates will help users navigate between our article and others of related interest. I see it written nowhere that the templates may not be used other than by your comments, and the allowance of their use by other universities seems to indicate some degree of bias as it relates to your edits of our page. We challenge you to find any statement of inaccuracy on our page. Even the statement made in the opening paragraph regarding the perception of the university's reputation is backed up based on the 2007 report by the EESE. We feel that you are being somewhat selective in your decisions regarding which articles to edit rather than making such decisions based on universal and consistent standards. Obviously that is concerning to us. We do realize however that we may be wrong in this sentiment, and so we ask that if you are going to edit our article in this manner that you also edit all articles and all university descriptions in the same manner. Along these lines and if you do wish to continue reprimanding National U, we will help point you in the direction of all universities which may be in need of your attention (and I am sure you know that the list is extensive). Obviously we have better things to do with our time, and I am sure you do as well, so we would prefer to avoid such endeavors. It is not our desire to become engaged in a nonsensical editing war as it is simply an unproductive waste of time, but we have posted nothing but factual information to our page (and we do have at least one embedded citation, as well as others which state where any person of interest may find the info of inquiry), and the use of the same templates which you are deleting is employed by many other universities with no citations attached to their pages.

This computer is used by quite a few members of our staff. Thus, if you wish to discuss this matter off-line more formally I will be happy to do so in order to see it resolved more efficiently. Let me know and I will provide you with the appropriate contact information. -Dr. Wiley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.1.77 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Urgh...

...here we go again...this is the second sockpuppet that I've been in close contact with, the first one being this guy. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back from your Wikibreak

You've had a lot of activity here while you were on break. Do take a look at your pages' histories! Sir Fozzie and Random832 have been doing a fine job in keeping the wolves (wolf?) at bay. Bielle (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A user reverting a lot of your edits

Just a heads-up, a user has been reverting a lot of your edits recently. There is a discussion between me and him/her here. S/he says that s/he is involved in a content dispute with you, although I cannot find any evidence of this. Could you possibly investigate? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 07:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might like to know that this user keeps claiming that you are the vandal [1], and another user seems to agree [2]. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That playground monitors remark is priceless! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Pensacola Christian College

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your deletion [3] of the {{unaccredited}} template from Pensacola Christian College. As the template's usage instructions state that it "must be substituted [otherwise] the reference format will not display correctly," I restored and subst'ed the template back into the article [4]. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tamer Hosny

An editor has nominated Tamer Hosny, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamer Hosny and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Will...

Looks like your stalker is back. Blocked him. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Another one, Unionstyle xhbhjk (talk · contribs). Dealt with, just thought you should know. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Sahaja Yoga meditation article

Glad to see you haven't become a stranger to the SY pages now that our mutual friend has departed. If you have the time, could you pop by to the Sahaja Yoga meditation talk page and give an opinion on the proposal for merger with the Sahaja Yoga article? --Simon D M (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Block of Noosphere

Hi - re NS. I'm curious - what makes you think this is cognition (who I've never heard of). Mail me if you'd rather not make any subtle hints public. Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just read ANI, so ignore this... William M. Connolley (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Some belated recognition

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Awarded for your sterling work in battling trolls and other vandals; back to the ramparts! Keep up the good work! Bzuk (talk contribs) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

SMM named peaks - source?

In reading the Santa Monica Mountains article, I came to wonder about the list of named peaks. It was added by User2004, which redirects to Will Beback, so I gather this is you. Do you recall the source of this list? There is no reference in the article. Posting to the discussion page for the article three days ago has so far elicited no response.

The reason I ask is that Mount Bell appears to be fictitious, and certainly is not in the USGS list of names in California. The list is also missing about half a dozen named points listed by the USGS as type "summit", including Ladyface, which is one of the most prominent. (Also, the claim that Mugu Peak is the westernmost is wrong. I can fix that, but it indicates unreliability of the entire list.)

Before trying to fix it, I wanted to try to track down the source of the list, since even the USGS cannot be considered the word of god.--Paleolith (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvey again

Will, please check 172.143.18.73; Harvey needs to get a new hobby. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

Peter Yarrow

Hi, if you have a spare moment would you "vote" on this article's discussion page as the pro-censorship contingent wants to afford special treatment to Yarrow and not mention his 3 month prison sentence, as every other Wikipedia article on incarcerated persons does. The "vote" is at the bottom of the discussion page. Thanks. John celona (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

What a kind invitation. Thanks.

How many psychiatrists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Only 1, but it has to really want to change.

How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a lightbulb? You CAN'T KNOW, MAN!!! You Weren't THERE!!!

Thanks again, that felt good. David in DC (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside

I feel free to ask you, however we can improve an article without discussing that very same article. how dare you to say it's 'off-topic'? can you be a bit more specific about 'elsewhere'. nobody should be interested about every tiny detail like who killed whom at 9.11. but "WHY" do these attacks happen.............. i really hope, u will be back sometime......

Just a reminder that this page exists to discuss how to improve our article, not to discuss the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Please take off-topic discussions elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scyriacus (talk • contribs)

Byzantine, etc.

Bringing this thread back from your archive

I've replied to you here. Since you haven'tr responded yet, I'm guessing you hadn't noticed my reply. The favor of your reply at the same page is requested. --Ssbohio (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply v2.0 posted. --Ssbohio (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Coming up on 3 days... Any reply? --Ssbohio (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It'll be a week tomorrow... Have you had any thoughts or formulated a reply? --SSBohio 21:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Post-archiving

We're coming up on a month since I replied to you. I'd appreciate it if you could reply soon. However, I see you've been busy dealing with assorted issues here, so I'm prepared to be patient. Best wishes for 2008, SSBohio 05:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Will, I wasn't discussing proposed changes to the Berry article with you. I was discussing your previous course of conduct WRT that article and related topics in response to your initial posting on my talk page. Please see User talk:Ssbohio#Byzantine and misleading and respond to the issues raised there. --SSBohio 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

I am struck by the extremely large numbers of edits in your contribution history on a wide variety of topics. I am curious if you have a large number of topics on your watchlist or do you do your edits by some other method? Myself, I seem to be stuck on a few pages which I know the topic material inside and out.Jmegill (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Eric Red article vandalism

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that a user named Peterforbes has repeatedly altered and then deleted an entire paragraph of sourced material concerning an incident in which Red crashed his jeep into a bar and killed two people.

This user seems to have registered for the sole purpose of deleting/changing references to this incident. Moreover, this fits into a pattern in which someone will periodically delete the jeep crash paragraph and/or "soften" the prose in an attempt to make Red look less guilty. I have reverted this user's changes twice today, but at this point, I think an administrator needs to intervene. Sullenspice (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern about balance. However, I'm concerned with users who seem to want to whitewash the whole incident and delete it entirely as though it never happened. The jeep crash is a well documented event, and two people died. It is unfortunate that the user or users who complain about the imbalance of the article don't attempt to make more constructive edits and build up the rest of the article. Sullenspice (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Some soverign advice

Since you're the Primetime expert, I thought I'd ask you this:

Out of nowhere (Literally), this new user, Givelegal22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), shows up and posts on my talk page a bizzare question. I reply (Rather poor reply, I freely admit). Up to then I wasn't sure what that was about, but his latest reply reminded me of Primetime's noxious tendency of posting hate and other crap on my talk page. Do you think that it's him, or that I should submit that account to RfCU? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page

Not sure if you're allowed to protect your own talk page or not, but might semi-protection be an idea, since all these are single-purpose accounts? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aaah, I see. Looks like this [5] comment has come back to haunt you, then! Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lokot Autonomy

Dear Will, could you keep an eye on Lokot Autonomy? There is a peculiar non-anglophone individual (possibly neonazi) vandalizing the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galassi (talk • contribs) 11:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I moved this page back and slapped an admin move-protect on it, hopefully they won't do that again. SirFozzie (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see that in the log, SirFozzie. The same guy came back, so I've semiprotected and move protected. I left it as infinite, Will, so you can remove it, or not, as you prefer. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It was done at 11:50 on the timestamp

11:50, 16 January 2008 SirFozzie (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Usеr taIk:Will Bеback: Move vandal [move=sysop]) (undo)

Weird. Eh. No harm, no foul, hopefully :) SirFozzie (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Different talk page, I think. Look at the squiggly writing. :-) The vandalism continues, so I've changed to full protection. Will, I'll leave it to you to remove it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Feel free to say whatever you like here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is temporarily protected. You may use User:Will Beback/Scratchpad instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to write whatever you like. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin here

75.43.196.242 is requesting unblock. You blocked him for sockpuppetry. Could you perhaps provide evidence of such on the user talk page of that IP so that I can make a reasonable judgement as to whether to grant his request? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been a busy time, hasn't it?

I just looked at your logs when I saw your talk page protected. It's been a busy time for you lately. Allow me to extend my thanks for your steps to eliminate sockpuppets. I'm starting to think that adminship is more like being some hybrid of a building superintendent and a volunteer firefighter. --SSBohio 18:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your support of the history deletion at Justin Berry

I hope (when your workload reduces) that we can continue our dialogue on this topic. I want to allay your concern that I'm trying to discuss the content of the article on my talk page with you; I'm strictly concerned with policy and conduct. I want to understand the difference between your first decision (to revert Phil Sandifer and keep the history) and your second (to agree with Sandifer's redeletion of the history you restored). I'm happy to continue this conversation on either of our talk pages, but I don't feel that the article talk page is the right forum for a discussion of conduct & policy issues, rather than content. --SSBohio 18:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvey's back

Trying to develop a history of inconsequential edits first, the following was noted:

172.213.30.174|172.213.30.174's edit in Marlon Brando: “Only six months after his death, his third wife Tarita Teriipia published a memior in which she revealed that Cheyenne had recorded in her diary being sexually abused by her father. Tarita suggested this was why Cheyenne had developed schizophrenia and committed suicide.”

Banned editor 172.143.18.73|172.143.18.73's edit in Marlon Brando: “Only six months after his death, his third wife Tarita Teriipia published a memior in which she revealed that Cheyenne had recorded in her diary being sexually abused by her father. Tarita suggested this was why Cheyenne had developed schizophrenia and committed suicide.”

Note the spelling error which I have put in bold lettering. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Jared Taylor

Any chance of this being unprotected? There hasn't been any activity on the dispute since November, so it seems like leaving it protected is not going to accomplish much.P4k (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Osho

Hi Will, I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on Talk:Osho. Things seem to be getting a little excited there. Cheers, -- Jayen466 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Will, thanks for looking in. Things are now a little less excited and more to the point, but edits like this still seem to be more ad hominem than actually concerned with writing an article based on the available sources. -- Jayen466 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Attack on James Stewart (actor)

See: 172.143.87.209 using the same MO as Harv. See: [[6]] Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

No, not an attack at all. Telling the truth about a person is not an attack. James Stewart was indeed a racist, and even Henry Fonda and Leonard Gershe admitted as much. Quite a few young users of the imdb have changed their view of James Stewart after learning of his backward views on race, even if they still like some of his films. (172.188.166.2 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

The text from imdb is unsourced, written by various kinds of people, and not always credible. (For example, the trivia of Frank Capra in imdb mentioned that Frank Capra is great-grandfather of Francis Capra, which is apparently wrong.) (Sorry I can't speak English well) Mr. 172.188.166.2 (and his sockpuppeters) always makes self-assertive, undefended remarks on the articles and talk pages. "Quite a few young users of the imdb have changed their view of James Stewart after learning of his backward views on race"? How do you know? 61.224.51.229 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading the posts on imdb, yahooanswers and elsewhere. (172.207.54.90 (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

See:talk and [[7]]; same MO of a sock puppeteer, Harvey Carter. Bzuk (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC).

Already blocked. Thanks for the heads-up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jbuds?nhgn

Yeah User:JzG mentionned it before that there were more puppets before him although I didn't knew, before you alerted me, about the initial puppet master, since I've only tagged those that blanked JzG's talk page. But I will continue to monitor that user page and I think it is on watchlist still.--JForget 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Selective edits

listen dude, if you are going to keep weighing on behalf of one individuals interests irrespective of the valid significant POV issues already highlighted you really are bringing your integrity as an administrator into doubt. You wouldn't also have religious affiliations with said organization by any chance? I am requesting that you reinstate the edits you made on the talk page minus the links to personal information and other such details.There are valid points raised and you have erased them all. I also suggest that where information has been removed you insert in square brackets [removed by administrator Will Beback] with a link to your page. This is necessary so that other editors are aware of exactly what's happening, who is doing what, and what their affiliations may be (to demonstrate vested interests). Please do not try and be a fascist about this. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW your accusation that I am "outing" some is a complete falsehood, anyone can type Jayen466 into Google and find the exact same information as I, this is not outing nor is compromising someones anonymity, so lets get that straight. The assertions were valid and the claims proven to be accurate, so I fail to see the validity of your objections. This individual has compromised his own anonymity, your accusation is false. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

cool head

Hi Will, sorry to bother you. I have in the past noticed that you have a cool head in contentious situations, well I am feeling frustrated while trying to collaborate with two editors on the article Gun Politics. If not too much trouble I would appreciate your opinion about that situation right now, as I am not sure if I am dealing correctly with the collaboration process there, or not, and would appreciate your advice. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I also am curious about your opinion of the status at Gun politics in the United States. Specifically, I am interested in advice on how to edit in that heated environment, where article space edits exceed talk page edits by 10:1. And/or, how to develop a sense of collaboration in that environment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Osho COI Filed

I would appreciate it if you would take note of the fact that I have, in accordance with your advice, filed a COI dispute, I have also placed a COI template on the Osho article page. There is continued resistance to the inclusion of relevant factual information which has been sourced and cited correctly; and decisions relating to what is or is not relevant to the article are being made by those whom the COI dispute relates to. Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have responded to the allegations and provided examples to try and support the COI case, I don't really have time to fish out every questionable edit.Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Pol64

Hi Will Beback (why is your talk page protected, may I ask?) Could you pop over here and assure Pol64 that I am acting correctly? He has (as of this moment) removed content from a page undergoing MfD on three occasions, and I have reverted him of each one as as far as I am aware the MfD must end and the fate of such content must be decided over concensus. Opinion is split at the moment, so it clearly does not cleanly furfil the criteria for speedy. I (as I stated in the MfD) am favouring deletion, however I want the author to do so voluntarily as a sign of good faith to help end the dispute, rather than being forced to do so over an MfD.

I'm not too fussed if this doesnt happen and if it is deleted by MfD, I have given up resolving it really (poor resolve on my part) but Pol64 believes me to be in cahoots with Viligance, and I was hoping you could help show that he needs to let the MfD run its course, hes calling for my de-sysopping at the moment.

Cheers! SGGH ^speak! 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually they are now, for some reason, calling for me to be desysopped. How strange. Never mind, there is not listening going on on that talk page at the moment. I'll continue to ensure the content that is the subject of the MfD remains on the page until the MfD closes and its fate is decided, but I'll steer clear of further hassle from the users involved. Sorry to have bothered you! SGGH ^speak! 00:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A few reasons. Firstly, Vigilance initially maintained that he was collecting evidence for an ArbCom or some other form of intervention against SqueakBox. While I suggested to him that he keep it on his PC, I can understand the need to keep it on wikipedia for ease of maintainance. Secondly, after investigating the battle between the two, I thought that if Vigilance voluntariy removed the content rather than it being deleted by a 3rd party it would go some way to repairing the rift between the two editors. While I personally still thought it was pretty poor conduct, I had to admit that I also felt that these reasons meant that there would be too much discussion for it to be an un-controversial speedy. I left the same message to both users explaining this, and SqueakBox moved to open an MfD, which I saw as fairer. As it turns out, a number of editors in the MfD have pointed out that each content is a direct quote from SqueakBox, and that they believe that means it is not a personal attack.

I'm not sure if I agree with all of that, but one thing I am sure of is that there was too much controversey (plus an opportunity to mend fences) for a blanket speedy to be added. I hope you see where I was coming from? SGGH ^speak! 00:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see he appreciates you getting involved, even if you and I said the same thing. Wish I had never gotten involved in trying to end this dispute now! Oh well. I've got real life events now, my friend. I bid you a goodnight, and sorry to communicate with you for the first time in such circumstances. SGGH ^speak! 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A Sock attack

A particularly vicious vandal known as Wikzilla has surfaced again in the form of socks: User:68.244.171.75 and User:68.245.43.252. See:[8] and [9]. Can you do your new admin' 'thin? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC).