User talk:Will Beback/archive3

Archives

• User talk:Will Beback/archive1 - January 2006
• User talk:Will Beback/archive2 - February 2006
• User talk:Will Beback/archive3 - March 2006

Thanks

Thanks for alerting me on that permabanned user's machinations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude on your talk page - since that user was using many IPs there was no other place to comment. If you read his home page it's kinda creepy. -Will Beback 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for alerting me before I got in trouble... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

NLG Protection

Please see reply in talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Lawyers_Guild#Protected.

MSTCrow 01:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell and LewRockwell.com

Will, I do favor the division of the above topics into separate articles. See my position at Talk:Lew Rockwell. Thanks again! Dick Clark 21:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Will I gotta say I'm not 100% with ya on this one. It seems to me that Palmer's criticisms were aimed at Lew, not the website in itself. You can list them on the website article as well but considering the fact that Palmer is clearly critcizing Lew, why shouldn't the criticisms be listed on the page? 03:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

When I re-read Palmer's blog it apears that he is criticizing the publishing of those columnists. -Will Beback 04:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

John Bambenek

Hi. I've re-listed John Bambenek at AfD, since the first debate remained transincluded on AfD when you reverted User:12.221.103.5's edits on the article page, so it'd be nice if there was a record of why it was delisted, even if that record is just closing it per WP:SNOW. I've also transplanted User:12.221.103.5's comments to a fresh AfD, and voted to speedy keep.

I'll be leaving User:12.221.103.5 a note on their talk page, but wanted to give you a heads up so I wouldn't seem to be arbitrarily undoing your edits. Thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia tidy! :)

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree that it hasn't been long enough since the last AfD; keeping it listed and voting to speedy keep is my way of trying to balance process & good sense as best I can. Cheers :)

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rodeo Drive

There is a very slow revert war going on over the Rodeo Drive article that looks like it is between two editors who have previous bad history between them. I'm the one who originally deleted the info added by LaszloWalrus, but I would rather not get involved in what seems to be both a personal as well as editorial dispute. Could you just keep an eye on the article to make sure that things do not escalate. I'll try to dig up some more info to expand the article, then will NPOV the Laszlo info. ^BlankVerse 15:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

69.248.43.27: Yes, I Do Have a Username

This is from 69.248.43.27, I do have a username, IdeArchos (yes, the same IdeArchos who was questioning the validity of including Beltran as a LaRouche collaborator). Often I use this when I am (1): Doing controvercial work, or (2): Because I do not consider it important to use that username (that, and I also notice that I do better edits under the Ip Address, this is probably related to reason 1, since I am too cautious with the username). I hope this message has been explanitory, and, pleasantly revealing to you. Thanks and take care. -- 69.248.43.27 07:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Need help with sock puppet

Hi, I'm having problem with an anon user who refuses to log in and create an account (admitted to it here) and is posting from multiple dynamic IPs. You left a message on one of his anon account pages here User talk:24.0.91.81. I have been compiling a list of IP's he uses User:Stbalbach/anontexan, but I'm not the first one to notice and track his actions (see User:Gamaliel/todo, bottom of page "John Kerry sock puppet"). His attitude is very confrontational and belligerent, basically refusing to use discussion pages to work out differences and entering into 4 and 5 day-long revert wars (but not breaking the 3RR rule) while making single-note edits that are often controversial and name calling. I'm not sure what to do. He is also now manually changing how his IP appears on talk pages, to hide his true IP, as can be seen here. -- Stbalbach 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have an account. I just don;t log in when people like Stalbach are hassling me. Stalbach is monitoring my edits. He must have nothing better to do. Also, when I leave a comment for him on his talk page, he deletes it. 67.15.76.185 01:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If being from Texas is a crime, then I am guilty. I cannot see that my edits have anything to do with the users above. The only commonality is the Texas origin. Unless one is a Dixie Chick or George W. Bush, being from Texas is not a crime. 24.0.91.81 03:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Dear Will:

Would you be so kind as to update Kuban Cossack and me as to the status of our mediation request? We have not heard back from you in a while and are wondering if you are still interested in mediating us. Thank you!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nina Foch

Thanks for the note, I'll contribute to the article when I have some time, for starters I'm trying to find a link to her "official" bio at the USC site to add to the article but I can't find the source. On another note, it looks like Jonah Ayers is back. Marcuse 19:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom G. Palmer

Will, would you care to take a look at the Tom G. Palmer article? There is a bit of an edit war going on, and I am fairly convinced that there are sockpuppets at play. I'm leaving the entry alone for 24 hrs, so take a gander and see what you think. Thanks again, Dick Clark 22:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Abbott Kinney

I may very well write an article on Abbott Kinney! You know that the unincorporated aea of Pasadena known as Kinneloa Estates is named for him? Magi Media 06:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

• Thank you for your kmind words on my Kinney article. As I researched him I found out some interesting things I didn't kow. It's interesting he named his estate with that Hawaiian flare "-loa". Many streets in the development are named with Hawaiiian names, obviously because he just returned from Hawaii. But then he goes and names a beach after his visit to Venice. Interesting! Thanks for the encouragement. Look for my next articles on Andrew McNally and Orange Grove Blvd. PLUS a big contribution to Mt. Wilson. Magi Media 02:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Pioneer Fund

Will, do you have an opinion about this? Talk:Pioneer_Fund#Sentence_wording --Nectar 07:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Stbalbach/anontexan

Hi - This user is really getting out of hand with anon sock puppets. See the history of todays Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Is there anything that can be done? It's a daily event to deal with this guy. If you don't want to get involved yourself I understand, but really what needs to happen is the Sock policy about posting from one account needs to be enforced and the only way to do it is block his accounts. I'm not sure how to proceed with it, any suggestions appreciated. -- Stbalbach 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I've been gathering some evidence about user:Cantstandya to post on AN/I. It looks like I should do so sooner rather than later. I'm not aware of of his involvement with that article, so I appreciate the work you and Adam have done in figuring out the sock/IP accounts used there. -Will Beback 02:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow that's some great research. Let me know if I should do anything to help/contribute. I didn't see Movement to impeach George W. Bush listed or all the IPs at User:Stbalbach/anontexan - If he's dialing a modem pool to get dynamic IPs to avoid blocking, I'm not sure, what can be done about it? -- Stbalbach 06:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Armagh and related articles

Thanks for the clean up, i dont know what this useres deal is. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well what i dont get is he says he is an devout RC of Irish hertage, yet he removed several refrences to the church, other he gave more prominance to the Protistant churches, and he removed the irish names from which the current names of the towns are from. I havent looked over his "orange" edits, he did have another strange artile he wrote, but i dont see it on his list. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: JarlaxleArtemis Detective

Thank you for your appreciation, but your move of the discussion to the admin's noticeboard expelled me outta the discussion - I'm not an admin. Deryck C. 10:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

User:ReSearcher

It appears that this user has some problems with your involvement in the Skull and Bones article. I can't say I can spot any, and have left a note on User talk:ReSearcher to ask for clarification if possible. If you have any comments feel free to add them, as far as I can see this is a content dispute and you have simply been trying to help make the article more manageable than it is now! Petros471 11:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Result of the request for investigation

Hello Will Beback. Note that a request for investigation concerning you was archived or removed because it is a user or content dispute. Such disputes are best resolved through the dispute resolution process. Thanks. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 16:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Socks of Shran/CantStandYa/155

Well well, thanks for the heads up. Good to see he is finally being reigned in. It's worth noting that this user also signed me up to a lot of spam. -Christiaan 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Instructor needed

Can you teach me some of your malicious rollback strategies? I could use a refresher course. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Justin Berry article

Please explain why you reverted the citations I added to the Justin Berry article? Is there something untrustworthy about the New York Times that we should all know about? Thanks. Corax 01:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't violate WP:OFFICE changes. -Will Beback 02:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

How am I violating the WP:OFFICE changes? According to WP:OFFICE, the article is no longer under "Office protection." Also, Jimbo encouraged users to rewrite the article, which is precisely what I've been trying to do admist all of these unjustified reverts. Corax 02:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is already underway at talk:Justin Berry. You may be blocked if you engage in revert warring over the page. -Will Beback 02:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Swift

Well, less than an hour after semi-protection was lifted from Tom Swift, you-know-who went straight back for it. Anything that can be done about it? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

... I'm confused, I guess. Is there a reason you reverted from 69.205.1.109's version to the consensus version, and then reverted back to 69.205.1.109's version, before sprotecting? I don't know if I'm even protesting, I just don't understand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

friendship

Hi, I am sorry but I have to disagree with you, friendship IS the name of the game, and is extensively discussed in the texts, such as the Phaedrus. Any reason why I should not add it back in the "See also" section of Pederasty in ancient Greece? Haiduc 23:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case then please describe the connection in the text rather than simply including the link. -Will Beback 23:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Iraq war Veterans

As spokesmen for the deads estates, next of kin have the legal right to speak for the dead. grazon 23:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

replying at Category talk:Anti-Iraq war Veterans. -Will Beback 00:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your userspace

Your userspace needs to be cleanup the very large text that it simply looks like vandalism. I have to revert your page to earlier version which I noticed before. I'll maybe add a transplant picture that I saw on your page. OK? - adnghiem501 00:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd posted it myself, but apparently it freaks out people. I was going to take it away but hadn't gotten around to it. So thanks for taking care of it. Cheers, -Will Beback 01:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Road

I listed this "article" by RJBurkhart for deletion but find that so far the comments are far more positive than I expected. Could you add an opinion? Rmhermen 01:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Perhaps it is just me but this is the major section of the article:

OCTA-Trailshead Tours include

snip

• Trail up over Mount Oread on Kansas Univeristy campus

I do not get any meaning out of this at all - what is this? How is it relative to the article? What in the world is "OCTA-Trailshead Tours" and why do we care? Rmhermen 02:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, so maybe I gave him too much of an assumption of good faith. His contributions haven't improved as much as I thought. -Will Beback 07:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username (among other things)?

Hi, Will. Could you have a look at two posts I made in the last half hour to WP:DRV. There's something rather fishy going on, and I don't know the background, but I wonder would a username block be in order? Cheers. AnnH ♫ 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Northmeister

I see that you have been dealing with this poster for some time now. Can you please ask him to stop trying to get into revert wars with me in various different articles. See the Democracy Now page history. That see also section is in itself pov "Independent left/ what it is all about" with a bunch of links to "socialism" "justice" etc... What does that have to do with the radio show?--Jersey Devil 04:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Must I really have to put up with these kinds of attacks? [1] (note: I have resolved my dispute in a very good way with the above poster, this is about another poster.)--Jersey Devil 09:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Now he just added more personal attacks on the talk page. [2]--Jersey Devil 15:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Michelson

Thanks! I guess on second glance the part about Michelson House isn't bad. The bit is true, since I actually live in Michelson House in the Shoreland Hall. However, a friend of mine who also lives in my house told me he had put a section about our house on the page about the person it's named for, as a joke/experiment to see if anyone really cares on Wikipedia, and that it was never deleted. Myself, being a caring and compassionate Wikipedian, thought I should go and delete that. Now I realize that the original Michelson House "section" was either cut down to a reasonable sentence, or else it was always that way and my friend exaggerated. I didn't really think before deleting something originally meant as a kind of vandalism. Tix 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

UCLA revert

Are you aware that, in addition to restoring images, you removed a bunch of text that was added? -- SCZenz 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - a sentence on UCLA's overall excellence. I've re-added it now. Thanks for catching that. -Will Beback 22:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there might have been a paragraph on sports too? -- SCZenz 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything else, but if you can then please fix it. One paragraph on sports moved down with the re-insertion of the athletic logo, but it wasn't added or deleted. Cheers, -Will Beback 22:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I probably just misread the diff. Thanks for checking. -- SCZenz 23:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship

About the comments you added to this page, you know this was about the images in the lolicon article and not about the links to the imageboards right? Gerard Foley 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, just making sure. Gerard Foley 23:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

One of these days...

One of these days, I realize that my constant requests will irritate you enough to stop helping me out when I am not sure how to proceed. Do you care, though, to weigh in here on the current question about my adherence to Wikipedia policy on my user page? If not I understand, but I would appreciate the opinion of an administrator with whom I've worked before. Dick Clark 23:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I should have linked here. Thanks, Dick Clark 23:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind words. Regards, Dick Clark 00:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The title "Dr."

In reference to your recent changes on a page concerning the title Dr., I am trying get a discussion going on the wikipedia style page[3]. Your input would be helpful in that discussion. Arbusto 02:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Mark Levin page

The anonymous vandals are resurfacing. You might want to stop by. Eleemosynary 02:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. The anon seems to be getting feisty. -Will Beback 06:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

formatting

Will,

I apologize regarding the formatting issue---I was trying to revert the vandalism from the user who had edited the article before me. I will try to revert the edit without messing with the text, but I would ask that you ban DJac75 for his vandalism. Thanks

-Roger

username change

See: Username changes now allowed for up to 20,000 edits: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-03-13/Technology_report ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice...me? no, never:)

I have no beef with the editor. That doesn't mean I agree with the concensus as I do not feel that our userspace are "ours". Nor do I see that they should be used to advertise. I shouldn't have singled him out, especially if this is going on elsewhere in userspace. If so, then as I said, it's a revelation to me. I may still discuss the matter with the Wikipedia Foundation but will only do so if I can ensure that this editor is not singled out again. I'll probably wait a week or more and then decide. I do not feel that anything he did by advertising was malicious in any way, just so you understand that. The community in general hardly pays attention AN or AN/I so the words of a relative few no's and yes's do not a concensus make. I've spoken to a few others and I said nothing about the situation in general, but they agree that advertising does nothing to help us build a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 05:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Shran

Thanks for the update. Your msg made me realize the need for a digest version of the noticeboard, such as a template added to talk pages that lists topics (or TOC) by AN subpage. —Viriditas | Talk 11:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

citation

Can you or someone else provide a citation regarding Sobran on Shakespeare?

-Rog

He wrote a whole book on the topic, Alias Shakespeare -Will Beback 21:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Larougite

Yea sorry about that, it pretty stupid of me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

List of ethnic slurs

I wish you would have nominated it to be moved to Wiktionary, rather than be deleted. Perhaps you could change your vote to Move.?

--Primetime 08:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--Primetime 09:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Stephan Kinsella

Will, nice catch. You assumed correctly that Kinsella is not dead. Cheers, Dick Clark 14:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Joe Sobran

Will

I have some very very serious issues with the Joe Sobran page right now

This Jac fellow writes that Sobran criticized "Israel and its Jewish supporters"

This implies that Sobran was simply criticizing Israel and some of Israel supporters happened to be Jewish and therefore by proxy he was criticizing them

However, this is not reflective of the truth

If you look at the cited writings, Sobran goes after Jews for being a disruptive force in society, promoters of immorality, etc, not as a functioin of their support for Israel

I am not equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, I fully affirm they can be seperate, but Sobran is both.

Also, Jac has clearly violated the 3 RR rule and you have not blocked him.

Please take care of this issue or bring in another administrator who can

-Roger

Karenga page

Hey, I was just wondering what the reason is for the sprotect on Ron Karenga. I think there might have been some mistake. I personally didn't notice anything particularly uncivil about the editing process that was going on for that page, and certainly nothing that could be called vandalism. I saw it as just the normal and arguably healthy working out of pov and npov issues, with valid points on both sides of the debate. TheKaplan 17:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for filling me in. TheKaplan 17:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

blockquote removal

Hi, would you say why you removed the short quote from WP on Scaife page. Thanks. skywriter 19:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs

It's great to see that we have so many people interested in working to clean up the article (ie, all those voting Keep). Since it looks like it has a good chance of not getting deleted, maybe we should put together a work sheet for each of them, and task them with the responsibility of cleaning the article up. It would make a nice little WikiProject (and probably take as much work as most of them). Guettarda 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

shran

If you do not stop calling me (anon texan) "shran", I am going to bring you to arbcom. I am not shran and your automatic reverting of my edits is a perfect case of ad-hominem reverts. I am warning you to stop it now or face the consequences of ArbCom.

Plase respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Jbamb/Alpha

Hi actually I don't think that its significant really, just more convientient. Jbamb's article gets fought for, and he comes out squeeky clean. If you don't mind contributing to the RFCU could you compile a listing of the IPs involved? It may prove insightful. Mike _{(T C)} 01:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Warmth and generosity

Dear Will,

I am not sure that you are a physical person, but I anyway want to thank you and the Wikipedia community for the warm and welcomming attitude you show us newcommers. Being a Swedish Wikipedian, I fell great awe when contributing to this mother-wiki of yours. I will do my very best not to disappoint you. --Astor Piazzolla 09:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Will, are ya around?

-Rog

Thanks for getting back to me. I assumed you would have a resp. regarding my last post on your talk page?

This aspect of the disagreement got lost among the other issues being discussed. If you could take a look at this I'd appreciate it.

This Jac fellow writes that Sobran criticized "Israel and its Jewish supporters"

This implies that Sobran was simply criticizing Israel and some of Israel supporters happened to be Jewish and therefore by proxy he was criticizing them

However, this is not reflective of the truth

If you look at the cited writings, Sobran goes after Jews for being a disruptive force in society, promoters of immorality, etc, not as a functioin of their support for Israel

I am not equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, I fully affirm they can be seperate, but Sobran is both.

-Rog

Ricky Martin debate

Will, I hope you will accept my apologies for going off on an emotional rant and personally attacking you in the Talk page (which I have modified). The points you make are, of course, completely valid and I will endeavour to include some verified information in my forthcoming amendment to the article. I tend to get worked up about things that I don't really care that much about, ultimately, when I meet some opposition! The Wikipedia editing suggestions, if I bothered to pay closer attention to them, would help in this regard (specifically the point of waiting a while before firing off a response to something ;-).

Kind regards, Sak Mo Dee 21:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Trolling and Stalking"

That user, User:Northmeister, is now accusing both of us of "trolling and stalking" on edit summaries. [4]--Jersey Devil 01:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Now he is engaging in "revenge reverts" on the Democracy Now article for my reverting the Pat Buchanan page back. This is starting to get frustrating. [5]--Jersey Devil 01:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I call them as I see them. If your engaged in such activity I should point it out for the community to see. I see your not honorable either as we had come to an agreement about your tactics in the past Jersey Devil, and you broke that agreement to be civil and discuss before reversion of my edits. I gavce you a break on the Democracy Now page even though you were in my opinion engaged in erroneous reverts because we had agreed to be civil and you agreed to discuss it in a rational manner with Radical Mallard. You have shown that you are incapable of this. So be it. I stand behind my original points made on that page. (and this is addressed to the two of you, since your more than likely socks of each other). --Northmeister 01:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See the page history of the Democracy Now, he is trying to get into revert wars with me on purpose now. Jesus, why isn't it easier to get rid of these trouble makers.--Jersey Devil 01:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You are the trouble maker, and I gave you a break before. You then proceeded to harass Radical Mallard. Enough is enough of this harassment. --Northmeister 01:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Now he is doing revenge reverts on other pages which I have reverted. This is getting ridiculous. [6] [7]--Jersey Devil 01:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No I am cleaning up your harassment and reverts without discussion on other pages as I see you engaged in the same tactics with others. You must stop harassing users and using the revert without discussion. If you feel soemthing is wrong them indicate this on the talk page and in a civil manner discuss it. You have been harassing and stalking Striver for awhile I see. --Northmeister 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If Jersey Devil is harassing another editor please bring that to WP:AN/I. -Will Beback 02:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reported his recent actions there. Hopefully the administrators take some action on this. There are to many people here that are able to get away with this nonsense as is.--Jersey Devil 02:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My Rfc

Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Jac

Will,

Someone really needs to step up regarding this Jac fellow and the Joe Sobran article. He has violated the 3RR rule on numerous occasions. When are you going to ban him?

-Roger

I'm reminded of the scene in Candide in which the English Admiral is about to be executed on the grounds that during a battle he was "not near enough to his antagonist":

"But", replied Candide, "the French admiral must have been as far from him."

The cause of the reverts is well known: your desire to remove pertinent and factually correct information in order to present a caricature in its place.DJac75 06:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

stormfront

Hey I noticed you removed the link. I thought it was a KKK forum. What exactly is it?

Thanks,

Jerry Jones 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Stormfront.org certainly has indirect ties to the KKK, since its founder was a former member. But it does not claim any current direct ties to the KKK. It is simply an unaffiliated discussion forum, though it may share similar goals as the KKK. -Will Beback 21:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)"

I just skimmed over the stormfront forum and noticed KKK recruiting posts so I figured it was a KKK message board. I believe they are openly affiliated with the KKK. Afterall most of the posters are or were in the KKK. Is it ok if I put the link back up? I think it's good because it shows the viewpoint of the KKK and if people have questions they can just go and ask. I consider it informative.

Thanks,

Jerry Jones 21:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is relevant because the article was discussing the KKK. If someone wanted to learn about the KKK they should talk to KKK members as a viable option as opposed to someone who has never spoken to them. I think it is beneficial for people to acknowledge all viewpoints regardless of their radicalism. If there is a communist forum on the web I support adding a link to the communist page. It's good to ask questions and understand why people have certain viewpoints. I will add it again but I will add why in the talk page. Hope it will be accepted.

Jerry Jones 22:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok great. I added the forum back in external links and just put "A Ku Klux Klan forum" but I will change it to something along the lines of what you recommended.

Jerry Jones 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn't correct. Let's continue this at talk:Ku Klux Klan. -Will Beback 22:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hi Will: I'm a bit concerned about this User:Jerry Jones. He joined recently, after User:JJstroker stopped editing, and made almost exactly the same collection of implicitly anti-semitic edits as JJstroker. A subset of the edits are efforts to put a better spin on hate groups, as you have been in discussion with him about above. Those are nominally acceptable though, since however suspect his motives, the changes themselves are not individually outrageous. There's also an effort to Christianize Thomas Jefferson that a bunch of these white supremacist have tried for, I have no idea why. But the main thing Jerry Jones has done, and the thing that is disruptive, is that he edits biographies of vaguely left-ish people, and adds "Jewish" to the first sentence of their description. In many of the bios, the person just simply isn't Jewish; but in other cases, that simply isn't connected to their notability. So in Jerry Jones' thinking, no one is a politician, novelist, actor, etc., but always a "Jewish politician", "Jewish novelist", "Jewish actor", or whatever. It's not inherently defamatory in those cases where it's true (well, it's not defamatory where false either, merely false), but it's also not topical for the lead (except in cases where it is: an actor primarily in the Yiddish theatre is more notably Jewish—or in that context, probably more notable if not Jewish—than is some Hollywood actor who may have a great grandparent who was Jewish).

I'm pretty sure that these additions come off of some neo-nazi "hit list" floating around somewhere in those circles. Some editor(s) with this unreliable list in hand is going through bios to add the ethnic/religious claim with huge prominence... sort of a yellow star on their lapels, I think. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR

DJac75 and DickClarkMises have both violated 3RR on the Joseph_Sobran article. -Rog

Here's for DJac75 (here's the four, could probally find more)

• (cur) (last) 05:47, 20 March 2006 DJac75 m
• (cur) (last) 06:07, 20 March 2006 DJac75 (rv)
• (cur) (last) 14:47, 20 March 2006 DJac75 (rv vandalism)
• (cur) (last) 17:19, 20 March 2006 DJac75 (rv. Which wiki rules would those be?)

DickClarkMises (actually 5)

• (cur) (last) 18:42, 19 March 2006 DickClarkMises
• (cur) (last) 18:57, 19 March 2006 DickClarkMises
• (cur) (last) 15:31, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises
• (cur) (last) 15:58, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises
• (cur) (last) 20:57, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises

Four tildas aye?

Rogerman 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

-Roger

Rgoer, the first edit by user:DJac75 does not appear to be a revert. Before we go further with this please read WP:3RR so you'll know what qualifies. Thanks -Will Beback 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Will, you're right. Slight error on my part. The revert came a few seconds earlier

(cur) (last) 05:47, 20 March 2006 DJac75

If you look at the page history you can see that he made two changes within that same minute

Rogerman 22:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

-Roger

A), have you read WP:3RR? B) I saw the earlier edit, but I appeared to be a fresh edit, not a revert. Where was the text that he reverted to? C) Can you please place the offending "diffs" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR? I'd rather not block people on an article that I'm involved in. Thanks, -Will Beback 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of your logic there...as someone who edits these areas of the encyclopedia shouldn't you be the one to deal with the blocking? As an administrator you cannot allow emotional considerations to affect your judgement.

I trust that you won't ever block myself or any other of the editors who take a realistic approach to Sobran and his ilk.

Rogerman 23:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Admiistrators are expected to act without regard to the viewpoints of the editors. -Will Beback 23:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Ill be civil when dickclarkmises and djac75 promise to renounce anti-semitism and racism and racialism and work against them all diligently

06:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)CaliforniaDreamlings —This unsigned comment was added by CaliforniaDreamlings (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 March 2006.

Everyking block

Hi. I noticed you blocked Everyking for a violation of his parole as laid out in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking_3. While a agree that his comments were, at least, beyond the bounds of acceptability (specifically [8]), I don't know if a block is necessary, and a week seems harsh to me. I won't lift it without discussing it with you first, but I wanted to bring it up that I don't think this block is really necessary. A stern warning that he's skirting the boundaries of his ruling, yes. But not a block, in my opinion. Thanks in advance.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

He's already been given stern warnings; has been through three arbcom cases; has filed many requests for clarification; has always had the rulings (already crystal clear) clarified; and has been blocked 19 times, which must be something of a record for an admin. He violated the ruling last night and again today, and knew both times that he was violating it, because he said himself that he expected to be blocked, so he's simply boundary-testing. Now, he has presumably done what he always does, which is to rush off to find an admin to plead innocence to. At some point, he has to be treated as though he's an adult, all the evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate this stuff. Is it possible for me to agree with Bish in principle, think however that Everyking may have had a valid point, agree that saying it was a violation of his parole, agree with Slim that he needs a slap sometime, but still think that a week was a wee bit too much? Also, is the diff that Sean provided (combined with the restored comment above) in fact the action that he was blocked for? - brenneman^{L} 06:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not one for blocking other admins either, except in unusual circumstances. What length of time do you suggest? -Will Beback 06:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think 24 hours would be sufficient with a stern warning that if this happens again within a week the next block will be for 48. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the majority of Everyking's blocks have been unblocked by a different admin then the one who placed it. That tells me that he has probably become accustomed to being unblocked. I'm not happy about enforcing that pattern. He is questioning admin actions again by asking for one to be overturned - his block. Questioning admin actions is precisely what he is on parole for. All of that said, I told him that if he can keep from commenting on the block or any other admin actions for 24 hours that I would unblock him myself. -Will Beback 09:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

(CC'd from my email to you) You are absolutely right. I apologize for unblocking without comment - it was grevious mistake on my part. You were 100% right both in placing the block, and in negotiating with EK in exchange for good behavior - efforts I see now that I short circuited with my own attempt. Raul654 00:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely admin actions should be questioned. It is a very, very odd ruling that the Arb Com would prohibit someone from questioning admin actions. That is akin to censorship. I can't imagine any situation where this could be legitimate.

Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman

I thought you might like appreciate a quick Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman; you've recently contributed there and you might have seen that a moderation was attempted on some disputed edits made by User:Jacrosse. he agreed to the moderation but did not take part in it. It agreed to delete some unsupported and referenced claims (basically, that Shachtman's current, far from fragementing and collapeing into cold-war social democarcym actually effected a Leninist takeover, both of US social democracy and then of US neo-conseratism. At this point Jacrosse is engaging in obvious acts of vandalism without even beginning to comment on the Talk pages. Perhaps Jacrosse will sit down to Talk, however it seems unlikely. Arbitration may be on the cards. If you can spare a little time over the next week or two, I would appreciate it if you could pop into Talk:French Turn or Talk:Max Shachtman. Your contribution has been very valuable and, of course, the danger is that all parties in this dispute get tangled up and lose our way towards improving the entries. Thanks for the help you've already give. --Duncan 17:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Camp Pendleton

I understand why you deleted the Camp Pendleton article but as a side note I don't delete anything if it is from www.globalsecurity.org. 95% of the info on that site is not their own. That website just copies and pastes from US government sites and then slaps a copyright on the info?. How is that legit? I guarantee that the Camp Pendleton info was taken from an older version of the Marine Corps' website. Hopefully I can track the info down on a gov't sitre to replace it. Cheers

Mediation update

Will:

Back in February, you took Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Romanization of the Russian language; I was contacted by one of the parties about it, and wasn't sure of the status. Could you update me on what is going on with it? Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

LewRockwell.com

I'll note this over there, too, but your assertion is incorrect. At no point does Palmer claim that Buckley calls Sobran an anti-semite. I'd appreciate your reversion of the removal of the fact tags, as it's bad form to do so as well as incorrect. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentor

Are you willing to reactivate as an active mentor for user:JarlaxleArtemis? Linuxbeak has indicated he is too busy with other matters. I also left a note for User:JSpudeman the other designated mentor. JarlaxleArtemis has been causing problems, and has been extremely sluggish about completing his requirements. Without an active mentor he will have to be blocked. -Will Beback 23:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can although he really didn't need any supervision when I was active. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Two thumbs up about the Caption for San Gabriel Mountains

Thank you so much for the wonderful caption for th SB Mouantins as for those you have added to Mt. San Jacinto and Santa Monica Mts. However, I would like to know you would like to decrease the resoultion of the panorama form 2048 to 1950. Besides, could you please indentify the peaks from this link[[9]] I can just id Mt. Wilson and Mt. Harvard, I would like to find out Strawberry Peak as well. Geographer 04:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Asian supremacy

Hey Will. Take a look at this new article that was created. What do you make of it? Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 05:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism suicides

I know from former members about Baird being urged to kill herself, but none of them are willing to be public about it and there is no printed source. So if you want to remove that bit from Cult suicide then I can't object. -MichaelBluejay 06:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentorship

Sure, i'll be his mentor.. provided he behaves himself. The magical Spum-dandy 10:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Sheriff badge.gif

There aint room enough in this town fer two of us!

Yer on! The magical Spum-dandy 10:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Spic

This article was formerly dealt with here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Spic, but User:Primetime decided to make it into a wiktionary article...much like the issue with this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs. I have tried to make the article somehow understandable, for example in how one uses the term in realistic and common discource. The editor shows no understanding of what community standards are; I pointed him to the formatting of Nigger, but he just won't take others "messing with his article". I'm afraid I violated 3RR in trying to get the article to have info that an encyclopedia-reader would prefer, because he keeps making it into a dictionary entry. Please help. IP Address 22:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User: IP Address keeps on making personal attacks on my talk page.^[10] I warned him on his talk page about the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, but he kept up, anyway. We're having a dispute over an article I wrote, "spic". I kept most of his changes to the entry, even though they're unsourced (my sources are listed at the bottom of the entry) and I think, somewhat irrelevant. Now, he's edit warring with me, even though his version deletes a lot of information. (He says that etymology is irrelevant to an article about a word.)^[11] His current version is unacceptable because it deletes a lot of helpful information and it's repetitive.--Primetime 22:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Will, you can see that this is going nowhere: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_IP_Address He/she is trying to cover his/her tracks by blaming somebody else for not following consensus. I at least tried to make the article useable. He is not yielding per User:Antaeus Feldspar and User:Ta bu shi da yu. IP Address 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the previous debate, that was when the article was one sentence long.--Primetime 23:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should see the links shown you, or forever be in the dark when others are communicating their sentiments. You never intended to pay attention to what others have to say, as you already admit to wanting to drive me away. See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs. Please pay attention to the concerns of this Wikipedia community! IP Address 23:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific than that. Most of the votes on the "Articles for deltion/List of ethnic slurs" page are for keeping the article.--Primetime 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are knowingly ignoring the reasons--by rule--Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not! It won't work! IP Address 23:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Will, please review Talk:Spic. IP Address 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentor

Are you willing to reactivate as an active mentor for user:JarlaxleArtemis? Linuxbeak has indicated he is too busy with other matters. I also left a note for User:JSpudeman the other designated mentor. JarlaxleArtemis has been causing problems, and has been extremely sluggish about completing his requirements. Without an active mentor he will have to be blocked. -Will Beback 23:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can although he really didn't need any supervision when I was active. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 02:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but JA needed more supervision than he received, IMO. He may have been on his good behavior initially but it didn't last. Starting back in December he blew off the unbanning requirements, in particular apologizing to those he'd attacked and undoing the damage he'd caused, but no one followed up and he simply deleted the notice from his talk page. He's reverted to the behaviors which led his two ArbCom cases: ignoring policies and guidelines, edit warring to defy MOS, misusing image tags, and being uncivil towards other editors. He would've been on a one-year ArbCom ban if his vicious and widespread attacks hadn't gotten him banned "permanently". He came back because Linuxbeak is such a nice guy, and because he promised to do a number of things. JA is still on parole and is now violating it. He lied outright on his user page this week, asserting that he never created doppelganger accounts even though a few days later he found the passwords for most of them. I've asked him to stop editing voluntarily until he completes his unbanning requirements, and I finally told him I'd block him if he did not attend to it. He's promised (for the nth time) that he knows all of the rules and will follow them. Without active, involved mentorship this editor can't keep editing here. I'll work with you to make sure that JA lives up to the standards of the community. Thanks, -Will Beback 08:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I wasnt aware of that. You see when people have problems with him they should notify the mentors. Sure, I'll gladly work with you. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually user:Linuxbeak has been contacted several times, both by me and other users, and he finally asked if I could try to find someone else to take over for him. Also, I posted several messages to Wikipedia talk:Mentorship Committee. Anyway, let's move forward. -Will Beback 00:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have payed more atention to that talk page. My apologies. Lets move forward at warp speed --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Is it posible to have a link to your talk page on your signature? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

New here

and I keep seeing your name in posts on subjects that seem controversial. So I guess that means you are the bureacrat to talk to here, before pushing on to publishing. What are the rules and such in regards to publishing an article, what are the to do's and the not to do's as it were, in reagrds to thi awesome spot?

thanks for any tips, I like your spoken articles too.

Ku Klux Klan article

Hello. Thank you for your comment. I have looked back at the revert and am shocked aghast. Given my previous experience reverting vandalism from this article numerous times, I must have made a knee-jerk reaction to the large removal from this page. I always look carefully at edits before reverting them, and have never used the rollback (popup) feature to knowingly revert good-faith edits. This was a case in which my usual standards were not fulfilled, and I apologise for this transgression. Thank you for notifying me about this. I will be apologising to the user concerned. - Tangotango 09:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Jerry Jones

It was no abberation: [[12]] Jayjg ^(talk) 10:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

watchlist

Is it possible to watch a particular user's contributions? Rogerman 17:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

a little help if you're willing

Would appreciate your input here: [13]. Thanks. -207.172.242.187 17:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

JJstroker and Jerry Jones

CheckUser confirms they are most likely the same editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Quakers, Sunnis and Shias

I'm really hoping you'll offer an explanation as to which definition of cult or sect you would like used on the "groups referred to" page. You have avoided my question every time I've asked it. I would like an answer. cairoi 02:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Outer Banks Web Cams "Link Spam"

Hey Will, this isn't a commercial site. It's a user community of the Outer Banks. The links are directly to the web cams themselves. I feel that this site is an asset to the wiki user community. I hope you'll understand too. Thanks Mike

What is wrong with additional links?

Can you tell me what is wrong with the links? They are user communities just like

  1. FORDification.com - The '67-'72 Ford Pickup Resource
  2. F150online.com - Ford F150 Enthusiast Site

On the F-series article?

If F-150.com isn't allowed, then I would assume F150online.com isn't allowed, as well FORDification.com isn't allowed. Who decides whether a link is relevent? The sites are valuable to the community. The aforementioned sites are FOR-Profit. They have ads. Neither OuterBanks.net nor F-150.com is an "Ad" site. There is quality content on both F-150.com and OuterBanks.net. Please explain what is wrong with these, so I may better understand the Wiki Community.

I earnestly believe these are quality sites. FYI, on the Outer Banks article www.outerbanks.org is a FOR-Profit organization. From their site "The Outer Banks Visitors Bureau"..."is the lead marketing and promotional agency for The Outer Banks of North Carolina". If commercial links aren't allowed, I believe this will have to be removed as well.

Rind et al

Hello Will, could you explain why you remove Rind et al article from the PAW list. I'm planning on putting it back but wanted to check with you first. FloNight ^talk 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I put it back. I don't see why it would be removed. --DanielCD 23:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Larry Hagman

I added that "entertainment industry" aspect because it's true...observe the weekly barrage from Jessica Lange, Alec Baldwin,etc...the vitrolic hatred that they spu is really interesting. I didn't want to single out good ol J.R. —This unsigned comment was added by Bairdso66 (talk • contribs) .

Many people from all walks of life criticize politicians. The article is about Hagman, not about the entertainment industry's opinion of the president. -Will Beback 00:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

mediation

Perhaps you were unaware that this process is going on: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12_Clay_Aiken_page_dispute_regarding_the_John_Paulus_allegations. I don't see how we can unblock the page until it is resolved. I don't see how a resolution can be reached under the current circumstances either. Mixvio is foul-mouthed and continually stirs up conflict (which, unfortunately, he is successful at provoking) and while he is the one who called for the mediation, he has stated that he will not compromise and wishes only to force arbitration in this matter. There is another individual involved in this dispute who is, I believe, someone well known to both of us. Under at least one previous username now abandoned or banned, and under a new current ID, different from the ID he is using on the Aiken/Paulus pages, this individual pursues a similar agenda on other Wikipedia pages--that of outing celebrities he is convinced are gay through reference to spurious sources. If it is the same person, he's playing it unusually cool for now in the Aiken-Paulus dispute. It is ironic that Mixvio thinks he is an ally. This individual spews his homophobia all over the internet with unlimited IPs and multiple usernames. Any advice or support you can offer to help resolve this situation would be very much appreciated. -Jmh123 01:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Beback: I wouldn't call it enmity, it is a search for Jerry Brown's truth. Hank chapot 02:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

re User:XavierVE

Mainly so that if he comes back it'll trip my watchlist. Not too many people have the self-control to leave their user page like that, I guess.

I figured that he's pretty much an instant-ban case because he made a threat - in his case a possibly credible threat, as he's some kind of minor celebrity I gather - against the WikiMedia Foundation. That's just basically the one thing that makes the suits go Tilt. He did some other uncool stuff but that's not so important. If I was an admin I'd have just permablocked him, I guess, unless there's some other procedure.

Since he's probably gone I don't wanna go through a whole admin process. If he comes back, then. Or if somebody else wants to do it, fine. Herostratus 17:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, well, it wasn't a legal threat, it was a bad-publicity threat, but considering he runs a popular web site, credible I guess, something along the lines of "I'll do as I please here, and you can't ban me because I'll scream to the press that you're banning anti-pedophiles" or something. It's in the talk page history.

For the record, I don't know they guy except that he runs perverted-justice.com, which I also don't know much about. You hear different things, but I kind of gather he has a bounty-hunter-type mentality, which can be great - we need bounty hunters sometimes - but to be on Wikipedia (which he doesn't seem to want to be, I think he came here just to edit the article about his website) he'd have to tone that down a whole lot. Herostratus

I don't edit the article regarding the website and I'm perfectly happy to put what I want on my userpage so long as it doesn't break wikipedian rules. It's not a threat either, I'm actually quite pleased with how Wikipedia has handled itself in the last couple months per the mailing list, which I keep up on. Considering that I log into the account everyday, I don't see a credible reason for you to call me "inactive." As for having a "bounty hunter mentality", nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than taking it upon yourself to edit people's pages, perhaps you should start a dialogue. If Wikipedia has a problem with users linking to websites critical of Wikipedia on their profiles, you should say that rather than this seemingly false trumped up tripe that you've posted.

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia may have an allergy against people who might have a critical eye towards practices here. Interesting XavierVE 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, we all are critical of Wikipedia and all of us are trying to make it better. Constructive efforts are always appreciated. Sniping, or unconstructuve complaints, don't help anyone and aren't appreciated, but are usually tolerated. -Will Beback 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Suspicious new accounts

Hey Will,

Sorry to be back here again, but look at this--a new user welcoming another user with no contributions. That same user also welcomed himself and proceeded to blank a talk page. I put a modified test 2a on his talk page, but his other edit summaries seem suspicious to me.

See ya',

Primetime 01:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks.--Primetime 01:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Romanization of the Russian language

Will:

One of the parties to this mediation asked that I reassign it, as there hasn't been any activity on it. I left you a note a while ago, and haven't heard back, so I assume that you're okay with it being reassigned. I've asked the parties to reconfirm their interest in the case, and if they do so, I'll find someone to take it. If you're still interested, you're of course welcome to take it. I wanted to fill you in, so you wouldn't feel like I'd gone behind your back. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Extension to WP:NPA

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Extension ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)