User talk:Will Beback/archive45

Ottava

If you have to deal with Ottava on a regular basis you truly have my condolences. There's no getting through to some people, even when you're on their side. --GoRight (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

[1]. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI 2

[2] Cool Hand Luke 17:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:PAID

Will, I think that the roadblock on progress at WP:Paid editing has been removed. The topic is still very important, and I'd love to get the proposed policy back on track. If you ever wanted to add something there, but haven't been able to, now is a good time to do it. Thanks for any input. Smallbones (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation Crossroads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Crossroads#Wilson_cloud

HowardMorland (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE thread

I have started an AE thread on your recent edits to Prem Rawat here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Will_Beback. JN466 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about mediation

I've asked a question at the LaRouche mediation page regarding the future of the mediation and would appreciate your input, thanks! -- Atama頭 17:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Osmund Lewry

Just for your information, the Osmund Lewry content kept in Directory space on MyWikiBiz was distributed to MyWikiBiz.com with a grant to MyWikiBiz and its affiliates a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable, irrevocable and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, distribute, publish, create derivative works from and publicly display and perform such Content throughout the world in any media. It was not covered by the GFDL license, which you had incorrectly assumed. Happy editing! -- Thekohser 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad template

Thanks for this deletion:

• Will Beback (talk | contribs) deleted "Template:U:Ron Ritzman" (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)

I was looking for {{u}} but I typed tl:u by mistake. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Partisan

I am. I've sourced the claims of being partisan with RS. I even changed around the Center for Immigration Studies more or less how you phrased the Federation for American Immigration Reform article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:75.15.246.223

Will, I believe User:75.15.246.223 is a sockpuppet of User:Michael93555. The only edits the IP editor has done is revert recent edits by you and me, and we're the main ones reverting his edits at Ridgecrest, California. Any thoughts? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

Would you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Shafarevich&action=history ? This looks like an attempt to whitewash one of the most notorious Russian antisemites. Galassi (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not whitewashing anything: as much as I dislike Oleg Platonov's conspiracy theories I disrespect Shafarevich's anti-semitic ideas. However, we do have an encyclopedia here, hence, we don't collect 'evidence' against personalities we dislike, and we treat them in an encyclopedic manner. As of now, I've left most of Galassi's 'collection' to remain in the article, but I've sort of curtailed it so as to read at least in a way similar to a normal reference work. Cheers, --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 07:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=MqcwpT_AGSsC&pg=PA419&lpg=PA419&dq=shafarevich+antisemite&source=bl&ots=O8yH4T16mX&sig=m5ffb1vH5LDFiBe82qhWsUty70E&hl=uk&ei=YZS0Sq62J5Lh8QbKvsSTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false . You may remove dead links, but do show good faith by adding live ones. Galassi (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alan D Harvey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alan D Harvey. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RolandTravis (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I feel the article should have went through usual editing process first rather than speedy deletion. I also considered that the re-direct was correct as all the material was duplicated.

Talk:Jockstrap

Article talk pages exist solely to discuss improvements to articles. Discussion of the topics themselves are off-topic, such as this one.[3] For more information, see WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:... Deleting material not relevant to improving the article..."   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I read WP:TALK#Others' comments with interest. I see my feeling that others' comments should not be edited was generally correct, but didn't know there could be exceptions other than personal attacks, etc. All the best - Markhh (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bluedogtn

Just go ahead and delete my accounts and user and talk pages along with the sandboxes, and block my access to my accounts! Permission Granted to Will Beback!_BLuE^DOgTn 23:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

We don't link dates anymore, see WP:MOSNUM. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

Hi there, I wondered if you might have time to read through this article and comment on its neutrality and accuracy? I ask since you seem to have more experience than I do about writing on controversial organizations. The article is the subject of a current lawsuit, so if you wish to comment privately by e-mail rather than get involved in the article's talkpage that would be fine. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your comments and suggestions... I'll do as requested!

Best regards, Mark Wick --Mrwick1 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and IPs

You have a user account so there is no reason for you to be making controversial edits without logging in.

I share some PCs with others who reboot to run special apps or reestablish a connection, both at work and home.

Making edits while logged out does not exempt you from the prohibition on edit warring.

I'm aware of that and recently learned 3RR includes consensus as well as editors.

Considering your previous disputes, I advise that you avoid editing the same topics as Squick.

It's my impression I edited nearly all before him, and that he followed me.

It looks like you've had previous warnings already so further disruption or edit warring, even short of 3RR, may lead to a block.

Please consider what I've written above, and that your action on Worldchanging was to be my next request. -MBHiii (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)