User talk:Will Beback/archive51

RFC

If you have any thoughts on this matter, you might want to participate in this RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your accusation that my edits were to conform to the Movement manual of style

When this recently came up on the TM talk page, I pointed out that I was following what WP:TRADEMARK said in 2007 when I made these edits, which was this: "Avoid use of trademarks as a noun except where any other usage would be awkward." See[1]. Is there any chance you can delete that from your evidence? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You explicitly say in your evidence that these changes conflicted with the Wikipedia manual of style. That's false, since at the time the manual explicitly stated not to use a trademark as a noun. I'm alerting you to that false statement. Please address it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please strike. Thanks much. TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

MIA

Our joint editing seemed to be going well, but IP 71 was supposed to post editing of my last section on March 1 and I have heard nothing since. Do you know what has happened? Everyone seemed so anxious to proceed to the "exciting" parts (and I am probably the only one who felt the poetry section was the exciting part). Well, I'm ready to move on, but everyone's gone home. What's the protocol in this case?Trouver (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to No copying

Thanks Will, I found some other more objective sites (for example http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7359) and am re-adding the section. Armand Sağ (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence

Hello Will Beback. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 2800 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Will Beback/TM-Evidence

Hi Will. As you were still over the word count by 500 words, I've refactored the evidence that was over the limit and put it at User:Will Beback/TM-Evidence - I've also linked to it from your evidence page. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking for Neutral Editor

Hi Will. Just a note that I posted a request on Ludwigs2 talk page to ask if he would step in as a neutral editor. The delay caused by IP 71's absence is causing a lot of bad feeling. LoreMariano (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lexington pic

I could take a picture up there. I think you are talking about the Med Tech College building - what does it look like? There are several office buildings in that area, I think that one is the tallest

Censusdata (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about workshop

HI, Will. I see that you proposed a remedy for Fladrif's incivility but didn't also have a finding of fact in that regard. Is that an oversight, or isn't it necessary to have done a related finding of fact? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Linda Esther Gray

Will, I am hoping you maybe able to help me with the above article as I know so few admins on WIKI and your comments and knowledge seems extensive (and sensible) from the TM thing I really wish I had not got involved in!

I made the above article (Linda Esther Gray)last week, but alas in my haste, and due to time constraints, appear to have broken a copyright violation making large parts of my text to like text from the subjects own site (see the article for this). I am presently in the process of re-writing the offending section and would appreciate your feedback to see if I am going along the correct lines? (I will add the references once it is back in place). The re-write can be found here [2] I would really appreciate your thoughts if you get time. Thanks Tucker ^talk 08:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Will. Thank you for your response. I have added the references as you indicted. I think the original problem was purely to do with the similarities between what I had inserted and this site [[3]]. Unfortunately, apart from this, and her book there is very little on the net about her (making references look repetitive at best). It is an odd situation and adds to her "mystique" among those of us who have heard her, a story recounted here [[4]].A fact made odder by virtue of her recording of Tristan and Isolde under Goodall (the first digital recording thereof) having been deleted for so long and now selling for very large sums of cash [[5]] (I am lucky enough to own a copy). Again, I appreciate you are busy,but when ever you get the time (if you can). Tucker ^talk 09:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Will. Yes, I have read those but alas they are so short and "basic" as to be useless. Although, I suppose they would add some other references. Thank youTucker ^talk 11:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Will, thank you for help on this. I appreciate this not be your area of interest and that you have enough going on here at WIKI at the moment. Thanks Tucker ^talk 00:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

John Birch Society

I know that you're an involved admin in this dispute and so you can't take preventative measures against any of the other parties. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to notify other administrators and see if the article is ripe for protection until we resolve our disputes in the talk page. The version that should be protected is the one that had consensus prior to the latest hooplah.UBER ^(talk) 18:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about User:Will Beback/TM tables

Which articles are considered TM-related in these statistics? I have some editing data from the LISCO IP ranges, and I would like to compare them to these numbers. Cool Hand Luke 17:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is based on their top 100 most-edited articles? If so, I will make a similar table for all of the LISCO edits, then you can work out the percentages. I'll post the summary table for LISCO edits sometime this evening. Cool Hand Luke 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop/LISCO IPs. Cool Hand Luke 00:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse sources

I removed one source because it didn't support the point being made in the text - that some Catholics consider the media coverage excessive - and the other because it was a blog and therefore fails WP:RS. Haldraper (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: James Roberts, Jr.

The article was deleted per the PROD tag, but restored upon request (which is acceptable in accordance with the proposed deletion guidelines). After restoring, I removed the tag. Here is the request to restore, if you want to see it. Have a nice day. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And thanks

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For working tirelessly, with good humor, against great odds and using massive restraint, Much more restraint than I have been able to show

Blocked User

Hello, you recently blocked my user account at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SilenceSoLoud, and the reason stated was abusing sockpuppetry. This is absolutely outrageous, as I only have registered one other account on wikipedia and have not used it in over a year [6]. According to WP:SOCK#LEGIT, this is completely in the scope of appropriate uses of multiple accounts, especially given the controversiality of the subject I was working with. I am requesting that you rescind the ban immediately. 128.120.218.130 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Network 21

Will, could you please have a chat to User:Financeguy222 he keeps re-adding the WP:CORP delete tage, despite it explictly saying not to re-add it and an already existing notability tag, and he keeps deleting the sourced material on NOC. What's more he reported ME for disruptive editing for reverting his mass deletions when he wouldn't (at that stage) even discuss it on talk. He's making it impossible to focus on actually editing and improving the article as he simply keeps deleting everything. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I will stop adding the WP:CORP. I got the impression I was doing the right thing from Will's talk in the N21 talk page, that this was the process (AfD) this article should be defined as. I'm still getting used to all of WP's syntax and technical side...

However, in regards to the rest Insider, you or others have not been able to address that the philanthropic acts are a N21 business, and not a Dornan self interest venture, and the more sources provided such as CBM article point to this being the case. Amway/N21 makes you work on the weekend Insider?? :) Financeguy222 (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Will, could you please start AfD for the Network 21 article if you feel appropriate? I do, and would start it but want to ensure the correct procedure is followed, and don't want to cause any issues, as discussed on the article's talk page. Thanks. Financeguy222 (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:ITT

Veecort has been editing disruptively on ITT Tech for a very long time. He has a very negative POV on that school. You can check his contributions and block log for more info. The stuff he has on User:Veecort/Sandbox was something he tried adding word for word to the article, and that was removed due to the negative POV slant and reliable sourcing issues. Linking to it on the talk page I thought was both disruptive and a violation of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TEND, and so it ought to be removed.

By the way if you're thinking I'm just trying to defend the school, I'm not. If you check the article, every one of the reliable sources Veecort has on that page is already in the article. He just feels that the controversies section isn't adequately negative. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you feel my edits are too "contentious" for a former-user-turned-IP, I can understand that and will stop editing. When I edited with a username I was frustrated by knowledgable IPs as well. You may revert; I'm done with it. Just... keep an eye on the article for POV pushing, woul you? 96.244.150.95 (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

IIRC

I asked of User: Warnborough (who you have since blocked as a role account with a username violation)[7], "Is this B*****?" and commented something to the effect that the misuse of pretentious latin legalisms without apparently understanding what they meant in a post was something I recalled being typical of B****** from 35 years ago. User Warnborough had self-identified as a representative of the school, and given that it operates out of tiny offices with minimal staff, you could count on the fingers of one hand (even if you'd lost a couple of fingers to an unfortunate encounter with power tools) the universe of candidates for the real-world identity of user Warnborough. I genuinely had no idea at the time that asking the question violated any rules. I promised not to ask such a question again, and the block was lifted within an hour of my request.[8] Fladrif (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Can you explain to me the reason for your March 10th block on User talk:AleBZ? I see zero communication from you on his talk page. I also see no explanation from you as to why you have blocked him. Am I missing something? If so let me know. As far as I can tell you've made a bad block. As an admin you should of left a reason for your actions on his talk page. Otherwise, it gives the impression that you're hiding something. Perhaps I'm wrong but I can't shake this feeling that something fishy is going on. Caden ^cool 10:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion sought "more to guide than spur"

It looks like we are ready to move forward on the Aesthetic Realism entry. There have been no objections to the Poetry section. I would like to move on to considering the History section, a draft of which I've posted on the "History Draft" page, but am asking your advice as to how to proceed. Would you or someone else move Poetry to the mainpage, replacing the existing section? I am eager to move on, having been accused of needless and intentional delay, but also fear being too hasty. I see from this page that your advice is sought by many other, so I will be patient and do nothing 'til I hear from you. Thanks. Trouver (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Will--Is it okay for me to move the Poetry section to the articles page tonight? I don't see any reason to keep it on the talk page as it looks like it's complete and there are no further comments. Please let me know. Thanks. LoreMariano (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Posting now...LoreMariano (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

David Rockefeller

Hi, I reverted your edit of blanking the page of David Rockefeller. Any particular reason for blanking the page or just an accident? Wikistar (Place order here) 06:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I always make the same mistake! Cheers, Wikistar (Place order here) 06:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Small point

Hi, Will. One of the diffs you gave for me was actually an edit by Luke. Diff #24. TimidGuy (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, fine to delete Vedic meditation. TimidGuy (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Natural Stress Relief

An article that you have been involved in editing, Natural Stress Relief, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Stress Relief. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fladrif (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Another one

Diff 47 is a comment by Olive, not me. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced comments

Hi, Will. I noticed that in the Workshop in a number of instances in your section you put your comment in the Arbcom space rather than the space for parties. TimidGuy (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving ahead

The History section on the Aesthetic Realism entry was revised and posted 3/26/10 on the drafts page. Should I move this section to the Talk page or is it OK to move it to the main page? Thanks. Trouver (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about category removal

In this edit you remove Category:Puerto Rican Roman Catholics. Isn't that contrary to practice and consensus? The article clearly states that he has been brought up Catholic, doesn't it? __meco (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have given a response on my talk page. __meco (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)