Loading AI tools
I've got no problem whatsoever. Thanks for the heads-up. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
With the 39th Annual Manzanar Pilgrimage coming up on April 26, I have nominated Manzanar to be on Wikipedia's main page on that date. Please add your support for that at Today's featured article requests -- Gmatsuda (talk)
- The nomination was removed intially because there can only be five nominations on that page, but it's back, so if you are so incllined, please offer your support. Thanks! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you keep an eye on this? There is some illiterate neonazi from Russia making repeated attempts to make it into a Republic.Galassi (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Query for you here, Will. SlimVirgin talk|edits 06:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Would you please consider locking down the article? Eric Red (or his apologist) is doing everything possible to remove the fact that he killed two people. Sullenspice (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no doubt that a church is a religious organisation, so technically there's no problem substituting the word "church" with "religious organization" in the Elan Vital article. The point here is that the link provided actually uses the word "church", giving the impression to anyone who uses that page that they are giving, not just to a religious organization, which is not necessarily a church, but to a church. By illustrating how Elan Vital fundraises and how it describes itself (or allows itself to be described), wikipedia would, I think, be giving a truer picture of the situation than by making the substitution you have made. Also, as others have pointed out, churches are tax-exempt whereas I imagine not all religious organizations necessarily are, e.g. religious book publishers.147.114.226.175 (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In one article you remove unsourced material, and in an another you add a {{fact}} for unsourced material. Care to explain the difference between these two edits? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Water tank, is getting slammed by anons, ever since I tossed Natgun's commercial, someone associated is gutting the reference links...I don't want a revert war, any suggestions...Vinmax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinmax (talk • contribs) 00:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if the anon user was deleting it out of vandalism or they took the unreferenced tag a little too seriously. The section does need refs of some kind though. Peter1968 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Almost all of these are historucal, and eligible under fair use. Sorry I didn't realize that first -- a lot of extra bother now. Grrr. This image stuff is confusng! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- See "Why not use noncommercial licensed images? (a rant)" at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#40 (scroll almost to bottom). Grump, grump. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have some sort of idea why editing the "Roman Polanski" to include the title of rapist is disruptive or vandalism you should explain why instead of just unilaterally deciding that it is. You should cite more than just you think it is and explain specifically why you think that it is. There are many other Wikipedia articles that are very similar with respect to people who are known for many different things, one of which is some sort of criminal act or acts. These articles include titles like, rapist, criminal, pedophile, murderer, thief, organized crime boss and many others. Just look at the OJ Simpson article, it makes reference to accusations against him for murder in the first sentence. Where this title is seems to be at issue for some reason. Wikipdeia articles are usually vastly different in their writing style and sometimes titles are places in different places throughout the articles. Since there is no debate as to whether Roman Polanski is a rapist or not, and since it is the one thing major thing he is known for outside of his movie career should it not be included in the first sentence? Is there a specific guideline as to where in an article a specific title that someone has earned throughout their life should be placed? Should a person's most prominent title be their career, their ethnicity, place of origin, or some other adjective that describes a notable feature of their life? What specific guideline specifies this? Should it merely be what the person is best known for, because Roman Polanski is very well known for having raped a 13 year old girl and for being a movie director. Many people would say he is not known for his acting as he has few notable roles, or writing as he has written very little, but these titles appear in the first sentence of his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.170.202 (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note and your vigilance on that sock. It goes to show that one's first reaction is often on the money. With copy-violators, one has to look deeper. Sunray (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice. I have no any interest in this topic. I don't even remember how I run into it. I remember only that I first noticed merge suggestion, so that I read them to make an opinion, and then decided to edit just a bit.
What caused my dismay is the hypocritical behavior of user:jossi, who wrote:
- I see an edit war going on about "The Divine Light Mission with Prem Rawat as its guru was also criticized as a sect or cult." There are no sources for this in this article, so I am wondering experienced editors keep re-adding this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
How he could possibly say that there is no sources when he is very familiar with Divine Light Mission article, which is full of sources. It is, like, in the article "Earth" in the sentence "Earth rotates around the Sun which is a star" someone starts demanding a reference that Sun is indeed a star. Of course it s very easy to add such a reference, but isn't it a bit stupid? Mukadderat (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I am cool as a cucumber. I would appreciate it if you avoid making value judgments on my mood. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed your Mishler comments from the Criticism of PR talk because they are obvious violations of BLP policy.Momento (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have once again had to remove your BLP violating material, please stop.Momento (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- You previously deleted it, then promptly restored it,, and now you've decided to delete it again. Don't blame me for your own indecision. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Just idle curiosity on this one--MOS reason for pulling them? No opinion either way whether they stay or go... Lawrence § t/e 22:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What was your comment on my talk page in reference to? I was removing mention of Postmaster General as a cabinet office in discussing the cabinets of presidents before 1829. I don't think I ever disputed post-1829 Postmasters General being in the cabinet. john k (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You've tagged the pages but haven't explained why. Could you explain your reasoning on the AAVE talk page? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Please, have a look at Kalash. POV pusher User:KolevTome has started an endless edit war. - Sthenel (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OMG you are right in pointing that out. I'd read the reasons for "office actions" (such as slanderous; unsourced; disparaging) without noting that they must come from members of the Wikimedia Foundation. My deepest apologies in inferring something that is not true as far as I know. The article was very well researched, but undeniably is overkill -- 14 screens long, even for my high-resolution screen! -- and reeks of original research. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 22:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I mentioned you here as an example of what I see as poor behavior, so I thought you should know. OptimistBen (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on a few Prem Rawat related things tonight, and I couldn't help notice how Momento seems to be so many places at once... He has multiple edits at talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat, at 23:51, and 23:58, multiple edits at talk:Divine Light Mission, at 22:47, 23:35 and 00:13, he fixes several references at Divine Light Mission seconds apart, 23:21, 23:26, 23:29 and 23:30. And he still has time to squeeze in a quick comment at talk:Prem Rawat at 00:00. That's 10 edits in 30 minutes on 4 different topics, and 4 of those are within 9 seconds! Does that seem normal to you? -- Maelefique (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ugh... I'm reading minutes as seconds here...ok, I think that's a sign that it's bedtime for me! Thanks for clearing that up. On an unrelated note, I'm not sure I can stomach the addition of any of these Collier references. Does this make it ok to quote Downton's drug addicts? I don't think they'll go for that somehow... -- Maelefique (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I have no problem with a section on DLM membership (Downton has some great stats on the high incidence of drug users in his study), but as it stands now, Collier is quoted with the credentials of "Author, Sophia Collins says...", that's just grossly out of context for her qualifications on this subject. It makes her sound like an expert, not just someone who spent a few days looking at it when she was 16 and stoned out of her mind. -- Maelefique (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The AC has no mandate or power granted by the community (who empowers it) to make any content decisions as a body. What does this refer to? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision#Removal of original work? ...this is a pure content decision and I believe well outside of their authority. Then again, this was 2004, so if this were reviewed I imagine it would have to be tossed. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Will beback, I don't know if you've had your eye on the Sahaja Yoga school site lately but I feel that SDM is throwing his weight around unfairly. I have been making logical arguments on the talk page for two weeks now and he just keeps reverting and muddying the water with more insinuations. He has no evidence of physical abuse at the school and yet keeps insinuating the same with irrelevant material. Your advice on this issue would be appreciated. Freelion (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Will beback, on your orders the page has now been frozen after SDM made his last changes and a final "tidy up". This is about the third time that this has happened after a dispute - the page gets frozen after he reverts all the edits of other people and pushes his own opinion. I'm not accusing you or any other administrator of endorsing his opinion but I would like to state that simply freezing the page is an indiscriminate way of dealing with an edit war and only favours the most fanatic person who spends the most time dominating the article. I've stated my arguments on the talk page and he has simply ignored them. This is just as bad as vandalism. If Wikipedia is the domain of fanatics who have no life, there may be no hope for the truth. It affects the reputation of the Wikipedia project. Some say Wikipedia is a lost cause for this reason, perhaps they are right. Freelion (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Freelion, the last (and only) time I recall, full protection was requested by a (now banned) Sahaja Yogi editor after making his own changes. Afaik I've gone to great lengths to answer your points and direct you to the relevant WP policy. I currently await your explanation of exactly which points have not been answered. --Simon D M (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you like me to archive your talk page?--~SRS~ 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Will Beback. I was reverting vandalism on Dreamgirls (film) and found another unhelpful edit by User:Shipscrazy. There seems to be a history of such edits, e.g. unsourced, poor grammar, edit warring. I'd ask someone at the article but several of the editors that were fighting with him appear either to be burnt out and/or retired from WP, or else they're temporarily unavailable. His talk page shows multiple vandalism and fair use warnings. Being relatively new here, I'd appreciate your feedback on what the next step should be. Thanks! Scj2315 (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Given your admitted non-neutral stance on this, I think it is inappropriate for you to be protecting the Synarchism article, particularly when another admin, User:EncMstr, is already on top of the situation. --Marvin Diode (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with you reverting your own work, or even with removal of the estate if you think it doesn't belong there. I just have a problem with other editors coming up with desperate claims to remove things that are obvious, but that they don't want other people to see for some reason. I don't like their ambiguous edit summaries either but that's probably a whole separate topic! thanks for the note though. :) -- Maelefique (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to let these ramblings continue in talk page? Or are you going to do something about it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Care to weigh in as a neutral third party here?: Talk:Thomas DiLorenzo Thanks, DickClarkMises (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input! DickClarkMises (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You blocked this user as a sockpuppet of User:Sfacets. He requested an unblock. I have compared the contributions of the two accounts, and I can't see any connection. The two do not appear to be being opperated by the same person. Could you provide some diffs that may provide evidence that Couchbeing is infact the same person as Sfacets? If you cannot provide any evidence of the sockpuppetry, I am inclined to grant his unblock request, as I could not, in my own investigation, find such evidence myself. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hate to disagree with you Will, but this guy isn't showing typical Sfacets contribs. --Simon D M (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting on that. You said on my talk page that you would be emailing me. I understand that there may be sensitive information that you would prefer to share only by email. However, in addition to that email, could you also post at least some evidence here at Wikipedia (my talk page, your talk page, his talk page, somewhere) so that there is some publically availible evidence showing why he was blocked? Just a dif or two would be great. Thanks!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi hi, I notice you've been monitoring the primerica page for the last while. I've been working on the page, well one specific section, and have gotten a little worried. I notice you havn't weighed in on the 'criticism' section, if you'd rather not, that's fine, but I would be interested to know if you think i'm out of line by removing the criticism section today. It's the third time i've done so this month, so i'm feeling a little queezy about it. Bigmacd24 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The Silver Kidd is at it again... you know who I mean. :-)
Reverted two edits already to the Simpson article... going to see what else he's vandalizing. Supersquid (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- IP of 68.108.206.22 and 72.201.22.102
- Supersquid (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm gonna start calling you "Lightning Will!" You had already reverted every article I checked after I left you the message. A-mazing! :-)
- Supersquid (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps Flash Beback would be more appropriate, based on his ability to whizz to the heart of the issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Do you still have the original one that I wrote, so that I can edit it to your needs. i can't even find the one I wrote online anymore. it took me a while to type it, I hope you can help me retrieve it. thank you, jay8962 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay8962 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for your message. I am a moderately experienced contributor to Wikipedia on a range of topics. I simply prefer not to register as it is one more login/password to negotiate and I already have over 50 on various sites already. If an article is semi-protected, I of course can't edit it, but the semi-protection status is to me a good indicator that my time could be spent more constructively elsewhere and that any edits I might make would likely be dragged into an ongoing war to rival what is presently going on in Iraq, or might become the victims of a Wikipedia 'drive by', so editing only as an unregistered user also suits me for that reason.
I know that this means that you won't be aware of my previous edits, since I am on a dynamic IP address, although you may have read some of them. Maybe you have even disagreed with them at times. I am far from perfect and have been shown errors in my work on mnay occasions. Mostly, however, all I want to do is add useful, positive contributions where I can.
While I do appreciate that the template welcome message is a genuinie one, it is terribly overused on Wikipedia. Can I suggest that specific feedback on the edits that I made, and which are obviously the basis for you contacting me, would be more helpful? Even a reference back to any comments you have left on the article's talk page would be great, as that is the usual place for comments about edits per se.
In this case, as I hope you will see from the edits I made, which included 3 cross references to other Wikipedia entries, and the fact that I substantially tightened up the expression in the text, this is probably not the work of a first time editor. This message is not intended to be a negative criticism. All I am really saying is shooting off that welcome template as an instinctive response to an unregistered edit from a dynamic IP range is, with no personal offence intended, a little bit lazy. It is not just you, thousands of Wikipedians are guilty of this. Templated responses to vandalism are fine, but when you see a positive entry that (hopefully) improves an article, and you want to communicate with the editor, taking time to add a few extra personalised words will really help you to make a connection with someone who may become a source of useful, constructive edits.
Now, having had my somewhat self rightous rant, if if fact you thought that my edits sucked donkeys, you are welcome, and entitled, to point that out to me. I have well and truly asked for it by writing this.
--121.209.161.51 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
First you prod it. Then you AfD it. And all along it could have been solved by a simple redirection. Sigh.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Are you an admin? I need some help with a page, the Richard Pipes entry has had material removed from it consistently by anons, with no edit summaries. This process has been going on for a long time now, and it looks like some kind of political revisionism. Can you protect the page? (If you think that's the right move; it seems to me to be advisable.) Cheers, DBaba (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Will,
You deleted a section called "Articles, video productions and computer animations by LYM" with 5 linked articles or videos at the LaRouche Youth Movement article, in this edit: You gave the explanation that these were "excess links, per WP:EL try to limit to one link per domain." This section was not a standard external links section, but rather a listing of articles and videos. Now, I'd like to call your attention to a very similar section at Chip Berlet#Selected papers, reports, and articles, which includes a total of twelve linked articles at the PRA website. I think that this situation requires your prompt attention, since it appears to be exactly the sort of problem you were correcting at LaRouche Youth Movement. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I know that article is protected, but you're an admin, right? If there is a policy violation, you can correct it, protected or no. If there is no policy violation, then the section in the LYM article should be restored. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It says: For example 4500 million years ago in the Canadian Shield range, mountains peaked at about 12,000 m (Everest currently stands at 8,848 m). 4500 million years ago is Precambrian time. Black Tusk 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Actually, I'm the one who added the 12,000 m on the articles and so I could find a reliable source; I remember it was in a book I read but I don't what I did with it, nor do I know what kind it was (geography perhaps?). So as far as I know, the the height 12,000 m for these mountains could be a fact. Black Tusk 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm pretty sure that's what the height was. I'll add a more reliable source if I see it again; the book that was in can't be far away. Black Tusk 02:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Reference found. Black Tusk 23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm pretty sure that's what the height was. I'll add a more reliable source if I see it again; the book that was in can't be far away. Black Tusk 02:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments about WP:OWN.
Please let me know if I ever engaged in behaviors as stated in the policy page, or violated it's spirit:
- Have I been warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions ?
- Have I engaged in large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor?
- Have I made any of these comments: Wikipedia:OWN#Comments?
- Have I been hostile, made personal attacks, or wages revert wars?
I don't think so, quite to the contrary.
But I will say this: Your persistent pressing for my disengagement is most unwelcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have asked you several times, not to cross post. I think I have had enough of your insinuations, and persistent requests that I disengage. We have been through a lengthy ArbCom case, which is not closed yet. You have had (and still have) the chance to present evidence there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- "I will respond in your talk page." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You wrote in my [talk]:
- This assertion has been removed repeatedly from the article because there's no source. If you can find a good source then it'd be great to add it back. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I personally didn't have any source of the claim on the subject. I was actually just making that entry wording and usage consistent across all the articles for said vessels using the standard syntax for ship naming conventions. Lestatdelc (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you'd left a Welcome note at User talk:MyVeryEducatedMother. I'm fairly positive this is a new sock puppet of ColScott, based on the specific edits he's made (removing material related to Don Murphy) and the types of edit summaries left. I'm not very savvy regarding the procedure to go through in this case, but I know ColScott has been a prolific sockpuppeteer. Is there something you can do to deal with this, by any chance? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't as concerned about returning the material as I was about raising the issue that this is ColScott again. I only noticed when he decided to edit on the Karyn Kupcinet article, which always peaks my curiosity, given her obscureness. I'd run across him before on Charles Manson. Thanks for dealing with it!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
