Loading AI tools
Are you using Huggle? This happens all too often and is unproductive. If you don't like the source, remove it only. You have removed other verifiable information as I contributed more to enhance the article. What I find interesting, is that when left alone, no one challenged it but when I added a source for the heck of it, it's getting removed. Very bias and you have to remember that it's a work in progress. You can't discredit everything, so please revert the rest back or I will. This matter was already discussed and there are many other sources that claim this. Perhaps it is a matter you don't agree with but that doesn't warrant what you did. We must be diplomatic and thorough and give the benefit of the doubt. The fact a documentary was done about it and it's proven to be a fact, was not noted. I added one, whether it's a credible resource you like or not. People have to stop doing these kinds of removals.... You're not the only one, but all this cat-and-mouse chasing is very bothersome. 68.252.29.46 (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
i must have left a message over yours, will you add what you last wrote again on the talk page, thanks. 68.252.29.46 (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You suggest I make smaller edits? I had allot to contribute, that is not a fair argument. Don't be ridiculous. I suggest not removing everything. I think it is appropriate for you to add it back, I appreciate the good faith. 68.252.29.46 (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, disregard, I took care of it. Please be more careful in the future, bye! 68.252.29.46 (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Will. I figured as much, and I stepped back a bit when the discussion started to veer off-course as it's apt to do occasionally. Fcreid (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Will, would be grateful for your comments over on the talk page. Cheers, Jayen466 15:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Will, can you please keep an eye on the editing, there seems to be some contention about a number of constructive edits that were made, all properly sourced, and giving coverage proportionate to that found in the sources. Following a series of reverts, and discussion with jayen, where agreement was about to be arrived at, a number of editors, including jayen, then expressed a wish to remove the section, despite making no clear case for it's removal, they also declined to follow dispute resolution procedures in addressing this. As of now there appears to be some agreement about the current wording of the section but it might be worth taking a quick look if you have time.Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Will_Beback, how did you ever get to be an administrator? You are incredibly biased, arrogant, and ignorant. ACORN's employees in the past have used crack cocaine, cash, cigarettes as payments during voter drives. The founder's brother stole a million dollars from the group and they covered it up. If you level a criticism, you have to be prepared to back it up. But you don't. You just delete. I think you should be removed as an admin. Syntacticus (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to be sure that you saw my statement about recusal in relation to Prem Rawat, as it has gone to AGK's talk page archive. I make it very clear that I would recuse, due to multiple factors. User talk:AGK/Archive/45#Prem Rawat mediation is the section link and this is the diff for your reference. Please let me know if you have any further questions or lingering concerns. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would not be as gracious as you are, Vassyana, and I would say this for the record: I am appalled by Will Beback's lack of good judgment in questioning your integrity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would recuse from Rawat-related issues as an arbitrator for multiple reasons, as indicated on AGK's talk page. I simply wanted to be sure that Will saw my statement to that effect and the underlying reasoning. I strongly disagree with Will's characterization of my participation, especially as it relates to the draft, but he has clearly indicated examples of what worries him and his concerns are not unreasonable. Vassyana (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Will, would you mind having a quiet word with Off2riorob regarding his conduct. I understand he is new and may not yet be familiar with the procedures here, but making unfounded accusations against existing editors based on a whim seems a little problematic, I've expressed my opinions reasonably, but he thinks there is some conspiracy afoot, further details here.
- I would appreciate if this allegation relating to aggressivity could be removed as it is an entirely inappropriate location for the heading, and the post.
- I would also like you to note that robs discussion with another editor involved on the page has engendered the confrontational attitude user Off2riorob is now displaying. I don't really see any off this as being helpful or in any way constructive.thanks. best Semitransgenic (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
hi will well it might be beneficial to the article as what I see is happening to the article is that it has an editor semiT that is disruptive to it. and I am looking into his anti cult agenda. I welcome you to have a look also at the user page for the ip address he was posting from previous to the 2 jan when he became semitransgenic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:143.117.78.169 (Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
here is a quote from semitransgenic denying when I asked him if he was on wiki under any other identities previous to 2 jan 2007 when I asked him how come he had just turned up on 2 jan 2008 fully trained he said this and I guote ... "I can assure I was not at all fully trained, simply had experience of forums, and very basic html, I was really quite clueless back in January, if there is evidence to the contrary I would like to see it".
well here it is! you were already editing here in march 2007
19:42, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Techno (→Important Detroit Techno Producers) 19:41, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Techno (Important Artists changed to Important Detroit Techno Producers "first wave" 02:55, 6 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Techno (→Important artists) 02:55, 6 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Techno (→Important artists)here he is posting on the tehno page ...in march 2007 under the ip 143.117.78.169 the same techno page that is now one of his favourites under user name semitranfgenic. how am I supposed to show this user good faith when he is using different identities to progress his personal bias? and he lies to me? It is my belief and this adds wait to that belief that this user is involved in some way in the anti cult movement. (perhaps financially..I have asked him why he is so anti osho and he replied with fictious medical conditions) would it be possible to get this ip address checked out to see if there is a lot of anti cult editing coming from that location? It is a multiple user address with multiple gateways. I was also wondering about and amazed that you didn't block him over the outing issues regarding the osho page.. you gave him numerous warnings when he had ovbiously overstepped the mark!outing is one of the most serious 'crimes' here and you did nothing? is he your 'friend' as he seems to come running whining to you at every oportunity? actually I care less that he has done this or that ,, all I care about here is that imo he is moving here on his own personal anti cult agenda and stopping any improvement being made on the osho article. could you not ask him to step back from there and allow other people to enjoy attempting to improve the article ? regards.
(Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
Fez Whatley came out of the closet on today's program. Therefore your rvt of my edits was stupid and unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.27.234 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
You might be interested in this edit. [] According to Whois, it's registered to the capital research center. I was thinking about a check user request, but am uncertain what the bar/standard is and one of the weaknesses of wikipedia is (or perhaps it's my weakness in not knowing how to navigate around here) it's hard to see if possible sock/meat issues have been investigated and dismissed in the past. Thoughts appreciated, if you can't be bothered, no problem either.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I think the named account "did" edit war yesterday (3rr, whatever). This was pointed out on his talk page. Ip comes in hours later makes the same edit (after the issue being raised in support of the tagging was demonstrated as being false). The question is: Could action be taken? And if so, is it worth it to do so or possibly counterproductive? At any rate, thanks for taking the time.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Will, in light of the trolling issue you commented on is there any objection to me removing the post on the Osho talk page? It's off topic, and it addresses an editor in the heading, plus it's an obvious extension of the trolling drive. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I dissagree with the removal of any of the postings regarding the issues between myself and the user semitransgenic until the issue is clearly resolved.
thank you
(Off2riorob (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
- Hi Will, maybe I'm mistaken but this users current behavior is problematic. On this talk page exists a heading with an allegation regarding a non existent anti-cult agenda; following the editing of the original section heading. The user has also placed a second allegation, with a section heading entitled editor (semitrangenic) posting/ editing under different identities and unknown ip addresses. It might be an idea to direct the user to WP:TPG so a similar situation can be avoided in future and I would ask you to please remove the items in question. Thanks Semitransgenic (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
some of my posts are going missing ? anyway I posted this on semitransgenics talk page and here and thats the way I would like to go! go .. a little agreement goes a long way. a little agreement on the osho page..between you and jayen. I like that..and that is the way to go.. keep it as simple as possible .. I also feel that the time is right to resolve my dispute with you and I am prepared to withdraw my unproven allegations. If you would accept that..I would like to see the offending posts removed or marked as resolved. hopefully we will both move forward with the mentality of assume good faith ! if you are in agreement thats cool. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
Edit conflicts It appears that you are mistakenly and unintentionally overwriting or deleting comments placed by others. My guess is that you are either using the "back" button on your browser to correct or change your own edits, or are ignoring "edit conflict" warnings. Here's are examples:[4][5] If you go to save an edit and there is an "edit conflict" alert at the top of the screen, then please follow the instructions rather than overwriting. User:Will Beback 21:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
And again, please don't delete discussions, as you did here: [6]. That is very disruptive. ·User: Will Beback 21:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I archived this dispute as is was resolved between me and semiT here it is now...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Off2riorob/Archive2# I archived it ..what did you want me to do? semiT asked for it all ( the dispute to be removed)I though semiT HAD ASKED TO HAVE ALL THE DISPUTED CHAT REMOVED .. ANY WAY i DIDNT DELETE IT i HAVE ARCHIVED IT HERE... CAPS CAPS CAPS caps caps caps.. sorted. here it is now... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Off2riorob/Archive2 (Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)
here is a copy of the resolve of the dispute between me an him,,
a little agreement goes a long way.
a little agreement on the osho page..between you and jayen. I like that..and that is the way to go.. keep it as simple as possible .. I also feel that the time is right to resolve my dispute with you and I am prepared to withdraw my unproven allegations. If you would accept that..I would like to see the offending posts removed or marked as resolved. hopefully we will both move forward with the mentality of assume good faith ! if you are in agreement thats cool.User:Off2riorob 17:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
and from semiT...
Accepted
No worries, I'm sure it won't happen again, worth noting WP:TRUCE if you haven't, cheers. User:Semitransgenic 20:52, 9 December 2008
so thanks for your help Will Be back ...it's over now... (Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
Edit conflicts It appears that you are mistakenly and unintentionally overwriting or deleting comments placed by others. My guess is that you are either using the "back" button on your browser to correct or change your own edits, or are ignoring "edit conflict" warnings. Here's are examples:[4][5] If you go to save an edit and there is an "edit conflict" alert at the top of the screen, then please follow the instructions rather than overwriting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
And again, please don't delete discussions, as you did here: [6]. That is very disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I archived this dispute as is was resolved between me and semiT here it is now...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Off2riorob/Archive2# I archived it ..what did you want me to do? semiT asked for it all ( the dispute to be removed)I though semiT HAD ASKED TO HAVE ALL THE DISPUTED CHAT REMOVED .. ANY WAY i DIDNT DELETE IT i HAVE ARCHIVED IT HERE... CAPS CAPS CAPS caps caps caps.. sorted. here it is now... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Off2riorob/Archive2 (Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
No, please don't remove threads, especially from noticeboards. Those are archived automatically. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC) thanks for the advice its hard to understand when semi was asking for the removal of the post and after resolving the issue with him I have removed one and now im getting it in the neck from you .. why didnt you tell him when he was asking for the removal of these threads that they were not to be removed ?? I actually asked for them to be kept on...when semi asked for their removal on your web page... actually I have saved them all in my notepad in case I need them for later reference ... thanks anyway for your 'advice'. User talk:Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
I have asked you not to alter or remove any of my posts..I had hoped that you could move on from this squabbling. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)) maybe I'm mistaken but I find semitransgenic behavior to be problematic. I would request all the postings in question to remain in place until this dispute is resolved or it stagnates..If semitransgenic would stop whining like a baby then i'm sure the issue would stagnate ..lets say 24hours of calm then I would be in agreement with the removal of any offending posts and ceasing this conflict and getting back to attempting to applying the wiki ideal ... in good faith. regards (Off2riorob (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for helping out with WP:USF & University of San Francisco. Lots of students all trying to edit the same page without much time or guidance = kind of a mess. But they are trying hard to comply with guidelines, so thanks for offering suggestions. best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- p.s. re: your message on WP:USF -- it's not my class so I don't have direct access to the students (it's user:davidms's) but I agreed to help out with the project -- and I sent a note to the prof with your points. It's sort of a rushed project, which didn't help; they're probably all done with it by now. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Great that you have open mind.
- Have tried to do shabby job of tweaking article in direction I suggested. For some reason the "save" function is sluggish and may not even take. I might have to shut it down and revisit. Anyway, the term connotes an interesting historical period in climbing.
- No references as of now, but what I wrote isn't controversial and online citations are available. Maybe I'll get around to it.
Calamitybrook (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI I think there is something wrong with this (User talk:AGK#Prem Rawat mediation) link; I followed it but it didn't take me where I think you want it to take me. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
my recent addition to this thread [] may be of interest to you.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Are LULU's personal attacks ( and inaccuracies) appropriate, and if not, will you please address them firmly?Die4Dixie (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, are you suggesting that I am a sock puppet? a more careful reading of lulu's post says that he doesn't believe I am. Are you making that accusation, and if so, please go to the appropriate forum (although I'd like to know when you do.). Did I miss something about me being a sock?Die4Dixie (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would naturally think that it would be better if the user who levels the attack to substantiate it with some diff of article edits that I made and I be allowed to respond . this is a strange proccess that you want me to participate in. Is this how this is supposed to work: I ask a question about how to use a neutrality tag, I get attacked as a problem editor (longtime no less) and I'm not provided diffs to my problem behavior and I am expected to answer vague aspersions to my character as an editor? Do I understand this right? Am I wrong to expect evidence of my problem editor status or is a charge by lulu ( forgive the lawyerly language ) prima facie evidence in and of itsself? Please offer me some guidance here, or suggest that I need to search elsewhere.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps in a sense of fairness, since you have been willing to comment on other things, you could point out that it is hard to aswer unsubstantiated attacks, if this is how you feel. Thrashing about on an ANI section about a neutrality tag by having to beg for substantiation is a difficult position to be in. You need not call him to task, but I would take it as a personal favor if you made your opinion known about the situation .Die4Dixie (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, are you suggesting that I am a sock puppet? a more careful reading of lulu's post says that he doesn't believe I am. Are you making that accusation, and if so, please go to the appropriate forum (although I'd like to know when you do.). Did I miss something about me being a sock?Die4Dixie (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
| “ | I'm not sure I understand - are you referring to the physical brass marker or to something on a map, or...? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC) | ” |
Thanks for your question. Indeed there is a brass marker. You can see a picture of it here here. What is of importance however is that the U.S. National Geodetic Survey established a survey station on the summit. You can see more information about the station here. For a partial list of reliable geographic data sources see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains#Resources. Please respond on my talk page --DRoll (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal emailed me and posted an informal unblock request and offer to apologize to you on his talk page. I invite you to follow up on the thread there with your opinion on the situation. I think they're being legitimately contrite now, but I wanted to run it by you and Guy, and probably post briefly on ANI before doing something (not tonight, it's late...).
Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome, but can you tell me how to find the list of policies that was there when I first signed up? Macwhirr (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the Capital Research Center talk page to hash out the issue of the acceptability of citing the think tank's research in Wikipedia. Please participate in the discussion at []. Syntacticus (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Syntacticus -- you've been contentious, have tried to insert unreliable sourcing against repeated explanations as to why it's unreliable, and it appears increasingly likely to me that not only are you affiliated with CRC but you are in fact Vadum.
Would you care to address whether you are or are not part of CRC and whether you are or are not Vadum?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mediation case name, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Syntacticus (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Re the article on the Cloward-Piven Strategy, I removed the AfD tag which according to WP policy I am perfectly entitled to do. However, I am advised that the tag warned against its own removal. When WP policies or practices appear to conflict, what are editors to do? This is confusing. Syntacticus (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Congrats on getting this up on the main page. It doesn't look too bad keeping the vandalism down (from the outside anyway). All the best. Smallbones (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto. You have my continuing respect for pursuing this article, getting it through GA and FAC, and now TFA. And you were flexible and had to "reorient" yourself a number of times! I didn't think it could be done and you did it! (People seem to be staying on top of the vandalism.) —Mattisse (Talk) 05:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I recently made this edit at the above referenced article: for the reasons of undue wieght. Please feel free to comment on the edit in the talkpage.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry about that. My bad. Thanks for restoring. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Will, I would be very grateful if you could take it upon yourself to review the Spokane, Washington article. It is currently rated a "B" article (the same grade as the horribly written and uncited Boise, Idaho article), but I’ve been constantly editing and expanding it tirelessly for weeks now, and I think it has a chance of achieving Good Article status. If you are willing to review it, tell me so on my Talk page so I know it will get done and can stop looking for reviewers, lol. Hope you enjoy reading it.
Thanks, Anon134 (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Was I out of line in pointing this to a newby editor?
- Do you condone his comments?
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I will tell you what I think of this, though: Thank you for providing diffs that show that vigorous debates about sources is the Wikipedia way. Although I fail to see the relevance on an arbitration case about a subject that I never edited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am reviewing your article Millennium '73 for GA. I have entered some initial comments on Talk:Millennium '73/GA1. Needless to say, I am somewhat overwhelmed by the article and am prompted by your fine work on LaRouche criminal trials to take this on. I remember that article was unwieldy at first, and over time you managed to focus it and whittle it down. I am hoping the same can happen here. In the failed FAC, there seemed to be prose concerns, but it is unclear what finally failed the article. I will read through the article carefully and offer you suggestions. If you could get LaRouche into FAC shape, you certainly can get this one by them. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
10:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC) |
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
I was wondering if you can explain why another user removed something I found in the press. In particular, I added a one sentence mention of an on-going issue mentioned in the LA Times. Despite my attempts to discuss the issue on the talk, I was ignored reverted without reason. The article of concern is Talk:Megan Hauserman, near the bottom. Does this qualify as vandalism?Tgreach (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Will. I am a sockpuppet. Leave it up to you to decide whether to undo my edits or not. Shattersun (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my turning to you on this, but you're an obviously first-rate contributor who I think has been more involved than I have in BLP issues. I posted what I think was a reasonable concern at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Majora Carter over a week ago and have not gotten any response. I have no idea how to escalate, and I really don't want to go back to the [[Majora Carter] article and be sucked into an edit war with someone who already reverted me. Most notably, our article now attributes a negative opinion of Carter to the New York Times, when the Times merely paraphrased an anonymous source as holding this opinion. This anonymous criticism was pretty much the only negative in a mostly laudatory Times profile, so it seems to me the Times opinion of her is being seriously misrepresented. I think such tendentious use of a source is a BLP matter.
Any suggestion how to proceed? Any suggestion of what one does in general when an issue raised on that noticeboard doesn't even draw an opinion? I'd have something to engage with if someone was telling me they thought I was wrong... - Jmabel | Talk 02:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Does this comment warrant a bit more than a slap on the wrist? I was tempted to immediately take it to AN/I, but I figured, 'Wil's posted there before; let's see what he thinks.' - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am sure (s)he'll calm down. Just read the Durova thing on Jossi's thing with Cirt. I know there was animosity, but not how much. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- When I signed my name, Cynthia, I used my real name. It's Cynthia Gracie and I live in Vermont. So I'm definitely a girl -- a happy old one, in my 50s. Google my name and you'll see what the insidious Rawat cult members have done to defame and libel me because I became a vocal critic of Rawat. The owner of that website (one-reality), Geoff Staker, moved his libel here to Wikipedia, where it sat for a couple of years while Jossi did nothing, nor did anyone else to whom I and other registered editors complained. He was user "Gstaker." Jossi even changed the NPA policy in order to prevent anyone who was editing the Prem Rawat articles here, from having any "off-Wiki" conversations about him or this article on a forum on which ex-premies have posted for ten years. It's an online place totally unrelated to him or Wikipedia. He arranged it so that we'd be in violation of the NPA policy here for talking about him or Rawat there. He gained a lot of concensus from Wikipedians on that and we were therefore, censored off-wiki. Btw, the Rawat cult obsessively monitors every word written there and keeps voluminous files on every writer.
- Btw, I was completely calm when I wrote to you Arcayne. Think of a Monet painting instead of a Pollack or a Beethoven sonata instead of a jazz fusion piece, then you'll get a better idea of where I was coming from. Coming off harshly was intentional, but I wasn't upset. I think if Wikipedians spent far less time focusing on their individual perceptions and assessments of what "uncivil," means, with their vigorous quests to report such things to the "authorities" here, and if they spent much more time on the vast, albeit more subtle abuse of Wikipedia by people who get away with personal attacks, well, then this place would be a helluva lot better and a more palatable place to dwell online. I personally think if no one were anonymous here, then Wikipedia would see a vast improvement and sense of responsibility by editors, not to mention a huge improvement of quality of articles. Even recently, Jossi told user Collect that I only post here to "raise hackles." No one smacked him for saying that, but I got a talking to by Will (no biggie, Will, I expected it and you were obligated to do it).
- I do understand why people can misread me and others, based on my ten years ofwriting online, knowing how difficult it can be to read someone's written words without the benefit of eye contact and body language. It's a difficult skill to develop. I certainly did get your attention about your learning more about the Rawat situations, however, which was my intention. I wouldn't have cared either way if you reported me because I'm not married to Wikipedia, nor would I ever call myself a "Wikipedian," (that's the big "UGH" in the room here), but, now I do expect you to monitor and follow me around from now on in order to catch me in any "mistakes." That's the Wikipedian way, after all. Everything I write is quite deliberate and well thought-out. If you don't like me that's fine, I don't care if people do or don't -- I've never been into popularity contests. Thing is, I was once in a destructive personality cult (20 years) where being oneself and speaking one's mind were always disallowed and censored to a humiliating and dehumanizing degree. So now I never worry about others' opinions of myself. Jossi has won many, many popularity contests here for his "civil behavior" and volume of editing. I've only stuck around here enough to point out when Jossi, et al were rewriting the history of Prem Rawat's life to the point of making the BLP a fiction. It's called "cult revisionism." The history of Rawat's life is also the history of my life, especially because I spent much time around him personally. I don't apologize for that. End of tome. Be well... Cynthia P.S. Sorry for the verbiage, Will...feel free to remove it! :) Sylviecyn (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Will, turns out you can still help, lol. Need another pair of eyes looking at this article.
Nehrams gave the Spokane editors a list of minor problems to deal with before he said it should be nominated as a GA in his opinion. All the problems on the list Nehrams gave us (and other problems) have been addressed. So, if you have the time to look at it as a possible nominee for Good Article status, that would be awesome. Like last time, holler back on my Talk if you are up it. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hiya again, Will. Just a friendly reminder to review the Spokane article sometime soon, I know you delayed reviewing it because of some major changes/edits, and I havent made what I consider "major" edits since to accomodate you. So, Im hoping you can review it soon. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy Christmas to you and your family; looking forward to collaborating more in the New Year. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the start willbeback. i appreciate it. happy new year to you & yours. Minnaert (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Will, I've continued the discussion regarding OR on the OCRT page here. Jayjg (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Please explain this reversion, per TPG and the notice at the top of the talk page. Especially please explain why you reverted me without even so much as a courtesy notice on my talk page? I am sure calming this article will work far better if we work together rather than at cross purposes. Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- (moved from User talk:KillerChihuahua):
- Deleting comments from users with whom you're in a dispute is problematic. Your edit summary didn't explain why you deleted it. You didn't refactor it to remove what you found offensive, or leave a note explaining that you'd deleted it. If there are problems with talk page use then it'd be better to find an uninvolved editor to act as the enforcer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not in a dispute. I warned the editors of that page I would begin enforcing TPG, including removal of uncivil posts. I removed, rolled up, or struck through three editor's posts. You reverted the one I removed, which is inaccurate and answering it would only continue silly sniping about who did what when, not move the discussion on the talk page (in which I am NOT involved) forward. I AM the uninvoled editor, Wil. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- (Moved from Talk:KillerChihuahua - I assure you I have your talk page watchlisted, Will)
- KC, if you feel the need to remove other postings please just give a clear explanation of your action. If possible, just refactor it to remove the part you think is uncivil, rather than deleting the entire message. Deleting messages can sometimes inflame situations more then just ignoring them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Did. Warned here, including telling editors I would remove uncivil comments. Added specific suggestions here. Struck here, collapsed here, and removed the post in question. The post has nothing to do with the article, Sara Palin, on which talk page the post is found. It is not helpful but rather attempts to justify the incivility of one of the editors of that article (namely, the poster.) Now, why the heck you think that is worth keeping is a mystery; and why you would revert a fellow admin who is attempting to rein in heightened emotions - with some very good success, I might add - is beyond me completely. Please respond here; I assure you I have your talk page watchlisted and I prefer not to split conversations. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 20:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- (Moved from Talk:KillerChihuahua:
- KC - All I saw was you saying you were deleting the comment. No explanation was given in the edit summary. "remove protestations of self defense" is not a reason for deleting a talk page comment. If you're gogint to take the extraordinary step of deleting comments you should make sure that you document your work. Since the comment was in reply to your own comments, it'd be better if you found someone else to make necessary deletions. PS: I always respond on other users talk pages. I hope that doesn't bother you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind so long as you don't mind me gluing the conversation back together. Otherwise I cannot keep track. Next time, please do me the courtesy of asking me on my talk page why I'm doing something if my edit summary seems insufficient. Don't simply blind revert me. You're giving the hostiles the view that the admin's are not on the same page, and that's not good - because I am quite certain that even though we may have minor differences on how to approach incivility, attacks, and outright nastiness on talk pages, we are both foursquare against it. That said, would you do me the courtesy of re-deleting the comment? You are quite uninvolved, it is not addressed to you, and it serves no purpose except to "justify" the incivility which I am attempting to rein in. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 20:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a conflict brewing over several edits by the User:DonaldDuck who removes cited evidence of antisemitic activities in Russia. It would be nice if you could take a look at that.Galassi (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I looked in one article but didn't see anything. Can you give me a diff or two to illustrate the problem? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- See the unexplained deletions at the Russian section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaeo-Masonic_conspiracy_theory . This is potentially a huge issue, as there has been a messive resurgence of this after the break up of the USSR. Blood Libel has become quite popular as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Dieterichs has been an early proponent of both JMT and BL. The same editorial situation there. The warring user is presumed to be a Russian, as his contibutions on Russian wiki betray same pattern with added antiUkrainian sentiment.Galassi (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I have removed some WP:BLP violations by User:Galassi. Basically, he labeled several authors as conspiracy theorists and proponents of blood libel. At first it was completely unsourced. When I asked Galassi to provide references to his statements in the article, he started to push outright fake or largely misinterpreted references - Russian-language sources which are not comprehensible to most of the readers and say nothing about masonic conspiracy or English-language sources which are only marginally connected to the topic of the article and don't support referenced statements.DonaldDuck (talk) 12:33, 30 December 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.
