Loading AI tools
- User talk:Will Beback/archive1 - January 2006
- User talk:Will Beback/archive2 - February 2006
- User talk:Will Beback/archive3 - March 2006
- User talk:Will Beback/archive4 - April 2006
Noticed your removal of BarraCuda's addition of an external link on this page. This user has added this link to many pages, in a similar fashion. Note- I'm not dobbing, just unsure of protocol in additions such as these, additions that seem to only be for promotion!
Cheers
Como006 15:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the List of University of California, Los Angeles people#Notable UCLA faculty is different from List of professors at UCLA. They appear to overlap. -Will Beback 20:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, they appear to overlap. A merge would be just fine. StabiloBoss 18:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I get a new IP address each day, so writing me replies is a bit pointless. But I said to you how you could respond. I was just passing on a message for your benefit. Feel free to delete it. Was just trying to help you out there.
- Well, someone in the process is misinformed, I never made any legal threat or mentioned libel. I simply asked for certain postings which violate the forum's own rules to be removed. -Will Beback 04:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your note about cult suicide. I understand that Siegel's death doesn't meet the current, narrow definition of cult suicide stated in the article, but perhaps the definition should be broadened. Suicide is a phenomenon in many cults, involving both members and leaders. I think there's a reason for that. Incidentally, there are more sucides in AR than just Siegel and Baird, but unfortunately Siegel's is the only one there is any encyclopedia-quality evidence about. -MichaelBluejay 14:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
don't rv my discussion area. 132.241.246.111 20:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's not your discussion area. It belongs to the IP. Get a username if you want to have your own userpage. -Will Beback 20:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
....I guess that makes sense. 132.241.246.111 20:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you removed the article I posted and said it should be on wikisource. I also felt that there was something off and I didnt get a response from a mod. How do I post articles speeches on wikipedia? They are different from posting editable pages I know but I just am new to wikipedia.
Thanks,
Jerry Jones 20:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I know you are a volunteer, just like the rest of us.
I tried sending you a wiki email, asking for advice on a mediation request someone else filed that I was involved in. I haven't seen a reply back, and don't know whether you did reply, but your email didn't make it to my eyeballs.
You committee members list an email link next to your names on the committee page. You do, in theory, respond to email on mediation matters? And when you do you put "wiki" in the subject line, to help make sure your reply gets through the receipient's spam filters?
Thanks -- Geo Swan 14:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to edit the articles you mentioned on my discussion pages to get them wiki-appropriate. I got the source material from the Stones and rewrote it into third person. Your posting is the first time I became aware that someone else has done the same thing. The bios came out similar but not identical. Could you join me in a conversation on my dicussion page (since it is a little less cluttered) on how I can remedy this situation? Thank you Cate108 23:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Just a little update on the charges I intend to make... I am swamped at work and may or may not get to them before the entries are deleted. I grabbed a copy of the old text in the event that I do not make the changes in time. Thanks for your help and understanding. Cate108 19:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You are the fastest reply in the west. Cool! Cate108 19:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
One more question, how to I find a user's list of contributions. I can find it on my watchpage right after they make a contribution/change but if someone else makes a change, it is lost. Is there a more reliable way of finding out? Thanks, Cate108 19:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. That is all I ever say here... thanks, thanks, thanks! LOL! Cate108 19:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. It was very thoughtful of you to adjust your comment on my talk page. Yet, you did not need to. I was not offended - I just want to write good articles. I will take you up on your offer to help when I am further along on my articles. Perhaps you would check them for originality and appropriate formatting. Is that OK? Thanks again. Cate108 00:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC) transnistria article is the playground of some sovietic pov pusher like User:Mikkalai. He keep reverting the word romanians from the language, population paragraphs. He doesn't admit the fact that moldovans are romanians, even if he can't prove is not like that.
Sorry, this isn't that important, but I saw your mention of rattlesnakes and their usefulness over at Crotalus horridus' page. It so happens that I have owned a Canebrake for four years that lives in my bedroom. She's about 4.5' long now. She's only bitten one guy, and he deserved it <g>. Great pet, even better exhibit—lots of oohs and ahhs when she eats! Dick Clark 15:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand the policy of not having a mere list of external links, but the links that have been removed storytelling festival are (contrary to your contention) to NON-profit/NON-commercial sites. Removing ALL the links (besides the link that is more related to the tellers and not the festivals) seems a bit extreme since it removes any links to any festivals which is what the article is about. Until more internal WikiPedia pages are built by those that are familiar with each individual festival, I believe that it would be useful to have some of them linked here since many of the festivals have various distinct qualities, not only in region, size and venue. I have a feeling that this page has been vandalized by the people who are charged with keeping others from being destructive...tearing down and removing information for the sake of inflating their "number of edits" instead of posting constructive information on the talk page and encouraging others to contribute. Shame on you! (this was left unsigned accidentally, but made by me Alancookie)
- Thanks will for the suggestion for creating an external list of sites in lieu of placing a large external list of links on wikipedia. I will explore the possibility of doing this. I had wished that this suggestion was made when removing the information from the page. New users may be more likely to stick around if they are given guidance rather than just smiting their contributions. Thanks. Alancookie 01:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I listed this external link in the Dude_Ranch article that was removed. I saw the link to everyduderanch.com, which is a very incomplete directory that is not very easy to use. Not that any directory is 100% complete, but the directory I added is much more extensive and would provide a better resource for those researching dude ranches in the United States and Canada. If you consider it link spam, consider everyduderanch.com spam as well. Furthermore, according to the external links article it is acceptable to have an external link to a web directory for the topic, which if there are two to choose the better (or open if any are). It is obvious that this dude ranch directory is more extensive than the everyduderanch.com directory therefore should replace it.--Ggman 21:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
mixvio applied for arbitration and accidently left you off the notify list.
That's a good idea. The case for a block I was making, along with Sarah's, seems to be going ignored... BTW, I did not know that a block would require the approval of three admins. 172 | Talk 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
what are you doing to my pants?--Cookamunga 00:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- no pants? you can't be serious? do you expect us to all run around without any trousers on? can you imagine the controversy?! Will somebody please think of the children!--Cookamunga 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Will,
We're having a meetup in Santa Barbara on Saturday at noon. I'd love it if you could come, but given the short notice, I fully understand if you can't. Angela will be there. Come up if you can! :-) Antandrus (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand the message you left on my discussion page. I'm merely trying to enforce the same standards that you obviously embrace. Is there something wrong with this? Corax 02:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think there is much to explain really. My edits were self-explanatory. I saw facts that were not cited, so I simply inserted the the ref tag. Is this a violation of Wikipedia policy? Corax 06:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- People over at that article have questions. This is a collegial effort. Responsible editors are willing to explain their edits to each other. -Will Beback 06:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would think that an administrator would comprehend written English better, but prehaps I overestimate your intelligence. What do you not understand about this: I SAW FACTS THAT WERE NOT CITED, SO I INSERTED THE REF TAG AS A REQUEST FOR CITATIONS. How is this in any way a violation of Wikipedia's stated policy, or disruptive to the encyclopedia? Corax 14:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Easy. Remember civility. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- WP:POINT -Will Beback 16:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would think that an administrator would comprehend written English better, but prehaps I overestimate your intelligence. What do you not understand about this: I SAW FACTS THAT WERE NOT CITED, SO I INSERTED THE REF TAG AS A REQUEST FOR CITATIONS. How is this in any way a violation of Wikipedia's stated policy, or disruptive to the encyclopedia? Corax 14:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- The only purpose of my edits was to request citations for unsourced information. That you, in your rush to violate wikipedia guidelines by assuming bad faith, believe that there was some hidden agenda, is not proof that such an agenda exists -- or that my edits were in violation of Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you keep your conjecture off my talk page, just as I expect you to keep it out of the articles you edit. You seem to have a problem with both. Corax 18:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. If you get a second, would you mind stopping by the Clarence Thomas Talk page? I'm in a dispute with a user over whether the fact that Thomas performed, at his home, Rush Limbaugh's third wedding should be mentioned in the article. I think it should. The other user does not. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. Eleemosynary 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I have explained my edit. Now stop vandalizing my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corax (talk • contribs)
How can the article Fictional resistance movements and groups be placed as a Feature Article ? Martial Law 05:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC) :)
I am unfamiliar with the process, and I did read the wiki-protocol. Just trying to stay out of trouble. Martial Law 06:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC) :)
Since you seem to be interested in helping out with WikiProject Dead malls, would you consider adding your name to the participant list? SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems like there's a LOT of Vandalism GOing Onn. Well, we could require all changes made to be made from a logged on Useraccount. Depending on the vandalism though, I acually don't know what the vandalism is like,[since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNUL hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up], but it must be made clear User Accounts have the option to be deleted, & after a certain period of time, they should be deleted; somepoeples personalities are like that they like to have things open ((open ended/no closure)).
Please reply.
Please leave one if you'd like more clarification on this issue. You could also contact me iooiioioo@hotmail.com [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNUL hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up].
thanks
24.70.95.203 20:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals). You should have looked at it the last time I mentioned it to you. Also, why do you constantly repeat "your" email address and that screed about why you won't sign up? We saw it the first few times, we don't need to be reminded of it every time you make a comment, unless you're just trying to make some point. --Golbez 20:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we should require 24.70.95.203 to register before making any more edits. ;) -Will Beback 22:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I checked Perennial Proposals, but the thing thats' not there is the ability for the user accounts to be come deleted after a period of time, & the option to delete an account. 1 reason people do not sign up for an account is because a name they want has been taken. Another reason is because they want closure; if the person decides they no longer want to be associated with Wikimedia, they have no way to achieve that.
- Please reply
- 24.70.95.203 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hee hee! Thanks for the heads up! :) --Sojambi Pinola 17:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
hey will
i've responded to your comment on Michael Dellums
Justforasecond 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I see that Ucprof is hitting all the famous acting teachers and adding the Jason Bennett links again. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I don't know what to do about that. Would you please advise? Tree Trimer 17:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any issues with a user:JarlaxleArtemis? He agreed to apologize to you as a condition of being unbanned, but now can't recall you. This may be in regard to something that would have happened back in the fall of last year. The user is trying to fulfill his requirements. If you'd like to see it settled that can happen or you can waive it off. -Will Beback 08:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Will: Thank you for your message. To be perfectly honest with you I can't recall any specific issues with this user, although the name is familiar; regardless, there's no need to apologise to me, since I've forgotten what the issue was anyway! Consider any such issues hereby waived in their entirety. :) I sincerely hope JarlaxleArtemis has a productive and enjoyable new life on Wikipedia, regardless of any issues I may have had with him in the past, and that he has every success in joining us as a productive editor. If he needs any help, by the way, I'm at his service, as I am at yours. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Accidentally ran a bot I was developing and it made that category change on that page only. The IP that changed it right after was me too...acidentally logged out. It was supposed to edit the sandbox page but it chose a random page instead. snpoj
Please may I draw your attention to
Your contributions would be very welcome. -- Brownlee 11:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Will. I see you've run into User:Justforasecond. If you have the time and energy, it would be appreciated if you could look over and participate in the discussions at Talk:Ron Dellums as well as the Michael Dellums article. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Any reason not to AFD the Michael Dellums article? I don't think he comes close to being notable. Guettarda 12:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Talk to Bcorr, he created the article. It's fine with me if its merged with Ron Dellums. There are only about three sentences of information which won't weigh down Ron's article too much. Justforasecond 16:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think the article is headed for AfD. I woudln't vote to merge, just to to delete it outright. -Will Beback 19:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Talk to Bcorr, he created the article. It's fine with me if its merged with Ron Dellums. There are only about three sentences of information which won't weigh down Ron's article too much. Justforasecond 16:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
These people think that 2 year olds should be medicating their own genitals (among other arbitrary demands)...that's not weird? They are creepy extremists. If ETAY doesn't belong on the child abuse page, neither do these people. St. Jimmy 14:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Oh, and the mandatory indoctrination (oops, family planning/parenting) classes for welfare recipients was a nice touch too. St. Jimmy 14:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
There is an article that is stated "2006 immigrant rights protest" and this title is clearly POV and not balanced. I need an admin to come and take appropriate action because knowing wikipedia someone will just come and remove labels I put up to go their way.
I think it should be fair for all sides and say "2006 Immigration reform protests" or "2006 Illegal immigration protest" or "2006 immigration protests" something along those lines. Shoving biased terms down peoples throats will just make wikipedia lose its reputation.
Thank you for your consideration and please help us resolve this matter.
71.131.234.218 12:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- It looks like he is now posting under the IP 66.254.238.240 Makes the same changes and addresses the same articles. AriGold 21:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- He is being disruptive and is now using the name RicardoTubbs Instead of saying Miami defeated Florida State, he insists on using "pummelled" or "dispatched" or anything he can think of that is nnpov. He also insists on saying that Miami has had "unrivaled" success at producing NFL players which is patently false. I have changed it to great success, but schools like Notre Dame and Michigan had put more players in the pros and Florida State and Ohio State currently have more pros. I addressed this on the discussion board, but the poster is notorious for not discussing issues. AriGold 12:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
"A while back I added "controversial anti-hate group" as a description to SPLC in a number of references on various articles. I did so because editors were adding all sorts of ad hominem attacks on the SPLC and it was essentially a pre-emptive compromise. More recently a well-intentioned editor removed one and soon even worse descriptions were added in its place, so we eventually we reverted to the compromise formula. If you have a better way of describing it then that'd be great. But to leave it undescribed invites others to describe it- Will Beback 22:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)"
Thanks for the explainer. I don't have a better descriptor though a link to its page should suffice. I understand it does not. skywriter 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Will - how do I open a debate with you/others on the edits we are all making to pedophilia in literature/fiction etc/
Tony Sandel
Hello. You're now officially a mentor of Neuro-linguistic programming. Be sure to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming. I sent you a bit more detail by email. Again, thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- And if you have any questions, concerns, problems, etc, you may ask John, kate or myself. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I keep the tequila in my second desk drawer; this too is vital information for undertaking this task. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Please do not be uncivil to your fellow editors. I have edited in good faith, and you are supposed to assume such. Please do not try to coerce me through aggression (I would see "blocking" as a type of aggression). Thank you CabotTheWarrior 08:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)CabotTheWarrior
Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if this is the appropriate page to ask you questions about editing, etc., but I was curious as to why you temporarily disabled the Pomona College page. Is adding a link to a student page ("PoGoss") considered "vandalism"? Why? Did someone request that the page be protected? Who? Is there someone else I should be directing these questions to? Thanks.
Your kind words and offer bring a tear to my eye. I really wouldn't mind doing a few extra chores around here. I must admit that there have been times when I've thought to myself that a mop and bucket would come in handy, if the community dares entrust me with them. Only thing that worries me a little is that I'm starting grad school soon and I don't know how much time I'll be able to contribute at that point...
But that's a few months off yet. Besides, I think it will be fun to subject myself of the scrutiny of the community.
I accept. 8)--Rockero 23:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say thanks again. I hope you don't mind if I come knocking on your door for advice from time to time. PAZ, --Rockero 23:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you will find a clear explanation on the deletion page. You should realize that dominionism as a "trend" is a category and field of study, and major figures in the field of study should be included in the template, just as important people in the field of philosophy are included in the philosophy template, even if they did not create a new philosophy themselves. People interested in christianity should be directed to commentators on christianity by a template, and not just to christains. If they aren't being interpreted in this way then, then the template is just being used for namecalling, and I doubt that is your intent.--Silverback 00:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Philosophy would be an excellant example, if it were a template, unfortunately it is so big it is a portal. It lists people who just study the the philosophy of others and don't have philosophies themselves. In fact the western tradition of philosophy is more a critical tradition than a philosphy. I will look to see if there are some template examples as well.--Silverback 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- is a good example. Instead of just having a single category "figures", they separate practitioners from critics. If you want to seperate it "figures" into the criticized and the criticizers, or some similar clarification, I am receptive.--Silverback 00:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You mentioned in the article that hikers and climbers die or are harmed every year in the mountain. I am curious that how often does one hiker die on the way to the peak of Mount San Jacitnto? Could you please refer me to the reference? Geographer 06:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response to the source for the harzard. For Tahquitz, I hiked all the way to the fire watch tower back in 2000, the view of Mount San Jacinto was amazing. I saw Coulter pine and stream fog for the first time in that trip. I always want to hike to the top of Mount San Jacinto, and always think about it is as easy as to top Mt. Baldy (summer) and neglect any potential risks. Although I have heard people do die for topping Mt. Mount San Gorgonio.
Please update with me for your hiking events, I am too busy with my work and study to join the strawberry trip. Meanwhile I just moved recently where the front yard view changed from Mount Baldy to Mount Wilson. Geographer 23:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me remind you that the www.Swaminarayan.info is part of the Swaminarayan Samprday and by being a member of the Swaminarayan Sampraday I am allowed to borow this from the site Raj - सनातन धर्म 08:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: Category:Mental illness --> Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD. Did Drapetomania ever make it into the DSM and ICD? I'd be surprised. -Will Beback 06:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- No idea. I only saw that Category:Mental illness had become a hard redirect to Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD so I moved the few articles that were still there into the new cat. Note the comment in the latter category: "This is a merger of the categories Mental Illness and Psychiatric Disorders". Maybe something got screwed up? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi--thanks for the new user's information, tutorial, etc. I just wrote an article for Pomona College's radio station KSPC and would like to have a link on the Pomona College website. Since the website is protected, could you add the link? Or do you think the article will be unprotected soon? Also, does my KSPC article look wikipedia-worthy? Thanks! RODQL08
Will Beback, can you please give Northmeister some space. He needs a chance to work on this without having to justify everything. That is reasonable, right.
He agrees to stay away from policy pages for now. Let's support this postive choice by giving him some space. FloNight talk 00:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I've replied to your comment on my talk page. Could you please confirm/unconfirm it for me, as I won't have access to Fowler's for a while yet :) porges 08:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Will Beback/archive4! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for eliminating this Chevalier character. User:Ordre St Jean is definitely his sock and a major nuisance too. I hope he will be blocked as well. Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 10:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Can you help me again? Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 07:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
If you have a moment, please lend your thoughts to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvinist confederacy. --Flex 01:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I used the link because of the video, not the blog.
I'm a land development engineer. My first visit to Wikipedia was from a Google search for Coving. This site had the best definition for the term that I have seen since I first read about the method in C&E Magazine almost ten years ago. I have referred developers and city council members to your site to read that article. I was very disappointed when it was stripped of most of its text. Now the entire article is gone. It looks like you editors think this is some kind of game, but real people use these articles and we look like fools when we refer others to your site and all they see is a hole because some editor wanted to punish another editor. You can be part of the solution or you can be part of the problem.
Nobody in the real world cares about reindeer games; we just want the toys delivered. --Vista Delay 23:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt that I have generated enough clout to edit one of the growing number of off-limit articles around here. Are you trying to get me banned? --Vista Delay 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect this is another Zephram Stark sockpuppet. I've asked Jayjg (who can use CheckUser) to check. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Destroying things of value will not help you win dominance over others. The path of hatred and destruction only leads to the disappointment, fear and anger of frustrated expectations. While nobody wants to see these articles destroyed, their value is certainly less than one's freedom. --Vista Delay 00:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You have blocked User:WhiskyWhiskers for indefinite but he seems to operate now as User:155.84.57.253 and keeps on adding "The King of Nines" to the Browning Hi-Power-article. --81.197.218.62 23:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your comments to the anon user on Buchanan's removal from the Irish category. This is all part of a larger discussion, the gist of which is going on at [Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Guidelines_for_Wikipedia_lists_of_ethnic_groups], as well as sub discussions on the Irish and Greek. Basically what we have is a confusing mess in trying to decide how these ethnicity lists that have sprung up should be organized - there's the proposal at the link I gave you, there are people who think some of the pages should be "Americans of something descent" as opposed to "something-Americans" (and that's part of the conflict on the Irish page, which was moved to List of Americans of Irish descent, and there is also the faction (SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and GraceNote) over at village pump that say a person can't be placed on any of these lists unless they are specifically described as, using this example, "Irish" or "Irish-American" (i.e. not even born in Ireland or having Irish parents, etc.), because it would be a violation of Original Research. I know you're a long-time administrator, so I'm asking you what do you think? Is it a violation of original research? Mad Jack O'Lantern 00:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- For clarification, I have commented only on the Jewish lists (i.e. that if someone is added as a Jew, a reliable publication must have described them as such), and I've specifically said I'm making no comment on any other lists, as I believe Jayjg also made clear. Jack O'Lantern is aware of that. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Grace Note says that original Research policies are violated everywhere when someone is added to an ethnicity list who is not described as exactly that (i.e. "Greek" or "Greek Americans"). Obviously this is either true for all ethnicity lists, or it isn't the case for any of them. What I'm trying to clarify is if it is or not. Mad Jack O'Lantern 00:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I came across a problem at Billy Graham the other day, and after it persisted for a while I checked the offendor's user talk. I was rather unsettled to discover that you had clearly warned User:Rogerman about the same activities, and very soon after he registered. Originally it was my hope to explain to him in edit summaries and the discussion page that labelling the subject of a biography in its opening section with controversial viewpoints, or as being controversial, spins the article unduly toward that POV, but now that I have seen your messages to him, I realize that Rogerman has been on a mission to do just that, and in more than a couple articles. I see that this editor actually asked you later for assistance in winning battles that he had begun with his own POV inserts. I applaud you for responding to his requests as neutrally as possible, but be aware that some manipulation on his part might have been afoot. Please note his recent activity in the Billy Graham edit history, and perhaps check his user talk to see the pattern of POV complaints that his endeavors have elicited. I don't think that further reasoning with him about his agenda, or at least not by anybody other than an admin, will necessarily be a wise investment of time if he has demonstrated a lack of good faith in POV so far. Thanks for looking into this. Projection70 03:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Projection70, going around talking behind my back is not cool. If you have a problem with my edits, why didn't you come to me directly? That would have been the appropriate step if you indeed wanted to resolve an issue rather than causing trouble. That said, I am always willing to work with anyone, no matter how many conflicts I may of had with them in the past. Please contact me if you would like to make amends and work together for a better Wikipedia. -Rog
Rogerman 04:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman
- I raised my concerns about your behavior in the proper place, on the discussion page of the article. Indeed this was "the appropriate step." When you then continued your activity instead of checking or engaging the discussion page, I checked your user talk page and realized that you have been notified of the same infractions before, as you hop from page to page to interject your POV (in the name of NPOV) regarding public figures whom you dislike. This is when I took the next appropriate step, as it became clear that your pattern needed admin attention. I was aware that you could read the user pages on which I asked for admin attention, so it was not, per se, behind your back. Projection70 05:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Look, let's work to build concensus instead of arguing, okay? Rogerman 05:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman
I see that someone has posted a special California History with poppy tag on several sites. The one on the History of Los Angeles is corrupted. Could you find out who that is and have it fixed? Magi Media 05:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Magi Media
- Never mind!!! I fixed it myself! Magi Media 05:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Magi Media
In refrence to LA History 1913-1941. It's not so much that I have a community allegiance nor that I consider LA City "the enemy." But I was born and raised in Altadena since the war, and I didn't much get into LA ever. A lot of times the place is foreign to me. Now my brother-in-law, City Councilman Tom LaBonge is a 3rd generation Angeleno with a lot of historical knowledge, if not too much of it is BS. He is particularly interested in LA bridges, the Hyperion Bridge in particular which btw has a WWI dedication chiseled into it. If you see many of my historical writings of local areas, you will notice I don't write much in this same period on anything. Either its boring, or not historical enough. If I were to give an inpression of LA history during this period, it would be all Red Car and urbanization. Maybe Hollywood. And then there's the aviation industry, big stuff. Before 1900 a visiting Henry Huntington predicted that LA would become an enterprise of real estate and transportation, not realizing he was foreseeing his own future. Look at the Kinney article and Venice. A lot of specific locations with independently interesting development. So what's in LA City like that? I'll have to give it thought. Thanks for asking Magi Media 13:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Magi Media
Thanks for the welcome! I was beginning to wonder when an admin would welcome me. ;) M P M 09:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
why do u keep deleting this law? here is where your response belongsDarkstar1st 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I liked your line "Better articles are our goal, not better policies" Do you mind if I use it with attribution to you? JoshuaZ 06:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Will, since you were previously helping in editing the article Immigration to Mexico, I need your help. I organized the page in sections, and I explained myself in the talk page why I did it the way I did, but another user keeps ignoring my comments and keeps removing one of the sections and inserting the information at the top of the page. Mind you, it's the information said user originally inserted when the article was created. I explained myself yesterday and this is the second time this has happened. I don't want this to turn into an edit war so can you please help mediate. Thanks! M P M 07:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. The anon that removed a lot of info from Union College complained about missing citations. He kinda has a point IMHO - a lot of that stuff could use some notes on where it came from. Just my two cents since I'm sensing an edit war brewing... :) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Er, excuse me, but you are removing categories that clearly apply, as they were both black and criminal. Legendary Steve 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- And in reply to your specific question, he admitted the crimes. Legendary Steve 22:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- What crimes? -Will Beback 22:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Have you read the article? More to the point, are you seriously arguing that neither Jesus nor Martin Luther King, Jr. were criminals? Legendary Steve 22:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- What crimes? -Will Beback 22:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- What crimes did Blair commit? According to whom was Jesus black? -Will Beback 22:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Amongst other things, fraud and deception, as is made clear in the article. As for Jesus being black, well, for a start the Rastifarians claim that. Legendary Steve 22:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Writing a false newspaper article is journalistic fraud, but doesn't violate any law that I'm aware of. Do you think that the Rastafarians represent the consensus view on the race of Jesus? -Will Beback 22:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Submitting a false expenses claim certainly does. Of course I do not believe that the Rastafarians represent the consensus view on the race of Jesus; however part of the problem lies within the definition of black: If black is strictly to mean of Sub-Saharan African then it is indeed unlikely that Jesus was black, however this is a minority interpretation of the phrase. Legendary Steve 22:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Submitting false expense claims is a civil matter between Blaier and his employer, but it is not a criminal matter. Unless you are going to call all people with non-white skin "Black", Jesus does not belong. Please don't disrupt the project with this nonsense. -Will Beback 22:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- That is not the case, it is fraud which is a criminal matter. For more information on the claims of Jesus being black, start here. Legendary Steve 22:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Will Beback, thank you for your persistent monitoring of Pedophilia activism, Lolicon and other related articles. Your calm and reasonable comments are much appreciated. : ) FloNight talk 22:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern regarding the James Hahn article. The only reason I deleted the info box was to try to figure out why his image was not working. I now understand that there was not proper licensing. Could you please help me how to find an image of Hahn that is appropriate for the site? In addition, I always had the full intention of placing the info box back, which I did.
Regarding the content of the article, everything that has been written comes from press releases of his office, speeches he has given, websites of his office or campaigns, websites of others, and articles that have appeared in local newspapers. All of the information is accurate, but I admit that it is biased in Hahn's favor.--Jfree8 08:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
They're requesting a unblock but I don't want to do it without asking you, I'm not 100% on what the vandalism was there, could you take a second look please -- Tawker 17:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Are not Hahamonga Watershed Park and Oak Grove Park the same? --fpo 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. I admit to a minimal, but (IMO) necessary, bending of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS in order to determine the fact of Ms. Devi's death. That does not mean that we should just flout those polices altogether by writing an original account of her death. It is well-researched, but original research is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Please post it in some other website. I am going to revert your contribution, and mention that there has been confusion over her death. This is nothing personal and I hope you appreciate that it is simply a matter of how this encyclopedia is put together. - Will Beback 08:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, too. In this particular case, I tend to disagree with your assessment. If I get you straight, that means that I would have to put up the information that I have rather painstakingly synthesized on another website and then quote/reference myself? I'd do that, but it would be a little hard for me to find a site willing to put up with that...unless you are saying that I should start a blog or something...which would then join the 3.5 billion other blogs that no one but their authors read :)
- I tell you what: instead of reverting my text, which essentially just wiped it away forever, could you at least place it here on my talk page, so, if nothing else, I can admire my own handiwork? (and if it is considered inappropriate to repost this section from my own talk page here on your talk page as well, I apologize, but I don't have an idea if you were watching my talk page or not...so when you reply on my talk page, you can always delete this section from yours) -- Jalabi99 22:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- (a little later, after Will had added what I wanted to my Talk page)
- Thanks, mate! :) -- Jalabi99 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Would you please explain why you reverted the Jack Hyles page? Pooua 04:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation, that you reverted several articles because they deleted sourced information without an edit summary. You may be unaware that the deleted sourced material in the Jack Hyles article is in violation of copyright. I have been in contact with the copyright holder to confirm this fact. I do not feel I need to take further action on this matter, because the copyright holder appears to be eager to do so.
Of course, the fact that the material is in violation of copyright is only a small part--though a part you won't be able to overlook--of all the problems with that article. Those "sourced items" should never have been in the article, not just because they violated copyright, but because they were sensationalized, speculative, one-sided accusations. They show shoddy research, interested only in heaping scorn on the subject without providing a true understanding of it. And, because the research was so shoddy, the article has now fallen victim to its own failures, by stealing Fox News' copyrighted material and passing it off as unattributed public domain news stories. Pooua 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Will, I provided most of the answers you ask on the Jack Hyles Discussion page. However, I will provide you with what I know of the subject.
The items that I have so far discovered in copyright violation (and I think they are the only ones for which the case could be made) are the external links to the articles, "Preying from the Pulpit." According to the Jack Hyles article, the source is "Detroit Michigan Eyewitness News," which tells us precisely nothing, though I did not notice that until I happened to run across the actual source recently. I spent Sunday reading through NWI Times archives on Jack Hyles, when I discovered that it was "Detroit television station WJBK-TV," a Fox News affiliate station, that produced the articles. I still did not recognize what I had found, until my opponent, Arbusto, challenged me to specify the articles my quotes were indicating. That's when I realized that he couldn't know, because the material was never properly referenced. Or, rather, he would have had to use deductive reasoning to figure it out, but I will give him a pass on that because I missed it the first first few times I looked at it.
The Wikipedia links to the "Preying from the Pulpit" series go to Jeri Massi's personal webpage. I have discoursed with Ms. Massi for more than a year, as she was a constant foil on the "Fightin' Fundamentalist Forum" (now since shut down). She never hesitates to heap scorn on any fundamentalist preacher who is not a Calvinist; in particular, she targets Jack Hyles, and anyone associated with Jack Hyles. But, she has gone too far, this time, in stealing that copyrighted material and publishing it on her Website without attribution.
I made a long distance phone call to WJBK this morning, and was put in contact with a woman named Pat. She asked me to e-mail her the details, which I did. She has thanked me for calling this matter to her attention.
I don't know all the material that was deleted, apart from the Jack Hyles page. The only other page that might be related to him that I have looked at so far is the new page Arbusto made for the "Preying from the Pulpit" series; no material was deleted from that page. Pooua 05:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Currently there is a dispute regarding the appropriate categorization of the NAMLBA article. Accordingly, I have added a disputed tag to that section of the article. Your insistence on duplicating the disputed tag in a way that throws the entire article into question is inappropriate, and violates wikipedia policy. Please refrain from doing this in the future, or I will report you for vandalism. Corax 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing! Skywriter 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I have responded to your reporting of the supposed 3RR violation. I feel confident that things will be decided in my favor. Corax 16:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Awww mate, that's mighty unfair.
I was blocked, without warning, after one revert, after waiting hours for a response, after being reverted myself "pending discussion," by an editor whom I've got a long history with and whom I was involved in a content dispute with. About this there has been (almost) no complaints from me. In fact, I've stated several times that I want only to concentrate on the actual issues of clerks' authority. I only mention it here because of your comment.
To suggest, as the statement above does, that I'm in need of forgiveness seems to be quite a stretch.
brenneman{L} 08:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it was a mistake. Everyone agrees. Don't harp on what already happened. Bask in the private knowledge that you're right. I think you're trying to get Sidaway to apologize and it won't happen, nor will you apologize. So just drop the mutual recrimination. Fix the policy so it doesn't happen again. Lobby for limits on clerks, etc. Call an RfC if you think it necessary, but I hope it isn't. Wikipedia has too many important problems without our most valuable editors fighting. -Will Beback 08:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ahhh... when you expand it like that, there's almost nothing I can't agree with. Except that I'm happy to say say that I am sorry that my reversion struck a nerve. I thought it in the category of "slightly provocative" also known as "small poke with unsharpened stick." Blech, those are terrible apologies, aren't they? Let me try again: I should have voiced my concerns in some public forum rather than escalating, and for this I do apologise.
- Blessed are the peacemakers,
- brenneman{L} 23:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The current BJU catalog ('06-'07) says there are 48--and I trust the catalog more than the website.
John Foxe 13:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, how about we list them? -Will Beback 21:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- As of right now, there are 48 societies: 22 for men, 24 for women, and 2 which are open for men or women over 23 years of age. The number of societies fluctuates a little every couple years, as some societies get disbanded for lack of membership, and new ones are occasionally created as the need arises. Chi Delta Chi, for instance, has under 20 members and may be disbanded next year. Barang 23:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey there! I thought I should notify you that I have reverted your edit on ILovePlankton's talk page. It is really weird that the contents "was made invisible". Out of couriosity, what browser do you use? Because under Firefox it renders well. And the "trick" based on not closing the WikiTable is actually a very popular way of changing the style of a talk page without having to move any closing tags everytime a new comment is added (essentially because the whole page is then within a single cell). Your edit actually made the table of contents to escape offscreen to the right. For reference, you can also check my talk page as I'm using a very similar trick (only the opening of the table is in a custom template). Misza13 T C 22:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You objected to the use of a blog as a source. The blog contains photographic evidence of dozens of Tancredo signs and students cheering at CPAC. Eye witness and photographic evidence supports that statement. If the CPAC section is included, I think the crowd response is noteable.-Jcmiller
- I've responded at Talk:Tom Tancredo. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I followed up on your note on the Talk: Asian fetish page about the same individual posting his wares to the Pedophile activism article. The individual concerned (IP 80.171.114.119) claims he is not the Virago vandal. His IP is different, (the Virago vandal was IP 80.138.189.15), although evidently from the same part of the world. Also, although he has the same tedious writing style, his material and his sources are different. Can we verify the IP? Let me know what you think. Sunray 21:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just noticed that the IP range was different. IPs can change, and people can move. I'm not sure that he is the Virago vandal, and I may be wrong. -Will Beback 21:41, 30 April 2006 (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.
