Loading AI tools
Just saw your note. Many thanks for the suggestion about external links. Please rest assured that the ones I contributed are directly relevant links to scholarly sources that will positively enhance the research task of anyone looking at the articles in question.
In regards to the sailing link stuff you left on my talk page.
I added a link to the US Sailing webpage which is the NATIONAL authority for sailing in the US. It controls all racing and olympic bids for athletes. I'm not sure why sailmaster keeps deleting it. He keeps ASA which is another smaller sailing association in the US so his logic is flawed.
I also added a link to the UCLA sailing manual. Again it has no advertisement and is a FREE resource on learning to sail. I'm not sure why he keeps deleting a valid free link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmikulich (talk • contribs) 01:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of reliable sources, can you take a look at source usage in lane splitting, especially with respect to claims that it is illegal in every state but California? As near as I can tell, while some states explicitly prohibit lane splitting, whether it is legal in the other states, including California, is unclear.
We know it is not always illegal in California, because there are official statements that explicitly indicate it is allowed "when safe and prudent". In the other states there are no such statements, AFAIK, but lacking explicit law prohibiting it, that doesn't mean it's always illegal either. Yet the article, in the intro, states that it is. I added a {{fact}} template earlier today, but it was reverted and I don't want to get in an edit war. I told the editor I would wait a week and put it back then if there is no source to back up that claim by then. Since I live in CA, I don't really care what the legal status is in other states - I just want this article to accurately reflect what the reliable authoritative sources have to say about it.
Your wise and usually ;-) objective perspective is appreciated in advance. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this weak point out, Will! I had already deleted my comment pretty fast, feeling sorry for having been carried away. I do understand that this matter has to be handeled with special discipline, and there must be no tolerance for personal attacks. Still it amazes me, prefering to think of myself as a fairy mature character, how easily I get off balance when I deal with you! Must work on my temper, and WP proves to be an excellent training ground. Even when I often cannot agree with your angle in matters of content of the Rawat articles, your composure is always exemplary to me.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Will. This user has come on IRC just now asking about their block; I've taken a look at things, and their explanation of getting the content from another site seems reasonable. The history for Anarchopedia's version of the article does seem to be copied from when Zebruh was active (which also means it's GFDL, so not a copyvio either, yay). I can email you the conversation if you like (the part that took place in the unblock channel), but I would ask that you reconsider this. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Will, Actually My Friend is the Administrator of the Site Group that I copied the texts from. And I already asked for his permission to copy those Texts here. Hope to hear from you soon. Puertopalomar (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a flickr group on which my friend "Auxilium Christianorum" is an admin. he opened some discussion threads and Those were the ones I copied here which he gave me permission to do so. Our Flickr Group is "Snr.Sto.Nino De Cebu or SSNDC" Puertopalomar (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I edited Joshua Tree (disambiguation) again to make it say:
- Joshua Tree, California, a census-designated place in San Bernardino County, California, United States
Is that OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nappyrootslistener (talk • contribs) 00:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Water Tank... thanks for bringing back from the edge, I got myself booted from editing... Vinmax —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.74.240.97 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
NPA clearly states, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." The statement "X started acting as if ..." is derogatory.
derogatory - "expressive of a low opinion" [m-w.com]
Or do you think it was meant as a complement? BTW, you're not exactly an impartial person on this matter... --Born2cycle (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, much better, but I think a full deletion of the entire comment is more appropriate. The editor should be able reword it any way he wants, without lodging insulting comments at other contributors. The note noting the redaction, and the obvious way in which the redaction was done, brings unnecessary unattention to the derogatory comment. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks like some of the material in Bonnie Erbe to which there are objections was added by you back in March. Since that material appears to be based on interpetations of primary sources, and since the subject appears to object to those interpretations, maybe it'd be better to leave it out pending secondary sources. Will Beback talk 03:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever her objections are, I find it unsettling that she simply takes it out like that, herself, and not an anonymous user or third party, like it would be expected in a typical content dispute. Does WP have any sort of policy on this, because it would be interesting if you could show me what is usually done when people unilaterally remove content from their own entry. ADM (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- WP has two pages that are worth mentioning here. WP:BLP calls on all editors to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material found in BLPs. WP:COI strongly discourages conflicted from editing articles directly. You restored the information that I deleted, so COI isn't really the key issue. I'd like to stubify the article again, but I want to make sure that this won't turn into an edit war. Will Beback talk 03:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have a conflict of interest, I was just collecting a bit of material from her press editorials. Since I don't know her personally, I am fairly sure that she has more of a conflict of interest than I do. Also, I personally wouldn't mind if you re-stubbed the entry because I don't think the material I added was terribly important. ADM (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's gone. Wowest (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, O.K. but you KNOW what the result of the change discussed, without my comments, is going to look like. Wowest (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
All we can do is wait and see, but I'm predicting more friction. Anything I'm likely to say about the subject will be honest (despite claims that heretics (I can't recall the word here) can't be trusted), but I'm going to have to bite my tongue ... er ... fingers a lot. I'll plan (hope I can follow through) to run things by you first. I am not very good at tact at times. Wowest (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I find Ynot4... totally incapable of reasoning on the discussion page. I go into considerable detail to explain to him that Mark Levin makes clear that he disagrees with Thomas Jefferson but he acts like he is so stupid he cannot understand. I explain to Ynot4... that it doesn't matter that it is not notable but he acts like he is so thickheaded he cannot understand. I know that this guy's account has been closed. Unless he can demonstrate that he is capable of reasoning, he should not be allowed to edit. RHB100 (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you tell me or give me a link to determine the meaning of RFC in the context in which you used the term? I searched for RFC and found a Wikipedia page on RFC with multiple definitions, none of which seemed to fit the context in which you used the term. I will appreciate it if you are able to find time to clarify this. RHB100 (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I got your message. But please keep in mind that Ynot4 has made numerous personal attacks on me, incorrectly accusing me of falsely attributing quotes and also falsely accusing me of writing misleading, opinionated, non-notable passage as per discussion in the talk page when it was not discussed in any way on the talk page. These two attacks were done in the revision history. RHB100 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Will, do you agree with user:Gwen_Gale at Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#Notability that i have to seek consensus to add a tag to an article? wp:tagging seems to indicate that this is not the case: "Criticisms (as expressed through article tags) and incremental editing are an important part of writing a collaborative encyclopedia, and should be welcomed rather than discouraged." and "If an argument on the talk page has been made as to the reason for the tag, but someone still feels that the tag is inappropriate, he or she should explain the reasoning on the talk page. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed. If there is disagreement, then normal talk page discussion should proceed, per consensus-building." I think ive made my case that the article is poorly sourced and, therefor, not notable or important, but im reluctant to challenge gwen as she is an administrator. May I ask your opinion on this matter? Thanks in advance. Bonewah (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Will Beback, I would like to ask that you reconsider your position in light of the cost benefit analysis that I have added. I recognize that in the past the reasons for adding an additional paragraph may not have been clear. However, I think that the logic in the recently added cost benefit analysis is irrefutable. We must take the positive approach of adding more paragraphs. If one paragraph is inadequate, then we must add two. If two is inadequate, then we must add three. We must take the positive approach of adding more material, not the negative approach of removing material. We must be positive. Please read the Cost Benefit Analysis on the RFC of the Mark Levin article discussion page and then take the positive approach of adding more material and improving the section under discussion. RHB100 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Mark Levin Fan Club
Will Beback, there appears to be a Mark Levin Fan Club controlling the Mark Levin Wikipedia page. In addition to the material that is now in RFC, all but the most benign part of Dahlia Lithwick's review of "Men in Black" has been removed. Ynot4tony2 tries to intimidate other editors by making personal attacks. Ynot4tony2 then follows up by asking boring, uninteresting questions and making boring, uninteresting comments. This makes the comment page so boring and uninteresting that very few intelligent persons want to participate.
The Mark Levin page should not all be written by those who idolize this man. We should also have comments from honest objective observers who make unbiased comments such as what Dahlia Lithwick has done and which I also have done. RHB100 (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Personal Attack
Will Beback, please take a look at this quote of Ynot4tony2 on the Mark Levin discussion page in the section, Response to Cost Benefit Analysis, "You were asked if it was controversial, and you said, 'I think it's controversial.' Allow me to be blunt, but who cares what you think? To be considered 'controversial', it should take more than a hostile, rude editor deeming it so."
- This is a personal attack. He is completely disregarding the guidelines and rules when he makes these accusations. He is so venomous with his hatred that I don't see how we can have a civil discussion with his participation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Will Beback. A recent request for clarification which you were a part of, "Prem Rawat 2", has been archived and can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2. If you still have questions about this case, please feel free to post another clarification request, contact a Clerk, or the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand user Pergamino has been banned for allegedly being a sock of Jossi. It makes me wonder, because all I remember about Pergamino was a difference of opinion recently, which I would not have expected with Jossi (or any suspected alias of his), as we rather used to share a similar POV. So I tried to find out on what evidence this ban is grounded, but that seems to be concealed or hard to find. Can you perhaps show me where to find material to help me form my own judgement?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, thanks, Will.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you notice Talk:William_E._Dannemeyer section anti-illegal immigration activist? Debresser (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
And Talk:Thomas_M._Davis#anti-illegal_immigration_activist? Debresser (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please consider having a look at Barbara Jordan too. In connection with this same subject. Debresser (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this the same account as A.J.A. (talk · contribs)? It's the same M.O. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- See Talk:Buddhism and Christianity. A.J.A. is all over the page, and ADM just showed up and moved it and forked it out to three articles without any discussion. Both accounts are obsessed with homosexuality, Buddhism, Christianity, and other related topics. At first I thought they were both Jason Gastrich, but then I see that Gastrich and A.J.A. don't like each other. I really don't know what to think at this point, but I wish these editors would grow up and evolve. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Blobmaster33 has returned and is again attempting to add incorrect information to the Gatlinburg article, and apparently has progressed to the New York City article. Bms4880 (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope that you will revisit this RFD.Historicist (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to make of this. I collected some statistics on "Criticism of ..." articles and put them on the article talk page. I'm generally somewhat anti-spinout, but usually this is a problem in the fancruft area. There's a discussion of criticism spinout articles at Wikipedia talk:Content forking. It's controversial, usually associated with controversial subjects, and somewhat discouraged, but not explicitly prohibited. It seems to work better in the abstract-concept area than in the organization area. --John Nagle (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This has been brewing for months, ever since last September. The discussion of whether Winston Smith from the Political Cesspool is Harold Covington. I don't really know what to think of it all, so I was wondering if you have any input.
1. The SPLC has printed briefly that Winston Smith from the show is Harold Covington. It is not mentioned elsewhere, or more than once on the SPLC link.
2. It has been confirmed (through both Winston's broadcasts on the Cesspool and Stormfront radio) that he is the one on Wikipedia who has said multiple times that he is not Harold Covington. But also, he did not take the issue to Wiki's 3rd party dispute resolution.
3. There are no images of Winston Smith on thepoliticalcesspool.org website. However, here are a few pickups that are slightly strange and suspicious. On the photos section of the show's website (http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/photos.php), images #18, 19, 24 show an unidentified individual helping the cesspool staff.
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/4636/25827900.jpg
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/6666/16959668.jpg
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/879/95612685.jpg
I couldn't help but notice some resemblance between the individual and Harold Covington and Ben Covington's photographs on this page here; http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=980
Do you think that they are the same person, and/or some way to clear it up? Personally, I do not see a point in mentioning Harold Covington on the Political Cesspool Wiki site because if untrue, could have a great detrimental effect on the integrity of the article. --Rock8591 22:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm retired, but still checking my talk page (only quit a coupla days ago, cold turkey is hard). I'm pretty convinced the tag is correct, but there was never any formal SPI or anything else. Just purely behavioral and editing analysis on my part.24.185.240.180 (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Greetings,
Abram is cited in this Jewish Educational Leader's Handbook: http://books.google.ca/books?id=xucuLQxVPoEC&pg=PA313&lpg=PA313&dq=norm+abram+jewish&source=bl&ots=9Rhi-H8GF4&sig=vjelBZbiX3InK3ZRPXZShHZ0hl0&hl=en&ei=_3U4Svb_GoSHtgfWp-DlDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7
Also there's a joke: Did You Ever Stop to Think That Norm Abram of This Old House . . . . . . is the second-most-famous Jewish Carpenter in all of History? See here: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Ptb7OXHO8nIJ:www.newwookiee.com/story/Get_Out_Your_Power_Tools_Norm_Speaks_Nesters_Listen_104405.asp+famous+jews+norm+abram&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
I assumed with the last name, Abram, Jewishness was a given. His bio doesn't mention his ethnicity.....so, perhaps you can email and request it for his Wiki bio: contact@thisoldhouse.com
BTW.....Are you the moderator for Norm Abram's page?
thanks--Bureaucracy (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 |
User:Will Beback/archive42 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Coolness! Milo 19:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Will. There is a message for you here: Talk: Greek love#Committee for keeping Greek Love. Thanks. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Will,
I see from the WP:EL talk archives that you have previously commented on alternative ways to determine an "official web site".
I'm struggling with a WP bureaucracy. So far, they have insisted on inflexible requirements not mentioned in the guide, which deny on a technical category basis what off-wiki users consider to be a specific official site. Please read and comment if you think my position is reasonable. Milo 20:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I've seen hints of this editing behavior on other articles, but none as obvious as the repetitive edits at Gatlinburg -- the edits seem to follow a pattern and its editors are similarly relentless and unsresponsive to any feedback, requests, blocking, etc. Here's the latest:. The content and links don't always seem to be the same -- and are often unsourced -- and appear to have had some sort of human touch at some point, but perhaps not during the actual edits. Not sure if these are automated edits or lowly paid editors following a pre-determined series of edits or even anything, but I thought I'd share some observations. Flowanda | Talk 02:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That page was on my watchlist because I did a minor expansion (infobox, history, properly tagged seals) back in 2006. Then that user appeared and, despite my edit summaries warning him/her not to keep doing that, it still did. I'd sort of forgotten about it (other stuff became more pressing), but I'm glad to see someone finally putting their foot down. I guess I should have sooner. --Bobak (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This portrait of Bradley Cooper was dedicated in his honor.
David Shankbone.
Hi
Sorry if I shouldn't have added the link, just saw it on Google for ex-premies. I think I didn't do it properly either.
Thanks.
Hiclassglass (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Re your statement on my user page "Senior officials in anti-Rawat organizations would have the same COi as senior officials in pro-Rawat organizations. However I'm not aware of any such anti-Rawat organizations. "
Your talk page involvement began with this article in The Register. It includes a photo of the anti-Rawat, anti-DLM etc John Brauns and links to his web sites. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/page4.html
The focus of the article was "Criticism of Prem Rawat". And now we have someone posting to you a link to an ex-premie (former Rawat followers) website.
In communicating with this editor apologising for providing a link to an ex-premie site you tell them on their user talk page "Welcome to Wikipedia. If you want to contribute to contentious topics like Prem Rawat I strongly recomend that you register a user name and participate in talk page discussions. [[User:Will Beback 26 June 2009 (UTC)
How do you reconcile the above with your statement "However I'm not aware of any such anti-Rawat organizations". The reference to the ex-premie website was made only on 26 June 2009. You never answered me about this issue on my User page. Why are you hiding your knowledge of people and groups that are anti the subject matter that you are widely involved in editing despite explicit evidence to the contrary? Terry Macro (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Taking a closer look at your original reply you did technically answer the question with "That's not correct, but it's beside the point." However you did not say how it was incorrect and how it was beside the point? Terry Macro (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- It seems I am answering my own questions to you. Taking an even closer look, yes you have previously answered my question by stating is was irrelevant. I must apologise as I have a short attention span when I get bored.
- It seems I am answering my own questions to you. Taking an even closer look, yes you have previously answered my question by stating is was irrelevant. I must apologise as I have a short attention span when I get bored.
Your statement:
To the relevant issue, a website isn't the same thing as an organization. People simply contributing to a forum don't make an organization, unless it's a particularly large one that has a staff. I'm not aware of any anti-Rawat group that has a finance director.
You certainly are not obliged to reveal information if you perceive you don’t have a COI, such as your religious affiliations and associations of groups with stated aims antagonistic to the subject. If I am wrong on this point please correct me. Terry Macro (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the unsigned edits on the Prem Rawat talk page, and I noticed after you were there, the unsigned edits were at least signed with an ip address. Is there something a user can do to have some bot add those IP's (or sometimes it says "unsigned comment by Maelefique" or something like that)? Or is that just something that happens automatically? Just wondering, thanks. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2009 (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.
