User talk:Will Beback/archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Spamming

I want to assure you that I am not trying to spam by adding the message board to what I believe to be relevant city/regional pages. I have added the Inland Empire Message Board link because it is an Inland Empire Message Board; I don’t understand why this would have been removed since it has resided here for some time. I am requesting that you please reconsider the previous city message board additions I made as they do pertain to the city’s I have selected and at no time did I consider what I was doing to be SPAM.

Thank you for your time. IEGuy

[edit] protection

I saw that you just protected a few articles, like Dreamachine and Marvin Belli. Are you going to remove the personal information from the edit summaries? Joyous! | Talk 04:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; I figured out how to do that myself. Joyous! | Talk 04:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Your method is much easier than my method. Putting checks in 150 little boxes really isn't a great deal of fun. Thanks for the instructions on the superior way. Joyous! | Talk 15:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong diff

Hi, Will, I saw your message on Alienus's talk page, and checked the diff. It's not relevant to the words you quote. The one you meant is here. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 08:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI... I support your block and said so on his page, some discussion ensued (it's at the top) and I've also raised it here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_Alienus_by_Will_Beback_for_3_days and I sincerely hope that we get consensus this time before anyone lifts or shortens it. ++Lar: t/c 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you. I can delete the message, I wrote. I only wanted things to be accurate, and was not trying to attack you. I have been trying to disprove Nueva Germania claims for years now. --Robert551 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of research, I am deleting "Robert551"'s 'cry wolf' performance art (or however unceasing vindictive outbursts may be euphemized) message. Recent NG pilgrimages by serious persons have yielded the following webpages. (Unfortunately, they will not make a lot of sense to the non-German speaker.) I know that you have a lot of other subjects to monitor and try to keep a measured opinion about, but if you are for some reason committed to interesting social experiment that was and is Nueva Germania for the moment, you may want to have a look:

http://www.taz.de/pt/2006/05/18/a0132.1/text

http://www.modocom.de/akademie/Anthropologie/NuevaGermania/NuevaGermania.htm

http://www.stephanmaus.de/wissenschaftsakademie-nueva-germania.htm

[edit] Ann Heneghan

Would someone please explain what the deal with Ann Heneghan is?

No.--SB | T 22:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Following is the newly confident "Robert511" you are advocating. Please read this page carefully, examining the text for actual motives, interests and clear-headedness: www dot buggirlmedia dot com/woodard dot html

[edit] The Elizabeth Morgan page

Will: Could you take another look at the Elizabeth Morgan article? There are some admins who feel the need to destroy the information that points to Dr. Morgan's current medical practice (which happens to be in your neck of the woods these days). The same group of Wikipedians displayed the same problematic behavior about a year ago on this same article. I am not asking you to change the article; just please add something to the talk about about if the link to her practice should or should not be in the article. What is the NPOV approach in this case? Other attempts to provide dialog on the matter have been reverted by this pack of admins who seem to have some POV to supress this info. They do not engage in dialog, they just revert, which I cannot distinguish from problematic, emotion-based behavior. -- 67.121.146.110 02:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Will: Thanks. It is very difficult to deal with the opposition I have encountered about this page over the past year. These non-Americans, even our own Wikipedia admins, hear the phrase "child sexual abuse" and the desire for balance seems to disappear and the only mentality seems to be about lynching the accused, who is almost invariably male. As older men, you and I realize that some women, even very well educated ones with responsible positions in society, occasionally resort to false claims of sexual abuse in order to prevail in cusotdy cases. We will never know for certain if Foretich raped his daughter, but we do know that his relationship with his daughter was destroyed, perhaps forever, based almost solely on Dr. Morgan's assertions. I think you agree that we must rely on the courts and their professionals to discover the truth and accept the outcome of the courts. I think that it is unfortunate that Antonia Morgan decided to unlawfully take matters into her own hands and flee with her grandchild and that Congress chose to intervene in this case. Neither was appropropriate in our modern society where we ultimately must allow third parties - disinterested professionals - resolve such matters. Thanks again for your leadership. -- 75.23.153.43 05:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • FYI, these posts appear to be from Amorrow, who is indefinitely banned from editing. —tregoweth (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, not that again.... --TJive 07:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, child sexual abuse is a very difficult subject. It is not for people with weak stomachs. Did you ever thing about what is involved with properly operating a culpascope? The police are around and you have to follow chain-of-custody rules with the evidence and grody stuff like that. It has nothing to do with TV or movie stars or entertainment. It but is Important and worthy of the encyclopedia. It is certainly relevant to everyday people and the role of the family in society. Ugh. Boring! Get it out of my face! -- TechsMechs 08:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on the bizarre meanderings out of nowhere, I presume we are in fact seeing his return. --TJive 09:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, "Amorrow" and "Jonah Ayers" are unrelated, though similar, vandals. I don't fully understand Amorrow, the Elizabeth Morgan/A.H. stalker; I understand Ayers, the Biff Rose stalker, all too well. It's Ayers who has been vandalizing this page. "Amorrow" may have recently been active on a number of pages, least of them this one. -Will Beback 10:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, it's a separate matter, but he's definitely here. Right now. --TJive 10:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Will: I am going to ask you to look into another issue. I am not going to identify myself, I am just asking you to use your own intelligence and judgement. Take a look at [1] . Now I ask you: is this really what being an admin is all about? Doing nothing but taking actions against one supposed user? She might be an admin, but it seems that some mentorship is in order. I am not suggesting that any kind of punishment is in order, but there is no good explanation for this pattern. I am asking that her admin log start deal with something besides going after this one person. You know, just to round out her experience. Maybe she could just do some speedies or, you know, just a little bit of vareity in her admin diet. Her current behavior just sets a very bad example: no admin should be so narrowly focused on one user for so long. It is evidence that she is emotionally involved in this one issue (you can go back and review her RfA on your own). More objectivity is required from an admin. She just needs a little bit of guidance and leadership from an appropriate peer such as yourself or your designee. -- 64.175.40.71 10:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on your user page, User talk:64.175.40.71. -Will Beback 10:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL. FloNight talk 10:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Will: I would love to have an account for more than a few weeks at a time. I was using TechsMechs for a while, but you-know-who just did an indef block on it. The email is still valid on that account. Sorry, this is the best I can do under these difficult circumstances. -- 64.175.40.71 10:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Will: I want to review once again with you what happened:

  • Somebody started to bring the article forward
  • You helpfully reminded everybody to document the article
  • Somebody went and carefully changed all the external links to footnotes, in accordance with Wikipedia's best FA-quality standard
  • Some POV admins rushed in and undid all that work. They were Nunh-huh, Tregoweth and FloNight. Now, they are talkign about doing a speedy on the entire article. Makes you proud to be an American on this 4th of July. If you think about it, those admins are the kind-of like people that our forefathers killed a bunch of 230 years ago. Those do not want collaboration - they just imagine Wikipedia to be their empire to rule or their perormance stage to hog and own. None of those admins ever did anything to help build that important article - which is mostly about American law - and now they want to tear it down to zero. Oh well. Enjoy your freedoms and access to free quality information while it lasts! Happy Independence Day! Try not to think any thoughts that FloNight does not approve of. If you examine her contributions on the EM talk page, you will see that she prefers that collaboration occur in secret. Sweet! -- 67.121.145.7 22:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Banning policy. In particular, it says, "If you are banned, please respect your ban and do not edit Wikipedia..." and "All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user." -Will Beback 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faith and stuff

WB -
I must admit I am also deeply puzzled by this whole series of events. And while I'm firm in my stand that copyright is sancrosect, I was at times quite moved by Primetime's apparent distress at seeing the articles he worked on deleted or rolled back. I also understand that you've lost a bit of innocence over all of this. So, urm, buck up little camper, all will be well. My nearly-constant cries of "talk nice to the vandals" are mostly aimed elsewhere. Thanks for taking the time to respond, keep up the good work.
brenneman {L} 12:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Appreciation

You're very welcome! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Charles Buell Anderson and Endeavor Academy

Apparently users put the article together, one of whom was personally associated as a student there, the other who has cited three of his own web sites. It looks to be a biography in disguise covering a WP:SPAM hate campaign of one sort or another. Please review the cite listings again, I have just finished researching their owners, actual titles, etc. Thanks. Ste4k 17:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting at this point for you to go ahead and reply to three of the cited sources. Thanks. Ste4k 23:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've addressed your comments again in the discussion pages. Thanks. Ste4k 08:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've addressed your comments again. I also went ahead and moved the one specific external link from the bio page to the institution page per the discussion. Thanks. Ste4k 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated Thanks

Thanks for dealing with the anonymous Tom Atkins (actor) vandal. Some vandals just don't know when to stop.

Sullenspice 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Alienus arbitration

See this application. --Tony Sidaway 21:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:unblock

Heh, sorry about that. You're right, I should have and I apologise but i have posted my justifications on WP:ANI. Won't happen again. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 00:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harvardlaw

Hi, I'm posting this here because the Administrator incident page is kind of full and if I put it under the David Silver/Harvardlaw sub-heading there, it might be missed. The article with the name was Xavier College Preparatory, the edits by Harvardlaw. Avillia had posted a link about hiding edit history, but looking at it I haven't a clue what to do. Hoping you could either shed some light on it, or, given my lazy nature, take care of it. --Nobunaga24 01:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

I see you've done the bulk of the work needed to clean up the rubbish left by Jenny Jones/JJstoker. [2] I listed one of the articles started by this user on AfD, so I thought I'd let you know. Regards. 172 | Talk 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breeder and fudgepacker

Hi, you've removed the common slang terms "breeder" and "fudgepacker" from List of sexual slurs. Could you explain why you think these do not belong in the list? --Tony Sidaway 10:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I explained the deletion on the talk page. -Will Beback 18:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anaheim Hills.

The point of it was not to show you neighborhoods within cities, although many of them are within cities of Kentucky or Ohio for example. It was to show you that a community has no distinct way to be represented. Many towns choose community, closest town, state, or community, state, or community, or community, county, state, or community(city), or community (state). There are several ways to represent the community, and it is based on a page by page basis. Now, I would understand if you put "Anaheim" if I were talking about a community of like 30 houses in Anaheim, like Peralta Hills, but we are not. It is a community larger than 14 incorporated OC cities, and has Anaheim in its name. Now, take Downtown for example. Many, for example, like Downtown Berkeley says Downtown Berkeley, California, not Downtown Berkeley, Berkeley, California. Like for Anaheim Hills. You know it is in some way associated with the City of Anaheim-or you are stupid. Now, if you read the first paragraph of the article, you will understand the relationship. If you dont read the first paragraph, than the information probably doesnt matter that much to you anyway. The title is not meant to give you all the details, and is less cluttered than community, city, state. Now, I have a proposal. To end the community controversy, if the community has an entire zip code (1 or more) only for itself, it can drop the community, city, state title and use community, state, but it must mention the city it is part of in the first 2 sentences of the article and state that it is just a community. If the community does not have its own zip code in the city it is within, than it must keep the community, city, state title. This will allow the larger communities to have more independence, yet will still require the introduction to state the city it is part of. On the other hand, it will still allow us to recognize communities that might be small within cities. --Ericsaindon2 01:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And I dont appreciate that when I try to make a consideration user:Coolceasar trys to harass and disrespect me. When I did that, you were all over my case, but when he does it, you say nothing to defend my case as an admin. Is he above the Wikipedia rules? --Ericsaindon2 05:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Eric, you have messages on your talk page, please respond. See User talk:Ericsaindon2. User:Coolceasar can be a bit flippant sometimes, especially when dealing with problem editors. I'll have a word with him. Regarding your own behavior, please don't call me stupid.

As for your point, It is not obvious that Anaheim Hills is an unofficial neighborhood of Anaheim. Tustin Hills is not a neghborhood of Tustin, nor are East Tustin and North Tustin. On the other hand, it is obvious that Downtown Berkeley is located in Berkeley. Also, there are some placenames that cover an area which is only partly incorporated or a geopgraphic feature. There's a convention, but it's just a guideline. Wikipedia is flexible enough to handle special situations. However Anaheim Hills is not a special situation. -Will Beback 06:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasnt calling you stupid, I was speaking in reference of a reader who continued to think Berkeley and Downtown Berkeley were different. Now, you just proved my point. Berkeley is obviously part of Downtown Berkeley. But I could say the same thing to you. Downtown San Fernando and San Fernando are not in the same city. There are exceptions to that rule as well. Trust me, I do see your point and reasons for wanting it. I do sympathize with your view....in most cases. But, if you lived in Anaheim Hills, you would know that it almost is never referenced with Anaheim except in dusty files in the cabinet. Even the council deals with Anaheim and Anaheim Hills issues separately. They never refer to Anaheim Hills without saying Anaheim Hills. If you look on their website, everything located in Anaheim Hills states that. Now, I think it is something that should be determined in a case-by-case basis. Most communities have smaller references, and in turn should have a city to accompany them so that it can be identified. But Anaheim Hills ranks unofficially 3rd as the largest community in California. It is never referred to as Anaheim, so why should it be different on this page. Now, I think that large communities that are easily identifiable like La Jolla, Anaheim Hills, San Fernando Valley, Granada Hills, and Hollywood should be referenced as special situation places. Plus, I have learned alot about communities. I have determined how strong that name is used by whether it needs the city to accompany it or not. It is very informative in just the title, and gives you insight to the size and strength of the community by if its name can be recognized standing alone. Now, take the name Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. People think that the name is stupid because Anaheim Angels is a more precise name, and better represents the city. That is why Anaheim has spent millions of dollars to get Los Angeles out of the name. Now, it should be something determined by the community, and how they want to be referenced. Not the admins who outnumber us. I live here everyday, and I know we hate to be identified as Anaheim, so much so that documents state Anaheim Hills on them. So why would you identify us as Anaheim if we, in no context what-so-ever are referenced with Anaheim? PS, If you read the first sentence, it states that it is a community. The title isnt supposed to greatly inform you, that is what the article is for. --Ericsaindon2 08:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I did this test move, and lost the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California page. Can you fix it? --Ericsaindon2 08:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ste4k

Hi, I've noticed you've been having some discussions with User:Ste4k regarding her edits to Charles Buell Anderson. I've been involved in a long and fruitless conversation with her on my talk page, and I was wondering what's your overall opinion of her actions and behavior. I personally think she is misinterpreting policy and generally wreaking havoc. Just wanted an outside opinion, thanks. --Nscheffey(T/C) 02:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say your view appears correct. -Will Beback 03:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Line break

Oops, you missed deleting one line break, shown in green area, when you removed your test subpage links from your user page. -- ADNghiem501 06:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for watching out! Cheers, -Will Beback 06:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I believe that an RfAr would be premature at this time and would not be productive. Therefore I am asking that you allow the pending RfC to continue. Al 08:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is our job in an RfC to demontrate to the user why the community feels their behavior needs to change and for the editor concerned to explain why they behave as they do. To make it a precondition that they assume guilt before the process can even start is a demonstration of injustice of the highest level. I would ask you to examine your motives in this case and ask whether you are not just getting the rope ready to hang a dog who you think has a bad name? Sophia 08:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
AN/I is very informal with no clear summaries and alot of axe grinding going on so no - I would not expect an editor to necessarily see the points being made as there was a lot of chaff (along with comments that showed some users to be too immature to be trusted with sysops). I'm taking a wide stab here that you have no real life experience of formal dispute resolution - all you can ask is that an person is prepared to abide by the outcome for the process to have a point. Sophia 09:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If anything, the AN/I was not only about alleged incivility, but contained numerous examples of actual incivility directed at me and anyone else who might have a kind word for me. What was particularly distressing is that some of the most uncivil (and inane) comments came from admins, who should know better than this. No, I don't think the AN/I was particularly productive, even if I could have responded. Al 09:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The most productive outcome that I can see from all of this is that the current RfAr is abandoned and DavidBailey is encouraged to file his RfC (JakeW's is out of date now). That way we can follow procedue, have a mature discussion without the childishness that was displayed on AN/I (and I must say beautifully ignored by those who should know better) and see where this leads.
As I said before - for a fair system all you can do is ask that all editors will abide by the outcome of the process to valdate it. Something I'm sure Al will have no issue with. Sophia 10:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your emphasis on accepting the outcome of a fair process. It would be counterproductive to presume any particular conclusion, as such is to be determined by the process itself.

As for the old RfC, I'm not sure how many of the issues are still relevant. A lot of the players have come and gone, and many of the details are faded in my memory. I know Jake was trying to be helpful by giving Bailey something to work with, but it's not clear how much of it has any value today.

On the other hand, Bailey's allegations are recent and in line with Beback's, so that RfC is still fresh. Al 10:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angels and Airwaves Vandalism Notice

Just curious, but why did you remove the sprot on the Angels and Airwaves article? If you look through the history of the article, it's obviously been vandalised numerous times by anonymous accounts. Enfestid 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Antonio Villaraigosa

The unexplained deletion was actually done because the information on Stephen Reinhardt is redundant if you read the whole paragraph. Please revert your modifications back to the one before. Thank you.

[edit] Lynching

Polite language is getting ignored and brushed aside as some try to bypass due prosess to achieve the justice they "know" the community wants - the analogy seemed very clear to me when someone else brought up the idea of vilantism. It was a carefully chosen word and I hope it brings some up short to realise how their actions can can seem to those who do not agree.

I'm defending Al who's real name I do not know and whom I know virtually nothing about because I recognise in him just the sort of intelligence and confidence that this project needs. He also needs people like me to perform "damage limitation" sometimes and mentor him in how to harness his obvious talents and show him how to get along in this project. The controversial articles in Wikipedia need people like him to stop them becoming a cozy club of whatever POV group dominates at the time. I have had real problems on the religious articles getting minority but significant views included either at all or without huge additions which show how the dominant POV of the article is obviously right and this view is wrong. It was only another fearless editor who shook things up a bit - showed the dominant group that there were strong and significant views other than theirs out there and changes were made which have stuck. Better than that the knowledge base of the group changed and we all learned new things. The attitude changed as well and instead of saying "well of course it is - you show different" the dominant group will now explain in detail their POV without it being seen as a challenge to their faith. Conflict with other editors there has taught me huge amounts about my own POV that I never suspected and has helped me to put my edits in context. The old saying is "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" and that is so true sometimes.

Al has taken so much on board and has had to deal with some very unimaginative people who the project could lose with no net effect on the articles at all. He has failed to rise to the obvious bait of Tony Sidaway admirably and has made huge gains in self-control and civility. My suspicion is that this is what has prompted the close examination of his every move as even 2 months ago they must have assumed he would soon be gone - they would have been right if he had carried on he was.

If Al is banned or put under supervision by these unimaginative people (effectively curbing him to Buffy articles) I will leave the project too. Not as a girly huff but in the knowledge that my presence is pointless. If the project is hell bent on avoiding all conflict then the most beligerant determined POV will dominate the article everytime. I will not effectively condone this and so my position here will be untenable.

I suppose there is a personal aspect to this as I have tried to play a mentor role to Al and he has responded as well as you could ever expect someone to do in the short time we have been in communication. He still needs to work on his civility occasionally but I genuinely think sometimes he has no idea how his comments will be taken by others. These are errors everyone in the world is guilty of and a successful community will educate people and help them avoid problems in the future. Throw in the international element of this project and you have even more issues as culturally we do approach things differently. I do find some American editors quite aggressive sometimes - fortunately I have enough real world experience to put this in context and and deal with it. Not everyone has that to draw upon.

With Al improving now was not the time to pounce on him - this community needs to be able to successfully "train" people in how to callborate productively in a way that is completely new and constantly changing as the project grows. The core values of civilty and NPA will help this but these are often culturally defined so there will always be a bit of give and take and explaining to be done. Al is responding to this "training" so I really fail to see how calling someone an "edit warrior" can land you with an ArbCom case - which should be reserved for extreme and/or deteriorating situations.

This isn't a plea to give him a chance as he is improving and is on the right road - this is my attempt to help wikipedia progress as a project in the way it needs to have the edge over other encyclopedias. Sophia 06:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little slow on the uptake...

... "Will Beback" as in "Shall Return." I just got it. For all these months, I thought it was your real name. Ha. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus/Evidence and proposals and comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus/Workshop. Fred Bauder 13:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.

[edit] Reply

What you see as guarded incivility on my part I see as the only polite way I can make my concerns known. I do have suspicion about the motives of others - why would I not when the RfC has been skipped and this ArbCom is flying into action with indecent speed. I always AGF except where there is none to be found for others. No one has yet said that the situation with Al is deteriorating or explained why this is the only next logical step.

There is one huge difference between a fearless editor and a bully - bullies have power - either in the form of lots of friends or special privileges that they abuse. A fearless editor takes them on on the facts and references despite being brushed aside/trivialised or accused of bad faith motives.

As for unimaginative - put that down to my creative civility. Everytime my questions about the lack of RfC or the haste of this process go unanswered or are trivialised I am effectively being told I am not worth answering so my edits or concerns on these matters are of no value.

I have never said civility is not important. Where we differ is the way we apply those standards. I would petition for the same rules and more importantly the same interpretation of those rules for all. Al was blocked for 3 days for calling someone and "edit warrior" - why isn't half of wikipedia blocked?

If I leave it will be because I am so far off the mark as to how this community should function that I will have no place here. I'm not irreplaceable and not a fountain of knowledge so this I'm sure this will not affect the articles which is what matters. This is not an empty threat designed to up the stakes - I will have a lot to think about as I will have got it so wrong that in the short term I will need to evaluate the lessons I should learn. In the longer term I will have to decide whether I am prepared to conform to the view of the community that I obviously currently see as erroneous. I'm old enough to know that this is unlikely.

A complaint is one person's interpretation of a situation - just possibly they might be wrong about this and have something to learn themselves. When I'd got my confidence here up a bit I was going to suggest a new wiki guideline along those lines - WP:LEARN which would basically say that everyone has something to learn from every situation - even if it's only how not to do it the next time. Every situation is a non-flyer when one part assumes all the learning needs to take place on the others side and you will achieve nothing, either personally, or for the project, by approaching things in this way. Sophia 16:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

The naming convention for this page should be Anaheim Hills, California. Anaheim Hills, California is the most commonly referenced name for the area. I was reading through the naming conventions, and have found no justifications for the statements about the community, city, state convention that had to be used. The only rule that I found was that the name had to be precise, and the most common form of the name. Following the "black and white" rules of WIkipedia, the most commonly used name, and the most precise name is Anaheim Hills, California. Using Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California is not the most common or the most precise name for the article, breaking the main naming rules of Wikipedia. As I said, the statements above about the community, city, state convention has no evidence to back it up, and is the assumed desire of particular users, and in no way the typical naming convention. Some users do not want to accept the fact that they were wrong, and have taken their actions regarding the naming convention too far. I think it is time that we put this silly issue behind us, and just move it to Anaheim Hills, California where it belongs. That is what the Wikipedia rules state, and that is where the page needs to rest. The Wikipedia rules, like keeping the name precise and at a commonly used level has worked very well...if the rules havent been manipulated by the users and admins who insist that it MUST remain at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. Just move it to Anaheim Hills, California, follow the Wikipedia Guidelines, admit all your wrong doings (for every user on this page has a wrong doing in one form or another) and lets just try to handle this in a civil way. --69.232.62.33 08:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: proposed RfC

Sure, although I'll be incommunicado for several days next week---I'll be visiting Riverside. Ericsaindon is creating such a mess. --Coolcaesar 13:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giovanni33

Look, I realise that a lot of his behaviour in the past has been unacceptable, and I agree that he deserved the initial block he got. There was nothing that another week block was going to achieve, however, apart from removing any chance he might turn out to be a good editor given time. I thus told him to cool it, and gave him a chance to correct his behaviour. I really do see no benefit in continuing this current block, so I'm going to unblock once again, but I promise you that if he continues his past conduct, I will not object to a reblock. Rebecca 23:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I appreciate the interlude. --John Foxe 09:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

When you have a chance, could you check on the BJU page again? I think our antagonist uses a dial-up service and so has a dozen or more ISP addresses. I don't know how you can treat reversion equally in such a case. --John Foxe 21:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I should have written the above message before I made my last revert. --John Foxe 22:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:İlham Əliyev

Hi Will, If you have a chance, would you mind having a look at this issue regarding an article that was originally moved without discussion and which is meeting with rather obstinate resistance to being moved back? The most pertinent part begins here. I'm starting to lose patience so I should probably drop out of it altogether. Thanks for your help. Pinkville 11:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

I've nominated you as an involved user. Please submit a statement. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --Coolcaesar 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned about User:Ste4k

Hey Will, I noticed you ran into User:Ste4k on Charles_Buell_Anderson. I ran into him on Dissident_Voice. The guy is passive aggressive and questioning basic facts even after I meet his demands to source to original sources. I find his demands to be out of the bounds of reasonableness. He has also added a ton of macros to the Dissident Voice page even though it is incredibly sparse -- and he didn't add the most appropriate ones such as "stub" or "expand". I think he's going to be a long term issue on Wikipedia, but I don't know how to handle her/him. He also blanks his user talk page -- probably to avoid people figuring out he is being this way on a lot of articles at once. --Ben Houston 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am the third person to express concerns about User:Ste4k. The user appears to wish to re-write the "A Course in Miracles" article when by their own admission they know little or nothing about the subject.--Who123 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to reiterate my complaint about User:Ste4k on the "A Course in Miracles" article. My complaints are similar to Ben Houston. The user is so obstructive that nothing can be accomplished. Common knowledge is called OR. I do not know what the agenda of this user is but it does not appear to be a helpful one. Please stop by the discussion page and article history page and see what you think.

Since there have been multiple complaints about this user would it be possible to temporarily suspend the user until this is resolved? Can you revert their last edits on "A Course in Miracles?" At the very least User:Ste4k is simply obstructive to any positive work. It may even be considered vandalism.--Who123 12:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war and strange usernames editing David Horowitz

Since I saw you edited David Horowitz recently and are an administrator, I thought I would bring something to your attention and ask how you think this should be handled. There has recently been what appears to be a minor edit war regarding a paragraph of "criticism" (although I can't see any criticism at all, or sources for that matter, in it.) What is disturbing though is that several of the last edits are being done by users who, in addition to having nonsensical usernames, have made no other contributions except their single one to Horowtiz's article. I would expect that kind of thing goes on when an article has been protected from editing by anonymous users. I'm afraid that these nonsensical usernames have been created by someone for the specific intention of editing, without consensus or discussion, and with impunity if and when the page is deemed worthy of protection. I am posting a discussion request on the talk page but what should be done if it not responded to? Lawyer2b 01:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Jones and CongressRecords

I have been talking via email with Jerry Jones. Mostly about POV edit warring. I would like to give him a chance to try again. He wants the accounts Jerry Jones and CongressRecords unblocked and wants the sockpuppets he used while blocked deleted. Not sure which those are yet. Fred Bauder 01:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ericsaindon2

Come on. Now you are just getting childish to scrape up information for my Arbitration, and referring to my talk page. I told you it was a joke, and replaced it. You know that this whole this was a dispute between two editors. Yet, you are coaching Coolcaesar on his talk page on how to win over the Arbcom, and have been his personal police assistant in this whole issue. I personally think that it wont get anywhere, but you are betraying me. I thought highly of you, higher of you to use my first 5 days of editing totally against me. You know that the images I uploaded on my first weeks of edits were copyrighted incorrectly, and I apologized to you extensively, and deleted them, and learned the policy, and have corrected any of my improperly noted uploads at your request. Plus, you cant use the IP against me because that is not a sockpuppet, it is when I log out, and forget to log back in. And I told you, that is not me it is my brother. Do I need to upload a picture of him to show you? Well, those are the only two things you people are against me about, which I can all manage to find evidence against Coolcaesar for as well (because everyone in their first few weeks does those things, but begins to learn). You refer to me promoting Anaheim Hills. I did that in my first few days before I knew about the project. I deleted it at your request and rewrote it. Yet, you are holding it against me here when I was learning. I dont self promote the community at all, I have a disaster section for goodness sakes. And I dont have a pet cause, and am not sure what you are referring to. I have never put anything on another article that wasnt accompanied with proof. I have added 26 infoboxes, and 6 community pages, all with a neutral POV. That statement is totally inappropriate because I have not self promoted any other articles, except the regretful edits I made to Anaheim Hills 2 days into my experience on Wikipedia. Please, can you just remove those parts, and keep it truthful, because you know that I have not self promoted, or had an ultimate goal to destruct. I was just trying to improve and add information to other community places and cities, and have not vandalized or defaced any other community or city articles. Please act like an admin, and remove those things, and respond about your Point of View on my talk page. --Ericsaindon2 08:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

HELLO

Hello to you too. All we're looking for is an assurance that you won't keep repeating the same behavior. I've told you that on talk pages and in private emails. And gosh, if I had a buck for everytime someone said that their "brother" was responsible for their meat puppet edits then I could buy a Starbucks' grande latte. If you'd agree to forego promoting Anaheim Hills then we might achieve a compromise. -Will Beback 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Ok, I will try to reason with you, although it goes against every moral I have to give in to people who wont just admit they did something wrong. But, please leave a compromise under this message on your talk page, and I will seriously consider what you have to say, and we might be able to work something out from there. BUT, I would like to keep it between us, and not go announce it on every talk page you can find, and not involve others that will instigate problems and irritate me again. I just want to try and make a civil compromise right here and now. --Ericsaindon2 10:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that a private deal is appropriate. If you'd like to engage in civil discussions then I suggest that you remove the personal attacks on your userpage. -Will Beback 23:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introducing Peace

I have added a peace compromise agreement to the Anaheim Hills page. Please comment on it sometime before tomorrow morning, because I would like to hear your comments and ideas before tomorrow morning when involved parties begin getting involved. Thank You. :)--Ericsaindon2 09:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ericsaindon2

How many votes are needed in arbitration? I am just curious because only one person has shown any interest in this pursuance. --Ericsaindon2 23:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re Abolition of age of consent laws

OMG. What to do about this article? Herostratus 04:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia articles look so dull. I had forgotten how much more interesting a page can be with liberal text formatting. It needs more colored fonts though. -Will Beback 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] if looks could see

Oh wait they can. Could oyu take a look see over at the Antonioni page? It's getting a touch didactic over there. ThanksMurraywoo

[edit] Rose again

Not supposed to erase comments on the talk page, Mr. Naconkantari. Perhaps the deep freeze to the rose bushes is palatable to some, but this freakish level of censoring has lead to misinformation, and bleeds the blood of badness here. Wash your hands Will Mc, and Mr. Naconkantari, you both have something to answer for. Something called Fascism. Ivy Hezza 05:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ericsaindon2 Comments

Yes, you are telling me they take a while. And is Coolcaesar taking a break? I would have thought him to be the first to bash my peace proposition, but he has yet to say anything. It seems like the people on the page seem to be enjoying all the internal turmoil, because they dont seem to want to make peace, or make any sort of compromise, so you cant say I didnt try to settle the dispute. I guess if they dont want to make peace (which I really would give anything to end this dumb fight) it continues on until everyone is willing to give and take on some aspects of it, but until then, I guess there will be no change. --Ericsaindon2 07:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tossing out the policy and guidelines.

I really don't understand your angle on wp:ver and other policies. Perhaps I am wrong, I am new and you are an admin (i.e. you have been here much longer). I don't understand why you prefer to drag a conversation on rather than follow dispute guidelines and bring the content dispute up as a matter in an RfC. My only intention is to follow the guidelines which I have constantly been made aware of by others. I have my opinion, you have yours. You have always remained respectful in the conversation. Shouldn't we move the conversation to a higher level rather than take up so much of eachothers' time? Please advise. I've added this page to my watch list for this conversation. Ste4k 21:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Though we try to make them as clear as possible, our policies and guidelines are still open to misinterpretation. While I wouldn't presume to say that my knowledge and interpretation of them is always perfect, I do note that other veteran editors have also expressed views similar to mine in this matter. I'm not sure that a content RfC is required, but there's no harm in having one if anyone wants one. However a user RfC is looking increasingly necessary because so many editors are raising questions about your behavior. -Will Beback 21:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
A behavioral dispute hasn't anything to do with a dispute over content. I only recognize one actual editor (yourself) that is participating in that article for the sake of the article rather than some personal off-topic vendetta. (i.e. participating in a fashion regarding wp:ver wp:rs wp:or and content, not to preclude other editors that are simply performing maintenance at any level). Ste4k 22:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The two types of disputes are often linked, even though they handled separately. Too bad you don't exclude yourself from those who are engaged in "personal off-topic vendettas". ;) I can't carry the whole load of neutrality on my back. -Will Beback 22:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I have recently been advised by a few detached admins in e-mail that "ignoring" is not against policy as was previously suggested by those whom would have me believe otherwise. A statement in that regard is on my talk page. Being new I was under a different impression, but have been educated since on how to correctly not-react to trolls. Ste4k 22:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

The compromise was more of like a you win-I loose situation. You stated that the name stay at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California and there be no infobox. That is not a compromise. A compromise is where one aspect changes in favor of one group, and one aspect changes in the favor of another group. I am not the only wrongdoer in this situation, there are many people who have done wrong in this situation. Devonran had 2 3rr's in the matter, so did Adambiswanger1, and OC31113. And yes, I did lead the list at 3 3rr's (but one of them I commited 1 revert and OC31113 committed 2, and you added them together to suspend us both)Many people have offended, and called eachother names, which is a violation of the Wikipedia rules. Some parties have lied about the naming rules of Wikipedia, and some people have offended others by saying rude comments; yet you used selective punishment to scorn people, while subjectively choosing who to punish, and who not to punish for performing the same inappropriate behavior. So, I would be willing to perform a compromise, but I am not willing to just give in to everyone, when everyone is at fault in one way or another. --Ericsaindon2 22:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Ok, so could we put a little infobox like the one on Ladera Ranch, California (which is down at the top of the demographic category) onto the Anaheim Hills page? --Ericsaindon2 22:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I have had it with trying to address the same audience of 2 people on that talk page. I guess I am fine with the way it is now, at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California with an infobox. If you state a compromise, which might be a little more effective, I will support it if it is actually a compromise and not a all or none deal. All I will get is crap from the only 2 people who still care about the page, so there is no point unless you write it, because people seem to treat you like some god. And I was not being disrespectful to Coolcaesar, he seems to like the thrill of starting arguements, making bold and uncalled for statements, and accusing others of being sockpuppets. He is sort of a "pot-stirrer" so if I were to make any sort of compromise plead, I know he would reject it just for the sake of the thrill of irritation. --Ericsaindon2 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
And, why do you and Coolcaesar seem to have such a close relationship where you are willing to act as his patrol officer while he instigates a fight, and you jump in, always in his defense, and punish the people defending their viewpoints? I was just curious because I have never seen an admin and a lowly, unauthoritive editor live in such harmony all the time on the site, and in the arguments they partake in. Well, anyways, what do you want a proposal or a compromise to be that you see to be fair, so that it can be addressed on the talk page before I make a fool of myself with trying to start a new peace treaty. I dont understand why you refuse to promote, and address a new compromise on the page, when you and Coolcaesar were the ones that had the problem with the infobox, and the name that it sat at for almost two years, Anaheim Hills, California. --Ericsaindon2 07:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I was wondering about first and second

I've been writing this article for twelve days. ¿What do you do after you second something? 凄刕列凥凝判凉几? 决冒冡凕冾凅 . . .

[edit] The fate of Charles Buell Anderson

There's a question at talk:Endeavor Academy#Original Research about why you merged the articles. Apparently Ste4k doubts that there is any connection between the two topics. If the topics are, in fact, unrelated then we should undo the merge. -Will Beback 21:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank you for you interest in preserving this information. I don't think Ste4k is interested in undoing this merge. She seems much more interested in simply purifying WP of the information, and the merge appears to simply be a means she is using for this, along with WP policy as she sees it. I understand her wish to improve Wikipedia, and although I do not oppose Ste4k for that sake, I can't agree with her actions. I can't agree because her actions do not make sense to me, despite my becoming quite familiar with WP policy. —Antireconciler 04:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable to merge the Anderson article with EA as EA is what makes Anderson particularly notable. In a linked issue (see below on ACIM), I think the FACIM article should be restored as a separate article linked to the ACIM article along with EA.--Who123 23:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rompe

Rompe (talk · contribs) has done a bunch of page moves to non-standard names (e.g. Boyle Heights, Los Angeles, California to Boyle Heights. Since I don't have the admin bit, you or someone else will have to do the corrections.

I know that when I first joined the Wikipedia, it was very clear that communities within an incorporated city in the United States should be named [Community, City, State]. It was either in the MOS or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, but I think that it was the latter. Sometime in the last year and a half, without any discussion, someone deleted that guideline. It may be time to initiate an RFC on the issue to settle the issue of what consensus is. Judging from all the debates that I've seen for individual communities I have no doubt that for non-famous communities, the overwhelming consensus will be for [Community, City, State]. For more famous communities (e.g. Hollywood, La Jolla, etc), it will probably be a smaller majority, but possibly not a strong consensus. In my opinion, however, those are the communities that need the extended names the most to make sure that the casual Wikipedia readers do not confuse those communities with official cities. BlankVerse 14:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:OC31113

Since you one of the involved parties for Ericsaindon2's RFaR, you might want to do a Request for checkuser. I'm not sure what an "Open arbitration proceedings" is. If it only includes accepted arbitration proceedings, you should visit the above link, but if it also includes intiated, but not accepted, RFaRs, then you should ask at the RFaR page for a Checkuser. I am especially concerned about User:OC31113, whose pedantic verbosity, if nothing else, suggests that it is the same editor as User:Ericsaindon2. Since they only keep the information for a limited amount of time (a week?), you should ask soon. BlankVerse 15:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

I noticed the change: "founded in 1992 as a subsidiary". Thanks. That is a complete different meaning than what it said before. Ste4k 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of lists of lists

Hey Will, I responded to your comment. Let me know what you think (here) Regards, AdamBiswanger1 02:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support!

Greetings, Will Beback. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of (67/0/0)! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have suggestions or requests - either of an admin nature or otherwise! :)

Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) 03:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstarred!

The Original Barnstar
For good editing over a range of areas, and especially for watching over the interests of the Wikipedia. Herostratus 04:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ste4k

I completely understand your advice not to edit war, but I am at a loss here. I made a legitimate (and in my opinion obviously correct) comment on one of her edits and she "reverts" it without a hint of discussion. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and maybe this kind of thing happens a lot, but to me it is aggravating in the extreme. I realize that 7+ reversions of her deletion from the talk page is not constructive, but what should I do? At this point I refuse to accept her behavior. -Nscheffey(T/C) 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneer Fund

Thanks for the kind words. I refer to find a quiet spot and edit something rather than fight on the main race and intelligence page, which is way too slow-moving.

BTW, I just saw User:Toggafasiognom editing Daniel Brandt-- that name looks pretty inappropriate when read backwards. Can you look into that, please? Thanks! I'm guessing from the Griffith Park shot on your userpage that you live nearby. Yay LA! Jokestress 09:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Per your request

in subject "a merger needs discussion". please see: Talk:Sculpture_of_Ancient_Greece#Redirect_to_Greek_Statue. Thanks. Ste4k 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some collateral damage from your block

Cumbuj (talk • contribs • page moves • Current Autoblocks • block log) seems to be part of a long string of returning vandals causing autoblock havok on AOL ranges--AOL user 16:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Spencer ~ American Patrol Report

Hi Will, I merged the American Patrol Report page into the Glenn Spencer page, as the page is almost entirely about Glenn Spencer. Can you please move the talk page from American Patrol Report over to the Glenn Spencer talk page? Thanks much, Brimba 23:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endeavor article

You are missing the point. That source says what it says. The article we are editing does not say that, nor does it reference the sources you are describing. For someone as intricately familiar with the MOS, I find it hard to believe you haven't noticed that your sources aren't listed in the references. Ste4k 01:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? What point am I missing? If this is abuot Endeavor Academy then let's talk about it there. -Will Beback 01:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstarred Again!

The Original Barnstar
For balance and good judgment in helping with the ACIM and EA articles.--Who123 03:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question on Possible Citation

Re this bit on Barbara Bauer:

"In Bauer's case, there is some evidence (mostly self-reported) that she made a few legitimate book sales for her clients early in her career. However, an examination of her claims of success for later clients appears to show only books that are either vanity-published or remain unsold.[citation needed]"

I asked you at least once on the talk page (twice, I think, but I don't want to wade through all that unpleasantness again just now) whether citing examples of vanity publishers from the Bauer site itself constitutes original research or is okay to do. Publish America and Author House, for example, are both listed as a vanity publisher on the "Predators and Editors" website.[3] Publish America, cited by intellectual property lawyer C. E. Petit[4] as "a vanity press based in Frederick, Maryland that preys on its authors," is the listed publisher for at least one book by Bauer client Field Ruwe [5]. Client B.I. Flight's publisher [6],Infinity Publishing, describes what it does as self publishing. [7]

Other authors on her Links List [8] have text that says things like "ready for publication" [9] or "soon to be published" with no details [10]. Client Isabelle Thompson [11] lists three books, but no publisher, or any way to buy the books that I can see. That's half of the links covered, right there. I can do the rest, but you get the idea.

What I want to know is, is it okay to say something like this:

"Of the authors linked to on Bauer's site [12], x have published with vanity publishers and self-publishing houses such as Publish America and Author House [13]. Others are awaiting publication of their work, with no publishers listed at this time.[cite a few of the authors' sites]."

Does that sound reasonable? Or the no publisher part could be left out to spare the authors some embarrassment. After all, they have produced books, but their agent has seemingly not sold them to paying markets. The main point is really the lack of paying markets among the authors linked to. If there's a better way to say that, then I'm all for it.

By the way, a possible non-blog reference to the web site takedown is also on the Predators and Editors site. [14]. The "other reasons for the takedown" issue is trickier. The main source of that was written by one of the ISP's owners, who has since taken it offline. If I recall correctly, Mark objected to the claim that Bauer was solely responsible for the Absolute Write web site being taken down, largely because he believes that AW was far from blameless in the matter. The only non-blog reference to the ISP having pre-existing issues with AW was the Cordray link, the inclusion of which (before it was taken offline) Mark objected to as a witch hunt against the Cordrays. If one removes the reference to there being other reasons for the takedown besides Bauer's demands, there is no need for a citation to substantiate this view.

Sorry to write such a tome on your talk page, but I want to a) make sure you see my questions b) avoid further attacks from Mark if at all possible, and c) avoid putting citations in the article that are going to be deemed unsuitable. Thanks for your time. Karen 05:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want to thank you again for your advice on this. I put in my edit tonight based on our discussion, and then Avi cleaned it up considerably from there. I have some hope that people will be reasonably satisfied with it at this point. Karen 04:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actors

Have you read the talk page, or the top of Category:Film actors, or the relevant discussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization (linked from the talk page)? -- Samuel Wantman 05:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Categorization is imperfect. The solution, most talked about is to have a way to do category intersections, so you could take Category:Film actors and Category:American people and find the intersection. If this is implemented, there would be no need for a great number of the subcategories we now have. Categories would be populated at the "level of notability", by which I mean that people are notable for being actors or film actors. They are rarely notable for being american film actors. So what we are doing is fully populating the actors categories at the "level of notability" and below. This essentially is the system that people hope will happen by having a software upgrade. The upgrade (if it happens) will add intersections that do not yet exist, create them on the fly, and remove a good deal of category clutter in articles.
Another reason for populating these categories is to create indexes of subjects. If everything is broken into small subcategories it is very difficult to combine them. If they exist combined and broken up, you can browse at whatever level you desire.
The downside, as you mention is muddiness. If populating higher level categories gains wide acceptance, we will need a way to make it clear which categories get populated and which do not. We have noted on the Category:Film actors page that the listings are duplicated, and there can be some sort of standard format for this. I don't really think it is all that muddy. The populating of categories should be an all or nothing decision. Either they contain all the articles that fit or none of them. I find the current common situation, where categories only contain the un-differentiated articles to be the muddiest option. -- Samuel Wantman 07:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digging

You really want people to think that you find this source credible? http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&url=alternatemusicpress.com Ste4k 05:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Alexa ratings are not an indicator of reliability. Please see WP:RS. -Will Beback 05:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of consent mergers

Hi, you placed two mergers on the Age of consent article. The first one -Initiatives to raise the age of consent seems like a credible sugestion and should be discussed. However the second, Ages of consent in South America is only one of a set of sub pages that were separated from Age of consent...


__ Africa

__ Asia

__ Australia and Pacific Region

__ Europe

__ North America

__ South America


As you can see there's far too much information to comfortably merge into one article (the reason it was separated in the first place)and all these pages have a lot more growth potential. You might consider removing the Ages of consent in South America merger? --Monotonehell 06:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

I would like to work with others in a congenial fashion to improve the A_course_in_miracles article. I do not understand why the references are under "Notes" instead of "References". I also do not understand the mechanics of citation in WP. If I try to edit the "Notes" section it appears blank.

Would you help me to learn this aspect of WP or direct me to someone who would be interested?--Who123 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACIM

This a larger response to your question about FACIM. I am very familiar with ACIM and related issues. I have been coming to WP for some time. It is often replacing Google as the first place I go for information. A couple of months ago I began doing a little editing.

I was shocked when I checked in on the ACIM article a short time ago. It had gone through dramatic changes. It read like an ad for FACIM. I did not realize it at the time but it appears that an article on FACIM was merged with the ACIM article. Is this correct?

I see that the article on Anderson seems to have been merged with the EA article (I agree with this merge).

I had thought the original ACIM article was a fairly good introduction to ACIM. It appears that the original author went through a fair amount of work to reference it to the best of his/her ability.

It now appears that Ste4k wishes that both the ACIM and the EA article be removed. I do not understand all the activity around the ACIM articles. They are certainly more notable than the Allerton_High_School article she wrote/edited.

Although it appears that the FACIM article was merged with the ACIM article, I think this should be re-visited. First, the ACIM article is at maximum size now. Second, FACIM represents another faction of ACIM like EA. I believe rather than re-merging the material, the FACIM article should be restored as a separate article. Both factions are polarizing in the ACIM community. To add FACIM back into the ACIM article would be polarizing and introduce bias. I think the ACIM article should be neutral with links to both factions.

I would be happy to discuss this with you.--Who123 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massive ACIM Deletions ? Vandalism

Please stop deleting so much material from ACIM while the discussion is ongoing. You can discuss the material without deleting it. -Will Beback 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:VER in a nutshell. There is no discussion going on, only bickering over petty tags. Removing each section to discussion is a standard procedure for such articles that are controversial. As an admin you should be aware of that. Ste4k 00:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
  2. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
  3. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
If you'd like to change the policy, please be my guest. In the interim, I am acting according to policy. Ste4k 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Moving material to discussion is not deleting it. Ste4k 00:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The ACIM article has been decimated. What happens now if a reader wishes to look up the subject? I think this is just continued obstruction and vandalism. Can you restore the article to the way it was before Ste4k's mass destruction?--Who123 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please revert it and ask for page protection. Please do the same on the EA article. Do you need to do anything about the user?--Who123 03:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please ask for page protection on both articles. The user appears to lack restraint and seems to be out of control.--Who123 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The user has restored her massive destruction of the article after your revert. I think this is an administrative issue.--Who123 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

Please do not remove so much material at once. Much of that material is perfecty sourced, etc. This disruptive behavior is not helpful. If you do not restore the information then I will revert it and ask for page protection. -Will Beback 03:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The information in the article as it stands now is sourced. The rest has been properly moved to discussion. If you believe that there is a source for any of the rest, then please address those issues in discussion per the guidelines. There isn't anything disruptive about following policy. Nothing has been deleted, simply moved to discussion. The tags have also been removed accordingly. I am acting in accordance with what was said in discussion, i.e. that the tags were causing problems, that things needed to be handled in discussion, etc. If you feel that this is disruptive then please consult WP:DR. Thanks. Ste4k 03:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, keep in mind that you can edit at any time and select a better quote from the reliable resources now listed in the article. I am still going through and verifying the external links. Thanks. Ste4k 04:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community project that operates on consensus. We can discuss the material, but don't destroy the articles just because you have questions about the sourcing. I've reverted your changes again - don't make major changes unless there is a consensus. -Will Beback 04:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Destroying? That is only your opinion. This IS a community project and I am acting on behalf of policy as well as have improved the article. No tags, all sourced, all cited, etc. Where do you get the idea of "destroying"? Good faith? Ste4k 04:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The user destroyed the article again after your revert.--Who123 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles&oldid=64595407#Can_someone_explain_what_is_going_on_here.3F . Your accusations are unfounded. Thanks. Ste4k 04:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, please see the policy. Thanks. Ste4k 04:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Just to be clear, regarding the policy, I am one of "those seeking to remove it." Also, I have included cited sources and added direct quotes from those sources. That is called improving the article. Thanks. Ste4k 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, please revert and protect ACIM. The page is not actively undergoing "editing", as that word was originally conceived. The article was quite stable for a long time until very recently. Remember, only you can prevent article fires. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 06:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take an admin to do a revert. None of us may make more than three reverts in a day, and I've alredy made two. Why don't you do it? Wikipedia rules prevent involved editors from protecting pages, but I have also requested protection from other admins. -Will Beback 06:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll just, uh, go revert it ... yeah. You don't know you're going to walk into a tank before you hit it right? I mean, why step aside when it's possible just this once you might walk right through it? I'm glad you've contacted other admins (but maybe an ambulence would have been better?) —Antireconciler ◊ talk 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This article has been stable for a long time with excellent sourcing considering the nature of the material. The original author was driven off WP by the user in question. Scott (who was familiar with the material) has stopped editing. I seem to be the only one left that knows the material and I no longer wish to interact with that user. The user has no knowledge of the material by their own admission.

I suggest that the page be protected at version: "16:19, July 18, 2006 Who123"--Who123 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisitation of Compromise

I have revisited your June 3rd compromise on the page, and stated my agreeance with the proposal and all its components. Please see the description there :) --Ericsaindon2 05:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ste4k

I'll help out in a few days -- I'm very busy right now with work and RL. --Ben Houston 13:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • What is this about?

"If you are being stalked, then WP:AN/I would be a option. I'm going to be mostly missing the next week, but checking in now and again. Until mid-August really, as have vaction starting the 2nd just after. I'm not sure what if anything I'm actually going to move forward until I get back circa Aug 15th. If I put up proposals, I won't be here to discuss same. Shrug. Things are rarely 'urgent', unless someone is deleting something! ttfn, Keep up the good work! // FrankB 15:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That is being handled out of the public eye, but thanks. Ste4k 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)"

--Who123 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No idea. However Ste4k has made stalking accusations against at least one editor. -Will Beback 04:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communities

Hello, I noticed that you actively participate in many Southern California articles. I was wondering if you could restore the template:Orange County, California back so that it includes the communities. I didnt put them that way, but I think that they were a nice addition, and should be restored. I would do it myself but user:Anaheimat is pushing a 3rr, so I would like them to be restored, at least until some consensus comes to why or why not they should not be there. Thank you. --Mr.Executive 23:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I suspect that User:Anaheimat is also a sockpuppet because all of that user's edits are reverting Eric's (of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it is Eric himself playing the sock game) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACIM "Straw Poll"

You may wish to vote.--Who123 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Coolcaesar

I moved your comments to the Ericsaindon2 portion. That is what that particular case is for. Feel free to leave comments relating to Coolcaesar on this page, but it is vandalism when you use the page for other purposes than what it is used for. Please refrain from reinserting your comment on the Coolcaesar case, for it does not relate to the situation at all.--69.227.173.154 09:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Ericsaindon2

What makes you think I have anything to do with Ericsaindon2? I had to read about him just to figure out what you are talking about. And will you please respond on the comment assuring me you will keep those allegations on the Ericsaindon2 portion for they are necessary down there. I moved your comments to the Ericsaindon2 portion. That is what that particular case is for. Feel free to leave comments relating to Coolcaesar on this page, but it is vandalism when you use the page for other purposes than what it is used for. Please refrain from reinserting your comment on the Coolcaesar case, for it does not relate to the situation at all.--Mr.Executive 11:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ste4k

Hi, I've noticed that you're preparing an RfC on Ste4k, and have information on the Sculpture of Ancient Greece article, being drawn into it via WP:3O. I don't know about the edit warring which occurred on Ste4k's user page in response to Nscheffey, but I've drafted a section on the article at User:Martinp23/sandbox which you can feel free to use (ps I will be happy to endorse the RfC) Martinp23 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mr.Executive

Please remove the stuff on the top of the page of the user page. You have no proof for these statements, and you just suspect him to be what you say. It is vandalism to add untrue statements. I will accept the allegations based on a result from the ArbCom check user, but until then, it needs to be removed, because there is no proof. Just get rid of it until Fred Bauer can confirm or deny the use of the account as a sockpuppet because it is wrong to just accuse someone of something when you have no proof whatsoever. Just be a good character, and act in good faith, and remove it for the time being. It is the right thing to do. :) --69.232.50.106 22:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's very unusual for new editors to file an ArbCom case with someone they've never met before. Clearly you are someone's sock puppet, and just as clearly you are Eric's sock. -Will Beback 00:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I was harassed by Coolcaesar's sock, Anaheimat. I also followed the Anaheim Hills case, but left comments under an IP name before actually creating an account. I thought you had to know all the rules first, so I learned them, and did edits with my IP, then I created the account. I did alot of research on Coolcaesar after the incident on the page because although his point was correct, he went about proving it in a malicious way, so I found plenty of other examples to back this up. I filed a checkuser on myself to confirm that I am not his sock with an Arbitration person so that I can clear my name. I will show you I am not him when the process finishes, and the Arb. Admin does the checkuser I requested. Now, if he was me, I would not do that, I would want to cover it up, right? Does not really fit on second thought does it. -Mr.Executive 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Please indicate which edits you made under IP addresses so I can confirm your story. A question has already been raised about user:Anaheimat. -Will Beback 05:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I edited under an AOL IP for a while, and I believe I did an edit under one AOL IP at the time (AOL IP;s are uncontrollable, and often change so not sure which number it was). I made 2 edits on the talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California during the infobox debate, which I agreed with it, but disagreed with it later because I "wanted to go with the flow". I closely followed the page from that point, but it started getting heated, so I did not want to get involved, but did watch it. I then switched my internet, and created a name, about 3 days ago. So I created Mr.Executive. I dont even live in Anaheim Hills, I live in Lake Forest/Dove Canyon area. So, I created this case because even though I agreed with Coolcaesar, but I didnt find it fair that since he was equally involved, he managed to get no punishment, where as Eric was banned (was if 1 year?), so that kind of irritated me, and I decided to figure out what else he had done, and found alot, so I creaed a case against him. I am not here to cause problems, I just want my account back. I guess I should have never created an account, because this is what happens. --69.232.36.1 05:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endeavor_Academy

You seem to be very busy so I hate to ask but would you mind reviewing the EA article and removing any templates or catagories that are not appropriate? I would like to ask for page protection. Thanks--Who123 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A_Course_in_Miracles

The article tag war continues.--Who123 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:JzG Formally Known As "Just zis Guy, you know?" has reverted ACIM to a version which contains almost nothing. I, and I think most others, as indicated by the "Straw Poll", prefer to leave the full article as is for now. Since User:JzG has recently been made an Administrator perhaps the two of you could sort this out or it could be made the primary discussion on the talk page.--Who123 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k. There is a section for your response. -Will Beback 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In which category has it been listed? [15] Ste4k 21:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, I think you did an excellent job with this. I know you put a lot of work into it. I think it is also hard to take this kind of action. I really like the way you added the positive overlay to it; it is an attempt to help. I added a note to Ste4k's page. I hope this all turns out for the best including Ste4k.--Who123 23:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

thanks.

Ste4k 07:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You had better check your resources. Just a hint, I cheated.

I didn't want to, but you got me curious, so I looked at the examples you were pointing at. You might want to ask him later exactly why he was posting that, but you should keep in mind that UseNet does not have the same kind of communication methods, lingo, semantics, etc., as perhaps you are accustomed to. Those first two are direct quotes from the Ku Klux Klan doctrine. And I'll tell you real plain right now, if he is "saying" anything at all in those posts, he is saying that the other guy reads like klan doctrine using a side by side comparison. All of them are the same conversation with the same guy except the last one, which I didn't really read because it looked long and boring. How does any of that have anything to do with Schucman? And how does any of that relate to curse? You are making statments about "my" religious beliefs based on UseNet posts that you don't even understand, I don't want to read, and that are widely known per consensus to be basically useless. Sdedeo taught me that. Did you even bother to read the Afd on Next Door Nikki? Ste4k 11:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Personal info"

Removing personal info about editors, especially when apparently used to present derogatory information, isn't ridiculous

Pay attention. It is ridiculous and mechanical application of a policy, not merely because it's no secret who's being referred to, but the person himself has revealed it, as seen here, here, and here, among others -- note the signatures. Even MORE ridiculous was your original edit, removing the ENTIRE comments rather than the allegedly offending parts. If you can't bring youself to do something correctly, maybe you ought not have bothered doing it in the first place or to complain about being reversed afterward. --Calton | Talk 11:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'll keep this off of the RfC discussion for your benefit

Regarding the publishing of our household IP address in several conspicuous places you are acting in disregard to the privacy policy.

"It may be either difficult or easy for a motivated individual to connect your network IP address with your real-life identity. Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym.

When using a pseudonym, your IP address will not be available to the public except in cases of abuse, including vandalism of a wiki page by you or by another user with the same IP address. In all cases, your IP address will be stored on the wiki servers and can be seen by Wikimedia's server administrators and by users who have been granted "CheckUser" access. Your IP address, and its connection to any usernames that share it may be released under certain circumstances (see below)."

Ste4k 12:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You posted your own IP when you edited without registering. You also uploaded a screenshot of your computer desktop with the same IP plainly visible. That same IP was used to create information on the Usenet that you later added to Wikipedia as if it were reliable information. -Will Beback 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
IP on the screenshot? Don't be mixing things again Will. The privacy policy clearly advises people to create usernames to prevent their IP exposure. You are not abiding by the privacy policy. If you don't edit it out, then I'll consult the people who handle those matters. Consulting you directly about this, is being considerate on my part. Ste4k 01:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't disclose anything that you hadn't already made public repeatedly. I have no special access to your IP address, I only know it because you posted it. -Will Beback 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Again Will, you are the only one making things public repeatedly. We have not done any such thing as you claim. I have advised a member of Wikimedia legal to advise. Ste4k 22:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Your IP address was posted when you edited without registering. You uploaded a file which clearly showed your IP address. -Will Beback 23:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Prove it. Ste4k 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Mboverload.jpg. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=72.128.30.205. Also http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.128.30.205. -Will Beback 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I see nine edits by some anonymous user and a request to edit a new file. I asked for proof. Ste4k 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that those anonymous edits were not made by you? They are quite obviously yours. You uploaded Image:Mboverload.jpg so you might have a copy on your computer. If not do you want me to undelete it? -Will Beback 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I am saying that I see nine edits by some anonymous user and a request to edit a new file. You have made unfounded allegations for which you haven't any proof. Ste4k 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You'd previously admitted making those edits, do you deny it now? You also posted your IP address when you uploaded Image:Mboverload.jpg. Would you like me to undelete it so that you can see it again? -Will Beback 23:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't play games with me Will. Do the right thing for your own credibility. Remember why you stated that you opened this RfC to begin with. Ste4k 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, and a little off topic, but, please try and follow the guidlines for my talk page in the future. You may not have noticed but the policy has changed there somewhat. Thanks. Ste4k 00:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for consensus in this regard. Ste4k 00:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information

Don't you think Wikipedia should have as much information as it can get? Not all of the information is important to every person but as long as it's usefull to someone isn't that what matters? Bcody 14:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is that questionable?

Usually a "fact" tag is attached to some unlikely bit of information, because if we were to attach it to _every_ bit of information that is not referenced. . . Anyway, what do you find unlikely about the statement that pederasty is the most common form historically? Haiduc 20:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am very conscious of the need to reference a bunch of stuff in that article, including the cite requested. But I do have a life and these things take time. Kindly restore the material and the tag and it will certainly be dealt with. The fact that what was tagged is a common-sensical statement is another matter. It is the most elementary of things, is it not, that if time after time after time historical homosexuality manifests as pederasty often in a culturally validated form, and there is hardly any mention of egalitarian homosexuality at all and when mentioned it is deprecated, that it stands to reason to describe the situation as "most frequent" and that removal of that qualifier is itself an emotional and not a rational action? Regards, Haiduc 10:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's let's leave it like that, I'll put it back in when I've dug up a reference. Nice pictures on your user page, by the way. Haiduc 01:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal immigration to the United States

"You've twice deleted sourced material from Illegal immigration to the United States while referrig to a note on the talk page. That page has dozens of notes. Which one are you referring to? -Will Beback 12:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)"

My last two most recent 198.97.67.58 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACIM Merged Articles

Now that the ACIM article is no longer protected, I have done some basic housekeeping. I think everything is logical and well documented.

It seems to me that the deleted merged articles need to be addressed next. I think some of the articles that were merged should be restored as separate articles if for no other reason than the size of the primary article. How can we look at pages that were merged before they were merged?

Any help?--Who123 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the time to look at the Merged Articles at ACIM? I think most, but perhaps not all, were originally separate articles. Can and would you restore them to a page in the ACIM discussion page under the Archives? Thanks--Who123 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. This has been draining too much of my time and energy. Thanks much.--Who123 04:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. Alexander Stefan

Re: Stefan: These articles seem to have been nominated, but not included in the AfD. Stefan University Press and American Society for Laser Neuroscience. Also Template:Doctor-Faustef-15, Template:Stefan-University-Press-Series, and Template:Doctor-Faustef-11. -Will Beback 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. JoanneB is getting around to the rest now. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

When voting in a requested move, please do not remove discussions; please only vote. Georgia guy 22:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments in edit summary

" 23:54, 24 July 2006 Will Beback (Talk | contribs) (→Statement about 0RR religiously - you tell us) "

Several questions regarding my heritage, nationality, etc, have been raised to ascertain what will require a change...

Do you live in a culture where it is appropriate to ask people to apologize for things they haven't done? I haven't any intention to apologize for things that I haven't done, nor do I intend to be a scapegoat for the acts of several other people. Just because I don't complain, doesn't mean that I don't notice. If you want to turn this RfC around, then since it's in writing and published, you will need to remove the unfounded allegations. If you haven't researched these matters well enough in the first place then I suggest you delete the whole affair and we put it in our past. Ste4k 01:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on the RfC talk page. -Will Beback 04:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Request Filed

I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Nscheffey. See here. Please post any comments you desire to add. Ste4k 08:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francisco Gil-White (nominated for deletion)

Although the bio does not currently express it, Gil-White is an influential figure in the fields of Anthropology, Psychology and Evolutionary Biology - he has crafted his own particular fusion of the three, Biocultural Pscychology. He has written extensively on topics such as Prestige, Ethnicity and Memes, and has been widely published in many reputable journals. The dispute over his firing, and his historical and current events analysis are also highly controversial areas that deserve mention. A colleague of mine is preparing a paragraph or two that will reflect his impact on the academic world, which should be up in a week or so. I hope you can hold off your deletion proceedings until you have at least had a chance to read it. 81.129.153.28 17:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

At the moment there is little in the article to establish notability. Please add anything that would do so. -Will Beback 20:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptical Investigations

Just a heads up, but I think you may have confused "Skeptical Investigations" with "Skeptical Inquirer", the references you restored aren't to CSICOP or affilates. Similiar names, but quite different games.. :) Dreadlocke 21:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Posting users' personal info

On the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k page you posted a user's IP address and a suggestion that they were the same person or associated with an off-Wikipedia user account. Please don't do this. It is a violation of Wikipedia's policies on maintaining the privacy of contributors and may result in an indefinite block. In this case a new user claiming to be the same off-Wikipedia account has since stated that there is a relationship between the two users, which might retroactively obviate the second problem, but release of the IP address is still not appropriate. --CBD 22:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing a user's IP address is allowed in cases of extreme ongoing vandalism/disruption with multiple sockpuppets - where it can be helpful in stopping further problems. That was not the case here. Identifying someone's off-Wikipedia account which has a publically listed e-mail address is effectively the same as identifying their e-mail address. --CBD 23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k

I have left a large wad of debate bewteen myself and Ste4k on the talk page pof the RfC. You may find it useful. ViridaeTalk 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The ever famous Switzer's Camp!

Hello Will,

It is good to hear from you. Yes, one of the uppermost attractions of the Arroyo Seco is the Camp site and falls at Switzer. I should very much like to do a history report on that, it was a very prominent place in the Angeles for decades. I didn't include it because its not considered so much a starting place in the Arroyo. BUT if the old paved road was still there, it would be a starting place.

So questions! Switzer's Camp was named for Commodore Switzer...but why was he called "Commodore?

What was a famous location of religious inspiration in the Switzer's Camp area?

There's a sign at Switzer's warning mountain climbers not to attempt to climb the face of the falls, it won't hold a piton. How many deaths are acclaimed on the sign?

I feel an article. Thanks Magi Media 02:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

The headwater of the Arroyo Seco is Red Box, but I doubt that spot is worth having an article. As I recall, Robinson says that Switzer gained the moniker "Commodore" for his management of mules in stream crossings. Robinson also says that there was a sign along the trail near the camp from which hung a horn. The instructions said to use the horn to indicate how many guests were arriving, so that their dinner could be prepared. The chapel was a masterful illusion, from the photos I've seen. I can't recall the number of deaths on the sign, but it wasn't more than a dozen. Of course it's an old sign now, and the real number may be higher. Cheers, -Will Beback 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely 2 right answers! Sign says 67 deaths, and I'm sure it stopped the climbing. Someone put Mt. Wilson on the list, and Red Box is pretty closely related to Mt. Wilson, but I had to remove it. But your Switzers would qualify if it had an article, so I'll qualify it. There is another old camp site about 5 miles up the canyon before Switzers...can you name it? Magi Media 02:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Oakwilde is correct (with an e)! I am a member of the Sheriff's Support Goup of Altadena. Those S&R guys are our guys. Altadena has a top Mountain Rescue team. During this time of year they don't need to practice so much becuse they are on call more. Cell phones have lowered the rate of mountain casualties, fortunately. But these mountains are decomposed granite, so they don't hold pitons! Thanks Magi Media 13:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

[edit] User:69.234.126.211

Hello...Thanks for blocking User:69.234.126.211. Considering the severity and frequency of his vandalism this evening, I'd like to ask that you consider extending the block past the 1-hour block currently in place. His vandalism attempts were blatant and quite hateful, and their persistent nature made RC patrol quite a pain. -- H·G (words/works) 07:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When will you be back?

When will you be back?

[edit] Re; 155.84.57.253

Thanks for the tip. I've reblocked. --Pilotguy (roger that) 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACIM

Would you please look at the discussion page on ACIM under Introduction. It seems that whatever is written for this article, Ste4k is going to obstruct. Thanks--Who123 02:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == White People ==

I saw your comment regarding AfD, but I think you are being far too cynical about things. Aside from Yurikat and this Al-Andalus person, I can't imagine too many people voting in favor of keeping the article. Even if because 'concensus' isn't met, it'd be worth the effort to flag it for deletion.

Are you unable to delete it because you are an admin? Or do you honestly believe "white people" is an article worthy of a supposedly respectable encyclopedia? Because I'm pretty sure it's not going to make an appearance in the Britannica anytime soon.

I'm a little surprised someone who has been here longer than I hasn't asked for a deletion on it already. But given that I've barely written two articles on Wikipedia, I don't think my 3rd major action should be to request an entire article being deleted, though I would definitely vote in favor of such and urge others to do so as well.--ThatBajoranGuy 07:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

You may wish to look at Ste4k's new Response to the RfC.--Who123 15:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My brief return

I figured I'd check my talk page for the heck of it to see if there are any messages. When I saw that this was there, I decided to sign it. I'm glad something is being done. But I don't intend to return to Wikipedia as an editor of articles. Just trying to help out in this difficult situation ... soon to return to my Wikipedia "retirement". :) Andrew Parodi 09:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question for you ...

Since you're an admin, and I'm a newbie, please tell me ...

What would you suggest for a page I ran across that is in need of some serious help -- football hooliganism? Do you think the rewrite tag I put on it is in order? And neutrality, given some of the previous statements people have been slipping in as fact? --ThatBajoranGuy 09:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] waiting for your reply

I am still waiting for your reply to the discussion on my talk page. Ste4k 19:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to keep waiting. I'm heading out for the weekend and don't have time to respond. Our discussions don't seem to be going anywhere, so unless you have some particular question that needs answering I'll just let you have the last word. -Will Beback 19:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The last word is from you as it stands you have effectively barred my participation on Wikipedia, and from your reply it appears that will be for at least another two days. You asked for an explanation, and justification for my remarks, and I have given you one. The question that needs answering is:
Why have you submitted an RfC in bad faith?
If you are driving over the weekend then please do so safely. Ste4k 19:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I didn't submit an RfC in bad faith. -Will Beback 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint

On a slightly different topic, and since you mentioned that the RfC was brought about because of complaints made to you by editors, I think it should be pointed out that actions like these [16][17][18] appear to be contrary to actions like this [19]. Because of several other actions of the same editor which I will list here only upon request, consider this a formal complaint. Ste4k 19:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I happened to come across this. First, I think all discussion about the RfC should take place in the RfC itself. This is a sneaky way to move RfC discussion off of the RfC where it belongs. Second, I should be have been notified that discussions about me were occurring about the RfC elsewhere. Last, your examples make little sense:

The diffs in [20] are 7 days apart.
In [21] the article is completely without sources. ACIM, on the other hand, was sourced but lacked proper citation. How did you find out about this? Are you stalking me?
I have no idea what [22] is about.
I also have no idea why you include [23] which is simply my endorsement of the RfC.

--Who123 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special Award

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For recent exhausting very hard work in an area where the work is sometimes not appreciated. —Who123 14:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question Regarding Liberty and Power

Since you are familiar with my work, I'd really appreciate it if you could look into this. I am appealing a decision by an administrator to delete my entry on Liberty and Power on the grounds of NN. See here for a fuller description, including my justification of notablity, see here WP:DRV. For a copy of the entry, see here User:Znlrwl/Liberty and Power. Thanks!!znlrwl 20:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty and Power: The Case for Notability

Will:

Thanks for the quick reply. Please forgive the delay, but I have had a family problem to attend to. I don't take it personally. The objective argument for inclusion of Liberty and Power is compelling and independent of the personal issue. First, let me tackle your point about well-known contributors. I agree with your Charleton Heston example but it goes far beyond one or two notable individuals in this case. Liberty and Power has ELEVEN (count 'em eleven) notable contributors, each of whom have Wikipedia bios (all produced independently): Sudha Shenoy, Robert Higgs, Radley Balko, Peter Boettke, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Donald J. Boudreaux, James Otteson, Karen Kwiatkowski, Sheldon Richman. Surely, a blog with so many distinquished scholars and writers, all recognized independently by Wikipedia, must qualify Liberty and Power as notable.

Second, the Liberty and Power blog is indeed sponsored by a "notable organization:" the Center for History and New Media which also has an independently produced Wiki entry. Let me also that several of the blogs listed in Wiki's small category of "libertarian blogs" (who shall remain nameless) do not come close to meeting either of these standards.

Finally, you ask whether Liberty and Power had been cited by mainstream media. David T. Beito has been quoted on the Emmett Till murder case several times in such publications as the Chicago Tribune, the Clarion Ledger, and the Chicago Tribune because of blog entries on this topic. One of these blogs also led to an op-ed piece on this subject in the Atlanta Constitution. Just google the terms "Liberty and Power" and "David T. Beito" and "Emmett Till" though I'd be happy to provide more info. Additionally, the blogs of Radley Balko on Cory Maye case have generated media coverage. znlrwl 16:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Will, thanks for responding to my emails. I didn't realize that I was able to contribute to evidence to cases directly since I'm not listed as involved, but now I know I can anyway (so I will if I come up with anything new). Have a nice wikibreak! Soltras 19:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Welcome Back!

Welcome back! Hope you had some great time off.—Who123 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EA

I suspect you are busy catching up. When you get a chance, please look at the EA article. User:Antireconciler and myself have been working on it. I think that it is as good as it is going to get for now. Would welcome input. Perhaps time to remove some tags and archive?—Who123 20:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)