User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive3

Gangs of New York
check out the updated biography of William Poole, and look at all the original material at Wikisource on him. I am now going through the New York Times archive online and getting more info


 * Wow! What a wild time. There must be lots of out-of-copyright material now, maybe some illustrations? Photos of neighborhoods, maps, drawings from that era? Those long citations should eventually be summarized (since the source material can be easily accessed), but they make a great read. Good project. Cheers,-Willmcw 08:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche (Again-sorry)
Hi! I rearranged the headings in the "POV Warrior" section on the decision/talk page so that you, me, and possibly SlimVirgin can respond in a row. I also added a note praising you and Slim for diligent and balanced editing attempts. If you don't like the headings and subheadings as is, fix them any way you want.--Cberlet 14:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I took a sneak preview of the LaRouche movement article last night. It's excellent work, as is your evidence. Thank you for doing it all. SlimVirgin 00:29, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fabulous work. You ask if NBC actually reported those weird things. My recollection is yes (God this NPOV thing is like a virus) but I will go check. Will take a few days.  Buried in an archive.--Cberlet 00:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks both. There are two almost-empty sections that I'm hoping each of you can help fill: funding and cultishness. Otherwise the article is virtually ready to post, I think (after stripping out some jokes and notes). [And of course, feel free to edit any part of it. It's not mine.]


 * BTW, I think the question about the NBC material was SV's. Also, I've posted a list of articles edited by HK/WH/CC/48 at User:Willmcw/sandbox2. I've compiled all their edits into a list (it was quick), and had hoped to get a chrono list, but the dates are hard to parse. If anyone is looking for a particular edit or edit summary, let me know. It appears that virtually every edit has been to further the LaRouche worldview. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. SlimVirgin 02:16, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was me who wondered about NBC. The HH position was that NBC accused LaRouche of murdering Palme, plotting to murder Kissinger and, I believe, Carter (I'm writing from memory). I was wondering whether NBC accused him or whether they reported the accusations of others. My Dennis King book has arrived by the way: I had it in storage in a previous place I lived, so a friend sent it on to me. I'm now fully armed. SlimVirgin 02:07, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * "(move in the 185,000-word template. (have baggage, will travel))" Laughing out loud. That long list of articles is bound to put in an appearance shortly. Have you given any thought to the poor soul who checked that it was 185,000? SlimVirgin 11:18, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your recent point to Fred, David Gerard of the arbcom is a very good person to put points like these to; he's very well-organized and knows the rules and the previous rulings, just in case you have no luck. He can be contacted on his page or via email as you prefer. SlimVirgin 00:53, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've asked almost every member of the ArbCom about why there's been no response to my complaint, including Gerard on Feb 8. At least he responded to say that he'd mentioned it to the other ArbCom members. Also, did you delete some material from the LaRouche case talk page? Cheers, -Willmcw 01:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether an e-mail would work better? Just a thought. If I did delete material, I didn't mean to. What's missing? SlimVirgin 01:17, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the extra notes you've posted around. The ArbCom process is a bit confusing, at least for me. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. It is confusing. I'm wondering whether any of the admins will step in, as the ruling said (from memory) "on demonstration to the arbitration committee," so the admins may well refer you back there. Worth a try though. SlimVirgin 04:55, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Loved One
I'm actually reading The Loved One at the moment and finding it quite wonderful. A few weeks ago my girlfriend and I took a trip to Forest Lawn after having read about it, it was simply amazing. So maudlin, yet so earnest. The Loved One gets it perfectly. By the way, in your quest for LaRouche documentation, if you need someone to look up anything in backissues of the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, or even New Solidarity, I can do that pretty easily where I'm at right now, and can easily scan documents. --Fastfission 00:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Styles
Hi. You commented on attempts by some people to use styles like Royal Highness and Holiness when referring to title holders. They are trying to do that again on Pope John Paul II. The naming conventions say to define what someone's style is in the text, not use it. But a handful of people, having unilaterally changed the policy and begun adding in styles, are trying to have them used in articles.

(I'd better declare an interest here. I was one of the people who put together the Naming conventions (names and titles). We had a discussion on styles twice. Both times most people saw major problems in using them. I put together a change to the conventions page to represent what people agreed, having said I was going to do it. Our 'stylists' now keep deleting the stuff from the naming conventions page, then insisting that there is no rule against putting them in, then calling styles a somewhat different thing called honorifics which are allowed, and which they then say can be added in.)

Your contribution on the Pope John Paul II and Naming conventions (names and titles) pages would be more than welcome. You, unlike them, see the practical problems, POV problems and complexities that arise if styles are used as opposed simply to being explained. FearÉIREANN 12:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Userfy
I saw your question on a VfD, asking what "userfy" means. That means to move the content of an article from article space to a user's personal userspace as a subpage. We sometimes do that if the article is a vanity bio of a registered user, or if it was created as an editing experiment that some impressive amount of work has gone into. Joyous 00:44, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your response. I'd finally posted a message on the other editor's talk page, where he responded. There's a very active editor who has a very long autobiography, which, if true, makes the guy appear to be the leading physician in Brazil. I believe the benefit that he is giving Wiki in other articles exceeds the 'cost' of his self-promotion, but I'm glad to know there is a way of handling it should a question ever arise. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Galton, Darwin, and Lincoln!
I'm glad you thought the same thing when you saw the recent edits to eugenics. If he keeps it up I'm going to refer him to the recently-concluded Darwin-Lincoln birthday dispute arbitration. On the one hand, I can't believe how much time is wasted on this sort of nonsense. On the other hand, I guess that's part of what one has to expect with a project like this. Sigh... --Fastfission 00:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SNL
Well, I think it should have a brief mention of illness, doesn't need to specify. I agree that it should be kept short and simple. Everyking 23:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Black codes
Hey *waving*. Thanks for the note and the suggestion that I stop by Black Codes. Don't have any time today; I'm crunching deadlines. But I'll try to stop by later -- by which time the controversy likely will have been resolved. I will say that my recollection is that the draconean Black Codes first came into being in the Caribbean sometime in the early to mid 17th century and then were adopted by U.S. slaveowners as the numbers of enslaved Africans in proportion to the white population grew dramatically. In many locales, enslaved blacks outnumbered whites -- a dangerous situation for whites. deeceevoice 14:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling
As a ruling has been made on the case involving you, the temporary injunction against you has expired. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:23, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you! ;-) SlimVirgin 05:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words which are very much appreciated. I also have to say how impressed I was by your evidence, which was absolutely compelling, and was composed with great clarity, which I know is not an easy thing to do. Your finding the plagiarism was very important &mdash; in fact, pivotal &mdash; and I can only imagine how time-consuming that was. The difficulty of making people see how extensive the duplicity was, is that they had to go through all his edits for themselves to see it. You did that, and I'm very pleased and very grateful that you did. You're right about the Weed post being a classic. And now that the case is over, I hope I'll have more time to devote to my defense of Her Majesty. SlimVirgin 08:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI, I just posted the following on David Gerard's talk page:
 * David, this may be nothing, but just to gave you the heads up. A new user User:Eggplantwizard (see User talk:EggplantWizard) has made a contribution to Talk:LaRouche Movement, a new article just posted by Willmcw, saying the content is a bit one-sided. I'm wondering whether this is Herschelkrustofsky's latest incarnation. S/he signed up today, Feb 17, and has made a number of seemingly random edits. Contribs here S/he already knows how to revert, has managed to find VfD, Vandalism in progress, wrote in an edit summary "rephrased for NPOV", which was a favorite Herschel edit summary, and added the cleanup tag to an article, which displays a lot of knowledge for a new user. I'll keep an eye on it, but wanted to let you know of the possibility. SlimVirgin 00:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Consulting my database of HK edit summaries, I don't see that he ever said "rephrased for NPOV", but he did use similar phrases. Frequently used phrases were: "adjust for NPOV",(3) "correct for NPOV", (6) and "NPOVish" (2). Why is that when editors add summaries that say "NPOV" they have almost always have inserted their own POV? I view it as a "red flag," though I suspect they believe it is the opposite. Anyway, if it's HK he'll reveal himself in some fashion. -Willmcw 00:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * PS I'd have to spend more time to get accurate counts of what he said, which interests me not at all. ;) But it's easy to find what he didn't or did say on individual occasions. Anyway, let's hope we have a short respite. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * What I find very interesting is that no matter how hard sockpuppets try to disguise their language, choice phrases end up being used time and again, and people who have dealt with the previous incarnation invariably recognize them. The best one I know of was Alberuni, who created, I believe, 10-20 sockpuppets, all with different personalities and many of them active at the same time, who made anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic edits (depending on your point of view), some of them insulting (e.g. reference to "kike"), some of them more reasoned. His best sockpuppet was User:ThinkPink, who gave the impression she was a woman campaigner against breast cancer. See here for her old user page, which David Gerard has now replaced with a picture of a sock. Even though she sounded quite different from Alberuni, the editors who had long dealt with him recognized ThinkPink instantly from certain linguistic turns. I've long thought it would make a good PhD thesis. SlimVirgin 00:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * A thesis in what field? Abnormal psychology? ;) -Willmcw 08:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, Prometheism, which you blanked because it was plagiarized from Dnagod's website, has been rewritten and I've nominated it for deletion. More details at Votes for deletion/Prometheism. SlimVirgin 08:57, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI, I didn't blank it- my only involvement was conversing with Dnagod about it. Thanks for organizing the VfD. -Willmcw 09:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Gone but not forgotten
End of an era. SlimVirgin 06:46, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Me and Weed worked out that bit of text ("theorist of conspiracies") between us as a compromise. I'll admit, I have a sentimental attachment to it.  Though a trifle odd, it is factually correct and NPOV. I stand by our compromise and am nominally defending it. However, I have no objection to linking it to Conspiracy theory as a compromise. I'm sure eventually some editor will come through and do a re-write or something and it'll disappear. But I think there are more urgent issues in editing these articles. ;) Cheers,  -Willmcw 07:00, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I admire your steadfastness. I was a little sad to see it go myself. ;-) SlimVirgin 07:27, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)