User talk:Will Beback/archive14

Rajneesh move to Osho
Hi Will, please see Rajneesh talk page, we seem to have reached agreement on moving the page to "Osho". Could you do the honours? Jayen466 02:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Thank you kindly, that's great. :-) Jayen466 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

hey if you have some time over please help me wikify the article on The graaf sisters  or on the performers in Melodifestivalen 2007./matrix17

Administrator removal

 * I have contacted Wikipedia administration. I am requesting for their review of your conduct as an administrator and your removal. As a newer member of Wikipedia unfortunately I do not have the coalition that you do as to counteract a block on my membership. I do not have to defend myself sense I have done nothing against Wikipedia, have made no threats to you in any way or even attempted to change this problematic article in question. The only item I have included is tags which you are determined to remove. I feel I have stated my case clearly and factually. I have not used "Legal" terms, only Wikipedian terms within the scope of discussion. I have not made any threatening accusations against you. I have only attempted to contribute as an editor, period. I feel that for you to resort to these drastic measures does assure me that you do have a personal connection. I also feel and will report to Wikipedia administration there are personal links between you and the other "Supporters" of my blocking, even possible "Sockpuppeting". No article I have edited has had any problem except for this one. This article which at this point now I could care less about is irrelevant, but your conduct is. If I am blocked, there will still be an inquiry about you to Wikipedia administration.

--Roger the red 02:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FINE
My, I spent a lot of time working on that, and you edit it before letting me answer why ;). Just a bad day =P.  Now I've edited it back, here's why: I have this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmarinas86/All-Rael) I just made and I don't want that templates and categories to appear in it so many times.  If you don't mind, I'm going to have to undo all your edits to my articles ;).Kmarinas86 05:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC) !!!!!!! stupidKmarinas86 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reversions go TOO FAR BACK
Why are you reverting the pages to far back? You haven't discussed the non-offending edits which you have reverted! You butchered the edits I made to the History of Raelism page. Be more surgical!Kmarinas86 06:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The RfC on Cult
Hi Will, if you have the time your participation in the RfC at Cult would be most appreciated. Thanks. Tanaats 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories on redirects
You wrote:
 * There may be some value to placing a category on one of the "Discover the Networks" redirects, but not all four. Likewise there's no reason to add a category to "Front Page Magazine" when we already have one on "FrontPageMag.com".


 * Separately, this talk page has some categories that only belong on articles. Please de-activate them. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the template illustrations from my talk page. They'd already caused some bots to accuse me of spamming, and I didn't notice they'd put my talk page into various categories. It would be nice if I could dynaminally call up neutered versions, but if I can't, sobeit.

On the other hand, I think I disagree with you about redirects. On a constellation of articles of this size (pretty small) I think the housekeeping advantages of having a list of all the moving parts outweighs the confusion to someone looking up the category, although I'd already decided to move the redirects back out of the alpha list and under "*" (or maybe "↔"), precisely to avoid that confusion. I'm still pretty new at this -- am I missing something? Andyvphil 02:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the categories/templates on [your] page. Regarding the other categories, think for a minute about the purpose of categories. The exist to allow readers to find articles on related topics. Including four almost identical redirects does not help them in any way, but rather would confuse them and send them looking for things that don't exist. See Categorization. -Will Beback · † · 02:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I said I understood that. But take another look at the way the category looks now. Andyvphil 03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how this helps readers. Can you explain that for me again, please? -Will Beback · † · 04:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, don't add sort keys that don't make sense. If there's no key the article will be sorted by its first letter. So there's no point in add "D" to make "David Horowitz Freedom Center" sort under "D". Also, the sort key you add won't show, so there's no point in adding "heterodoxy" to "David Horowitz Freedom Center", because it will still appears as "David Horowitz Freedom Center", but be sorted under "H", which would only confuse readers. -Will Beback · † · 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"David Horowitz Freedom Center" was sorted under "D" and "David Horowitz" under "H" and I'm not aware of putting "heterodoxy" anywhere (although, now that you mention it, thanks for reminding me inadvertently about the Heterodoxy(magazine) redirect). So, what's this comment about? Andyvphil 07:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it was another editor who added those. Anyway, I still don't see why you want to categorize every "spelling" redirect. Could you explain that again, please? -Will Beback · † · 08:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I ran across your edit after my note here. I was responsible for the unnecessary "D" but not the two "Heterodoxy"s. ... I'm not actually wedded firmly to the idea of categorizing captalization redirects, but see a slight advantage to editors and no cost to readers in listing them, so long as they are not in the alphabetized section. And catecorizing topic redirects (eg "Heterodoxy(magazine)" to the appropriate article) turns out to be something serendiptously useful, as you conceded might be true in your very first sentence.

I recently saw some Wiki- policy or guideline text, somewhere, to the effect that articles don't have a "tree" structure, but other policies (eg, that the contents of certain topic splits should be summarized in the parent article) implicitly indicate this is not entirely true. Which it isn't. There is certainly some elements of hierarchy. But, IMHO, the network isn't visible enough, and it causes editing problems. E.g., the summary starts accumulating detail that should go in the primary article whose existance, once it's been calved off, is insufficiently easy to detect. So I'm looking, just a bit, to Categories as organizational aids... Andyvphil 09:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Never find it

 * Never find it → Carlotta, California — vandal moved it — Blank Verse  12:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Will: The above is the Requested moves template, but since they look like they have a three day backlog for the uncontroversial moves section, I've copied it over to your page as well. I could probably do the same thing the vandal did (moved the page to a new page, and then move again), but that's such a messy 'solution'.

needs to be spanked banned, and the Never find it page should probably be prememptively salted, and the 'middle' page, Carlotta, Lucas wennerholm, needs to be deleted. TIA.

I would have never even found out about this page move except that user:WP 1.0 bot ran without the Bot flag set, and so I looked at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/California articles by quality log, which not only shows changes in article assessments using the WikiProject California template, but shows page moves as well. I wonder how many other sneaky page moves have been done that nobody has caught.

I also ended up finding a few non-standard page names, such as Tustin Ranch, Tustin, California renamed to Tustin Ranch.  Blank Verse  12:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The ordinary Wikipedia vandalism is bad enough, but this one bugged me more than most.  Blank Verse  10:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Columbia Pacific University
Hi Will - I posted a detailed list of objections to the current article on Talk:Columbia Pacific University. I'd like to get your opinion on the subject, as you have been editing the article for some time. Thanks! Skinwalker 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your advice
Hey Will, I would appreciate it if you would offer your advice over at User talk:Sisyphus Aeternal. I was trying to offer an explanation of some reversions to a new user, and he seems to feel bullied by me. I don't think I am acting improperly, but an outside perspective would be helpful. Thanks, DickClarkMises 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

My user page
Thanks for the revert. As long as I've been editing on the Wikipedia, and considering the number of vandal and spam reversions that I've done, that is only the third time that I've had any of my user pages vandalized.  Blank Verse  14:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clark
The material I have been deleting is material I have contributed. I understand that I cannot prevent other people from re-adding it since it is licensed under the GFDL, but I do not want it contributed under my own name. I believe I have basically finished erasing all of my contributions at this point and so won't be editing any (many?) more articles. If at all possible, I'd like to register some sort of complaint against User:Spamreporter1 for his continued hounding of me and accusations that I am a spammer (I am not, as the discussions and my actions in re-editing the articles under dispute show). His account was created immediately before he started harassing me, and I suspect it may have been created specifically for this purpose. --Bill Clark 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

QuackWatch links are slowly being deleted over a period of years
There is little left of QuackWatch links. Who is doing this? Can anything be done? 63.17.56.54 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A&F Fragrances
I will edit it tommorow...I have no time today. After tommorow...then you can deleted it. User Talk: Hpfan1

Cable TV issue
Regarding the apparent complaint of Bill Clark, I invite you to ask all of the other editors who were involved in this discussion if they felt that I did anything improper. Please make inquiry of User:Alan.ca, User:orlady, User:Kablammo, and User:Orangemike, as to their reactions to my conduct.

In addition, I have archived all of the discussion on this topic that I could find here. Unfortunately, parts of the discussion have been deleted by Bill Clark, including deletions from my talk page. I believe that everyone involved with Bill Clark acted with restraint and fairness. Spamreporter1 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * in response to your questions: I have also acted in relation to actions by User:Patricknoddy, again regarding an ill-considered set of actions that would have affected a large number of articles. Please see my contributions regarding that user.  So, no this is not just about Bill Clark.


 * Regarding Bill Clark, I only reluctantly became involved. Again, if you examine my contributions (and the discussions archived), you will see that I first requested assistance at the Villge Pump.  When that was unavailing, I left a very polite note on Bill Clark's talk page.  After he brought the topic to the WikiProject City page, I contributed to the discussion (along with a number of other editors).


 * The consensus was unanimous by all the editors that Bill Clark's plan was not a good idea.


 * I regret that he has turned his unhappiness into a personal attack. Because of my concern regarding possible personal attacks cluttering my regular user name, I created this user name for these types of issues only, a legitimate use of an additional user name.


 * Again, I urge you to contact the other editors who were involved to ask them about my conduct, and urge you to read the entire discussion collection here. Spamreporter1 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals on Asian Fetish Article
These 2 users: Mr Phil and the unregistered user who is only known by his IP address that originates from Germany are the same 2 vandals that have been vandalizing this article from its inception. The Wikipedia community by consensus has already decided in past discussion to remove those anthropological sections and this is documented in the discussion archives. The unregistered user was banned from the German Wikipedia so there is past history of vandalism there. Can you do something about these 2 users?OneViewHere 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Long Beach, California
I just checked the website that you removed from the External links in the Long Beach, California ariticle. Not only was it an inappropriate link, but much of the text on the website was copied verbatim from the Long Beach article (without the proper GFDL and Wikipedia notices). I left a message on the editor's talk page, plus used the web form on the Contact Us page for the website. I'll also probably be sending emails directly to website developer responsible.

Unfortunately, what they will probably do is the same thing that they did with the business development info they copied from the City of Long Beach website. They included a copyright notice, but in a light yellow color so most people probably wouldn't even notice it!  Blank Verse  03:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just got back from dinner. While eating, I had a brainstorm. Since there are substantial portions of the Long Beach article that I've written (for which I retain copyright, but have dual-licensed to the Wikipedia under the GFDL & Creative Commons license), I am also going to mention in my email that the email is my informal notice of infringement upon my copyright, and that if nothing is done then they should expect a formal Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice sent to them and their ISP. That should get their attention.  Blank Verse  07:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

IIUS Template
Ok - I reverted your change (light blue) just because I think your using a really strange browser. I've been looking up what was there (to make sure my browser isn't strange) - and everything I've found states that the name of the color code previously given is "something" purple (which is what i saw). If your using a popular browser perhaps we should find a diff. color though ... DanielFolsom T|C|U 05:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok i changed the colors again, BUT DON'T KILL ME! I didn't make it what it was before - I did a darker red so it wouldn't look like a dead link, and I made it so that the link and the "Series of articles on" would be dif. colors. I've also added a comment to the talk page. DanielFolsom T|C|U 16:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Larouchism
A better edit summery for this would have been "unsourced addition deleted". A "larouchism" may be relevant or even accurate but that is neither here nor there; sourced or not is much more to the point. 4.250.168.163 03:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC) (WAS 4.250)

Prem Rawat and Techniques of Knowledge mediation
I thnink it is time for Wikipedia:mediation. Numerous RFCs have been filed and some are still outstanding. The last straw was for me the repeated deletion at Techniques of Knowledge by user:Momento that I consider destructive. Andries 13:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Anton Hein not a reputable source?
Hey Will--In [New Religious Movement], I had removed removed Anton Hein as a source from the article, since he and his personal website (which exists largely to bash religious views he disagrees with) clearly don't make it re WP:RS. Hein himself is an extremely marginal figure, now set up in Europe after establishing himself as a sex offender in California. Could you explain your rationale on the talk page there where I initially made my note? Thanks! BabyDweezil 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues
I disagree with the fact that I have to be the one to prove that there is a copyright infraction, and have made my case on my talkpage - if you want you can open an RFC, but do not start arbitrarily reverting my edits - this calls for uninterested third party to mediate. S facets 11:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoofer
Hello Will Beback. Looks like a spoofer called User:WiIIl Beback was editing one of your subpages. Might want to look in on it.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my son was messing with it...he thought he was helping my business. It's been taken care of. My apologies.

Anaheim Hills
Can you please just revert that intro specifying the area of Anaheim Hills. Anaheim clearly defines the Canyon as the area north of the 91 freeway, and the hill area as south of the 91 freeway. It is combined to form the Canyon and Hill Plan, whereas Anaheim Hills is the area not included under the Canyon plan in the city. I will leave the project if you could just leave that intro. It bugs me to see inaccurate information as the article states now, it says that all of the Canyon and Hill Plan is part of Anaheim Hills, which it most certainly is not, it maintains a distinction apart from Anaheim Hills as the Anaheim Canyon. Just, please revert my intro, and you will have seen the last of me, please. 69.232.43.112 22:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please will you respond on my User:Ericsaindon2 page 69.232.43.112 04:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis again…
Perhaps you would be so kind as to deal with JarlaxleArtemis's latest sockpuppet…? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychonaut (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

No one else seems to have noticed it yet, but there's yet another sock making exactly the same edits to exactly the same articles. Again, perhaps you could take care of it if you're not otherwise busy. —Psychonaut 22:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche

 * Hi ,

I am mediating the LaRouche case now. A discussion has been started at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07. Your input would be appreciated. G e  o. Talk to me 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You aren't a problem user, you are involved. G  e  o .  Talk to me  07:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

David J Silver off the port-bow
Hi Will Beback. Recently I noticed edits by that seem to be in the style of. They are stretches of incremental edits, with no edit summaries, lots of edits to wrestlers, even an edit relating to the USS Simpson here. This one finally mentioned Silver directly. I've asked on the user talk page if this editor is Harvardlaw and have received no reply. What do you think? --EarthPerson 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahoy! Silver is still editing under User:72.204.230.216 as seen here.  The block was only for one week it seems.  Thought you'd like to know.  Cheers.  --EarthPerson 23:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good gravy!, but he's at it again! This time as .  I guess he learned how to reset his cable modem?  :) --EarthPerson 23:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Remarks revisited
You left this message on my talk page: In the spirit of this comment, I ask that you either provide evidence for your claim (on the LaRouche talk page) that "some editors may receive payment from the LaRouche organization," or if you have no evidence, issue a retraction and an apology. --NathanDW 19:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that users have become overly personal on the LaRouche talk page. Can you set an example of good behavior by not commenting on editors, just on edits? -Will Beback · † · 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * NDW - Article talk pages should only be used to discuss articles. Mediation pages are among those where comments about users are appropriate. As for my comment, there is a difference between "may" and "are". If a conflict of interest is asserted on the part of one editor then it is fair to point out that there may be other conflicts of interest as well. It is clear that some editors, you in particular, have not been honest regarding their level of involvement with the topic. -Will Beback · † · 06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are my user contributions. Please point out to me one example where I have ever edited to make LaRouche look good or promote him. My entire involvement with these articles has been to oppose those extremely biased edits which are an embarassment to Wikipedia. So if you want to accuse me of dishonesty, provide some evidence.
 * The conflict of interest with Dking is not hypothetical, it is real. You are an admin and you ought to have warned him about that long ago. Instead, you post adoring comments about how we are "lucky to have him." This is another indication of your bias. You also coyly make personal attacks, saying that there is a difference between "may" and "are." I could post on the talk page that, hypothetically, Will Beback may be paid by Joseph Coors to infiltrate Wikipedia and undermine the WP:LIVING policy, but I'm not going to do that because I don't want to be a Dick. I would ask you not to be one either. --NathanDW 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal
I have been accused of being a vandal on User:LUCPOL/Vandal:R9tgokunks due to past editing disputes with yourself, or other being involved in ways with yourself. Since you have been mentioned, i'd like to ask if you could please comment on the mentioned report, Thanks much. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 15:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not really a personal matter, as many other users have tried to stop LUCPOLs behavior as well, but nothing ever gets accomplished. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 14:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:80.186.173.94#Vandalism_Rapcore]

BLOCK your IP - 2h LUCPOL 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for all your help and everything else that you've done, especially with Southern California articles.

As for my current state of mind and my opinion of the Wikipedia, see my user page, and some of my most recent contributions.  Blank Verse  15:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Rants etc.
God, what a mess. They're almost certainly the same user, given the title of the website that has been referenced in the SCV additions. I'm not going to block anyone given that I've got a clear pov potentially clouding my judgment in this area, but the user doesn't appear to want to listen to appeals to policy and persists in violations. Maybe AN/I would be a good idea. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fyi. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Will Beback: Thanks to you, and to editors Jersyko, Zantastik, and Calton for salvaging what was a huge train wreck at the article on 1957 Georgia Memorial, etc. I deal with this kind of thing all the time in the Wikipedia articles on taxation (tax protesters always wanting insert wildly false, unverifiable POV original research) and to some extent in the article on the Federal Reserve System. Yours, Famspear 15:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Quixtar article: links to blog sites
As an admin, could you please look into the appropriateness of linking to blog sites like the opportunityzone.com in the Quixtar article. I deleted it once and it was readded. Linking to all these blog sites may soon turn into link spamming. --Knverma 10:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Eric Saindon I presume?...
? I'm not as familiar with Eric Saindon but I assume this is him. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Conversion of lists
I see you are working on coverting the hidden references in List of male performers in gay porn films into visible ones by hand. Celithemis was able to write a very convenient script that performed a related task at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/K-O etc (see ). I asked if he/she would be able and willing to create a script to convert the citations in List of male performers in gay porn films into the correct format. If so, it should save you a bit of time! WjBscribe 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that you have in fact already converted all those that actually had refs, the remaining ones do not. Still, I've asked Celithemis to convert the refs into inline citations, which should be an improvement. Hope that's OK. WjBscribe 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob. Given the support that is building on the talkpage, I think its time to remove the entries that don't have articles. If they later gain articles they can be added back in. I note though that a lot of them have had articles which have failed AfDs after which Chidom has then removed the redlinks. Given that Chidom is bound to take the deletion of over half the entries personally, I wanted to run it past you first and make sure we had reached that stage. Its going to have to happen at some point... WjBscribe 07:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills, user:Ericsaindon2
Please, I have learned my lesson, and am extremely tired of getting run over for everything I have ever done on this site. People have gone in to the Anaheim Hills page since my ban and added the same unverifiable research that people would remove when I added it. Like the intro, there is NOWHERE that it states that the border of Anaheim Hills extends to Yorba Linda, however, it was never removed because someone else added it. But when I corrected that statement, it was removed even before I was banned. I have been excessively picked on since I have been here, and it is extremely frustrating. Every word I have ever added, you people have made me verify, which is something that you do not make other users do. I have looked through the histories of hundereds of people who have edited, and none of them have had to cite as much as I have had to, and the stuff that they have added has never gone under as much scrutiny as the stuff I have added has. Even when you were in your early editing days, you rarely cited the simplist things that you and others have made me verify, and it is not right. I have never purposely vandalized a page, and have never added anything of profanity or anything. I just do not understand why I was so battered around when I was here editing. I mean, you have to admit that some of the stuff you wanted me to verify was extremely ridiculous like the cross streets of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, or the location of a shopping center when clearly things like that are not often verified on Wikipedia. It takes a toll on an editor when they spend hours editing something, and it is completely erased becuase that person has something against the editor (referring to the days before my ban when you erased absolutely everything I added whether it had citations or not). And today, I expand on the notable residents list, as well as the government page and spent 4 hours doing so for it all to be reverted by some loser who has never even been involved. I have been totally misunderstood since I have been here, and downright treated like garbage and it is not right! You block me indefinately for being a vandal, and you know as well as I do that I have never vandalized a page in my whole editing time. All I have had since I have been here was good intentions to edit the Anaheim Hills page. I know I added a lot of just "crap" early on, but I learned the Wikipedia rules, edited the page for hours with sources, and everything I did was still reverted by you, then I would get frustrated because you reverted all my stuff for no reason, and I would get 3rr's for really no reason. The indef bans on this site are not even comparable to the minor things that I have done. I was looking though the list of indef bans, and see people who try to hack the entire Wikipedia site, or deliberately try to vandalize the site with thousands of active socks, and then there is me, a person who edited Anaheim Hills and was criticized for doing so. I just want you to rethink an indef ban for it is way too extreme, almost like giving the death penalty to someone who graffiti's on a wall. I ask you to rethink it because you were the one that knew you wanted me out of this site from the minute I created my ES account in April of 06' and would stop at nothing to make sure it happened.

Please help with Asian fetish page
User Hong Qi Gong has repeatedly reverting edits that are currently being discussed on the discussion page without addressing them. He has done it at least two or three times today. Instead of trying to root out sourcing NPOV issues, he reverts back to his last changes that still include NPOV issues. Some problems with the page are, internet forums and opinions articles from newspapers used as reliable sources; Activist writing, commentary, and opinion used for neutral parts of the document. Please assist. Teji 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We need to come to consensus before User:Teji floods the article with his edits, many of which I've already disagreed with. The article is under full protection once again, and I will put a request at Requests_for_page_protection once we've reached consensus.  User:Teji needs to give everybody enough time to weigh in instead of demanding replies right this very minute.  Note that he and I are not the only contributing editors to the article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Either way, could you please also take a look at the revert activity of Hong. There are numerous attempts to remove unreliable sources (e.g. internet forums), and remove non-neutral POV (like activists with minority views) from neutral sections like terminology, but Hong continually reverts without addressing the issues. Teji 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Um...Ok....
I have a person who seems to be using an username (Typer 524) very similar to mine (Typer 525). I won't normally mind but it seems that the user have been using it to edit Whitney High School (Cerritos, California) in a manner that breaks NPOV. These | edits are identical to | edits made by an anonymous IP a day before. It also appears that he copied my user page to use as his own. Is there anything that I can do or does this require intervention from an admin such as yourself? Typer525 Talk 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for blocking him but he has resorted to using his anonymous | IP again (refer to | this and compare to example above). Might want to block the IP too...unless protecting the page itself is better. I just don't want this to become an edit war. Typer525 Talk 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Canvassing
I don't usually do it with POV edits, but this issue I consider important enough to the future of this project to bend a rules a little - and take some heat for it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)