User talk:Will Beback/archive17

�

Gary Bauer article
Hi Will Beback. My source was not a national newsgathering newspaper, but also not new research. A small town newspaper article a friend in northwest Ohio forwarded to me. I will leave it as is. JimCApitol3 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OTRS
Just in case you aren't aware, a policy was recently implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding access to nonpublic data (see ) Please note if you do not comply with these rules you should remove yourself from OTRS volunteering where your name is listed. Otherwise, please ignore this message :) Kind regards,  Majorly   (hot!)  17:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills, CA (Anaheim)
Just a heads up. We've got another article that needs to be redirected, protected, and the contributors blocked. Gotta wonder if he's ever going to let this go. AniMate 21:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Berry.JPG & 68.99.126.175
was recently notified of the copyright problem with Berry.JPG. Since the image was uploaded by, I was curious as to what 68.99.126.175's connection to it was/is. I've seen things that suggest that JustinBerry also edits as an IP; Is this one of those? If not, then what's the tie-in between this user and this image? Other than its author, he's the only user who was notified of the licensing issue, based on whatlinkshere.

The ideal (as I see it) would be for someone to reach out to JustinBerry and get an image or images, particularly of his appearance at the time he was a webcam performer, as that's where his notability arises from. Also, I think that a picture showing just how youthful his appearance was would increase the impact of the image. How he was approached & recruited as a young teen is the most gripping & disturbing part of his story, and I think a photo of him at 20 blunts that. --Ssbohio 15:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

3rr
I think not, and I have actually given it a good look. They are just too disimilar other than the last 2. I'll put this article on my watchlist though I would hope with this subject, as opposed to the activism article that the weight of evidence and users isnt going to be on the side of users like this ome. I suspect if a user like this one keeps editing in very difficult ways then dispute resolution is probably going to be the only effective, long term answer. I have no idea if the arbcom have ever dealt with cases in this area before, and obviously as the useer page issue has shown (which I believe is or was considered by the arbcom) this is highly sensitive material, SqueakBox 02:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Advise needed
Hi Will. I am not asking you to take my side in this dispute, just that I do not think that comments like these in which an editor make such threats, is appropriate. User:Milomedes may be more open to hear some advise from you this regard. If I ever erred in my behavior, I would also appreciate some feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think threats are inappropriate, when they are threats to do something which is not a natural consequence if some course of action is followed. So if someone says "you have been repeatedly editing guidelines in a disruptive manner which disrespects consensus, and if you continue to do so, I will report it to WP:AN/I", I don't consider that inappropriate, since that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do regarding disruptive editing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know why you would you barge-in in this conversation, but I take exception that saying To make your options unambiguously clear, if you then again edit this section back in, I will take you to WP:AN, where you will face additional charges as well. and your adminship is on ethically thin ice, so you don't want that to happen. is an acceptable way to address this issue. Sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you wanted to limit the feedback on this issue to exactly those people whose feedback you have specifically chosen to solicit, and no others. However, I repeat:  I don't consider it inappropriate for someone to say that if you continue certain behavior that they regard as problematic, they will deal with it as a problem.  I'm not sure what you are saying should be happening instead:  are you saying Milo should report you for problematic editing but shouldn't warn you first?  or are you saying that even if your editing of guidelines is completely disrespectful of the consensus-building process, that Milo should not be allowed to say anything about it?  I mean, he has clearly identified what good behavior he wants to see you adopt in the place of your current bad behavior:  he wants you to propose your changes to list guidelines and build consensus  for them before changing the guidelines.  But I'm having trouble figuring out what you think Milo should be doing when he finds your actions ethically unbefitting for an administrator. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If I had wanted to ask for your opinion I would have done so. I asked Will because I respect him as an editor and I know he could give me and Milo objective and useful feedback. Milo has all rights to call me on my editing of the guideline. He has all rights to make assessments on my exercise of my duties as an admin. If he have ever failed or erred in the exercise of these duties (and I am sure I have, I am not perfect) he is most welcome to raise these concerns with me or, if warranted, to place a complaint at WP:AN. It is the threats and contempt he used in is language, that I and others expressed concerned with. With hindsight, I should have left his comment not responded to and let him cook on his own juices and not respond to the too obvious provocation. Hindsight is always 20/20 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)


 * Sorry I missed this before. I'm going out shortly and will folow up later. -Will Beback · † · 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, Will. I do not think that it would be useful at this stage to address my concerns about Milo's threats. At least we are now having a civil and vigorous debate at WP:LISTS and that is what counts. I will still would want to hear from you about my behavior. Yes, I reverted him once, but that was just to force him into a discussion. Maybe I should not have done that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Voice of Britain and the Child sexual abuse article
I see you have commented on this issue and wonder what options I/other editors have to stop his disruptive editing of this article. He continues to disregard dispute resolution processes. I do see he has been temp. blocked...but that is only temp. anything you can suggest would be helpful. Thanks. DPeterson talk 03:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion. I did file an RfC and noted that on Voice talk page and the talk page for the article.   DPeterson talk 13:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page Archive
Hey, I noticed that you said that the archive I made for Template:IIUS was odd, and I'd just like to say ... HOW DARE YOU!? (just kidding) - seriously though I'm not exactly sure what is considered the norm for archives - so if you have something better in mind please go ahead and change it -don't want people to be confused by it! Thanks so much. daniel folsom 03:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohh I gotcha - hmm, uhh, any reccomended color? daniel folsom  06:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OHHH now I see - wow I thought you meant something completely different. Wow, that was pretty stupid of me (both for thinking you meant something completely different and putting the TOC under the box like that). Sorry about that. daniel folsom  07:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

While we are on the topic
If you are not too busy, would you mind taking a look at the Historical pederastic relationships? An illustration that seems to me spurious was again inserted yesterday, it may be good to have a third opinion and a bit of discussion. Thanks, Haiduc 10:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster and co problems
We still seem to be having problems here. First of all there's this !vote in an article he created about a member of his family, where's there's no mention of being (admittedly distantly) releated or creating the article.

Also he's previously had a final warning not to canvas, which was supported by another administrator (who's even a member of the Baronetcies WikiProject). Kittybrewster had previously been warned about canvassing here. Yesterday he left messages at three WikiProjects regarding the above AfD - Military history, Florida and most tellingly Baronetcies. Even a member of the Baronetcies project questioned why the project would be interested. The claim that "An article that you may have been involved in editing..." is false, as the history of the page in question shows. I can see the logic in the first two projects, but I consider the posting to the Baronetcies project to be a transparent attempt to recruit the usual cadre of meatpuppets (User:David Lauder, User:Counter-revolutionary, User:Major Bonkers, User:Astrotrain) who turn up at AfDs to !votestack which can be seen here, here, here, here. There's more as well, but I don't see the need for overkill just a few examples.

Of particular interest is this AfD where most of the above editors (mostly monarchists) !vote to delete an article about an anti-monarchist organisation, whereas on this AfD they !vote to keep an article that they are more supportive of. Note that both sets of !votes seem to go in the face of the general consensus.

User:David Lauder's comments in two AfDs also are of interest. In this AfD about an IRA member, he !votes to delete with a comment of "unless it is Wikipedia's intention to carry a biography of every dedicated murderer of innocent civilians who ever existed", and also a further comment of "the IRA were a proscribed and illegal organisation throughout all of Ireland. There was no "war" in Ireland, just a terrorist campaign by an illegal group of monsters responsible for the deaths of innocents. Glorification of these people in pages on Wikipedia should be discouraged entirely. That is not what encyclopaedias are for". Whereas in this AfD about an Arbuthnot it's an obvious !vote to keep with "founder of a major international US law firm, whose family are also notable". It seems he's happy to abuse the AfD process based on his political views, or to retain articles about the Arbuthnot family.

It's getting incredibly frustrating dealing with this cadre of editors at times, it's basically meatpuppetry when it comes to an AfD as it's likely most of them will be !voting the same way. Any ideas on how this can be resolved? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 09:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said I didn't have a problem with the first two projects, merely the third one. RfC wouldn't be a problem, but normally that involves a problem with one editor, whereas this also involves other editors who exacerbate the problem. Would I be able to present evidence of the problems they cause as a group regarding the Arbuthnot family articles on an RfC for Kittybrewster? One Night In Hackney 303 20:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also this doesn't really come under canvassing, but advertising an AfD you're involved in on your own talk page seems dubious in my opinion. One Night In Hackney 303 20:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see this ANI report. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 10:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

VOB RfC
Since you certified it, please add your attempt at dispute resolution to the 'Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute' section. -Jillium 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Paulus
Given the recent annoying interest of Paulus (or someone assuming his identity) in his Wikipedia entry, perhaps the solution is the request for deletion you suggested. Do I understand correctly that a merge does not require a vote, as deletion does? The only problem I see is a big one. In my opinion all the relevant material is already on the Aiken page, as follows: "Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories alleging proof of a liaison with another man. The man admitted that the story was a lie in March, 2007. [31]" I'm guessing that the Aiken editors might accept a little rewriting, including possibly a less definitive statement of retraction, perhaps the inclusion of footnotes to a couple of sources in place of the "piped" link, but I don't think they would go for  more extensive inclusion of Paulus in the Aiken entry, and I don't believe that more than a sentence or two about this topic is warranted. The Paulus name could be included but I adamantly object to that simply because he is a cyber-stalker and fame-seeker who would enjoy being "immortalized" in that way. Wikipedia has coddled his need for fame too much already. Under current standards the entry would have been deleted the first time it was submitted, in my opinion. Another alternative might be, if Paulus heeds your suggestions and 'proves' his identity, to ask him to weigh in on the "talk page" on deleting the entry altogether. That might or might not sway a vote for deletion. If he realizes that the deletion would be based on lack of notability, he probably won't go for that, given what I understand of his psyche. Or we can just wait out the current phrase, and if necessary request that he be banned for repeated reverts or unproven identity. Just some thoughts. Thanks. -Jmh123 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

ETA: User:JohnPaulus claims to have verified his identity on his blog, as per your suggestion, and has requested that his entry be deleted from Wikipedia. -Jmh123 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for everything! -Jmh123 03:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

question
Would it better if information on symptomatic and asympomatic children were split into different sections? -Jillium 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports
At Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults_in_government_reports I wrote:"'I'm in general agreement. I'd like to hear from others, especially Will Beback, on the impact of dropping 'List of' from the title. Milo 17:53, 7 May 2007'"

I can't think of any problem that would result from conversion of a formal list article to a text article, but the impact might be subtle. Things are not always as they seem in the cult topics, so I'd appreciate your post on this issue. Milo 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia (disambiguation)
I understand where you were coming from, but in the American English vernacular, pedophilia has such a confused meaning that I feel it needs to be disambiguated. Anyway, I'll look at the official policy page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awesimo (talk • contribs) 03:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Note
You've recently warned Eep against making personal attacks. Since he persisted in making these anyway, I've blocked him.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Warman
I couldn't find the supposed reference when I looked at the Sun article. I might have missed it but I did a word search and it didn't come up. Black as pitch 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-partisan post
Hi there - you removed Dellum's party membership from the Oakland article, stating in your summary that it's a "non-partisan post." Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly does that mean? VoluntarySlave 01:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your explanation (as a non-American, the way parties work in American politics continues to confuse me). VoluntarySlave 03:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your signature
Could you please remove the crucifix from your signature? That's very unnecessary and can only lead to bad things. I've already seen some incidents get utterly out of hand because one of the disputants had politically charged userboxes on his userpage. I can only imagine how ugly it gets when you happen to block a non-Christian and the whole thing explodes in your face, with allegations of religious persecution flying every which way. -- Cyde Weys 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a crucifix. Trust me. I know what they look like. Musical Linguist 22:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Explain? -- Cyde Weys  22:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your original point on your user page. But the cross/crucifix issue is that a "crucifix" is a cross that includes the image of Christ hanging on it. -Will Beback · † · 22:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. Stick figure Jesus is there, he's just very skinny, and the pixel resolution is so small you can't quite make him out.  -- Cyde Weys  22:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Well, first of all, it looks more like the typographical symbol for a dagger, used for a footnote when you're not using numbers and have already used an asterisk. But even assuming that it's a religious symbol, as they do look alike, it would then be a cross, not a crucifix. The difference is that a crucifix actually has a corpus on it, which some Protestants would object to as worshipping statues. A crucifix is a far more obviously religious symbol than a cross, and a dagger isn't a religious symbol at all. I've seen Will's signature many times, and it never crossed my mind that it was a religious symbol. Musical Linguist 22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't originally consider it a religious symbol either, but then I ran across this guy on Pastordavid's RFA who claimed that it was, and I guess he temporarily convinced me. -- Cyde Weys  22:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Userpage moves
The vandal moved your archives as well just fyi. I can't work out how they are organised, so I thought it would be better to leave it to you. I'd suggest fully protecting them :)  Majorly   (hot!)  21:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help as well the help of several other editors who came to the rescue. Yes, I'll fix those archives when I have some quiet time. Meanwhile I've move-protected this page and my user page. -Will Beback ·:·  21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked four of the vandals and deleted the redundant pages. I also unblocked Hdt83 which I think you blocked by accident. El_C 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Block?
Hi, are you entirely sure about this block of User:Hdt83? Your block reason suggests that perhaps you meant to block another user? --JoanneB 22:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was about to ask the same question. --Yamla 22:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there; Are you quite certain that this user merits an indefblock, which he is protesting? You have blocked him as a vandal-only account, which does not appear to be the case.--Anthony.bradbury 22:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I unblocked because, this looked like it was most likely an accident. Feel free to re-block if I missed something pivtoal. El_C 22:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for help with Attachment Therapy
There is an extensive and ongoing dispute on the talk page for this article. One editor seems to feel very strongly about his POV and a number of others disagree. I think a cool head would be beneficial here (I know it would help me too). If you would look in here and comment or make a suggestion, that would be great. DPeterson talk 01:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I created a page with a summary for you. I prefer to keep all discussion on Wikipedia and relatively public and open so individuals don't get overly suspicious.  See []   DPeterson talk 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you had a chance to look at this? I could really use your advice here, if you have the time.  Thanks.  DPeterson talk 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbuthnot case at WP:COI/N
Hello Will. I just read over your exchanges with Kittybrewster in late April and early May. I have a picture in my mind of how to resolve the issues, but I don't see a way of calming down everyone who is upset. My 'infallible recipe' for COI problems is usually to think of some plan for improving the articles involved, or a sensible AfD strategy that identifies which articles are right to keep. I sense that you would have reached a compromise with KB in your dialog with him if he had been more willing to admit the COI. It seems that he did not. Do you have an inspiration for how to move forward on this? EdJohnston 05:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The unfortunate return of Grazon
AN/I — The unfortunate return of Grazon —75.5.175.229 07:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning
This account acts likes a Sockpuppet of User:Psychohistorian.-75.179.159.240 22:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
 * As per Suspected sock puppets/Administrators, there is a specific process which is required before accusing me of being a sockpuppet. At the very least, I deserve to have evidence provided.  You appear to be creating and applying your own idiosyncratic set of rules for administering Wikipedia.  I believe that falls under abuse of admin powers.  You need to provide an evidence link.-75.179.159.240 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are abusing your admin powers in order to force me to get a named account. IP anon edits are permissable by Wikipedia policy.  Abusive admins should be removed from adminstration.-75.179.159.240 10:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a courtesy message to let you know that I plan to pursue arbitration regarding your ignoring of Wikipedia policy and abuse of admin powers - specifically, your accusation of sock puppetry and your persistent effort to ignore Wikipedia policy as pertains to providing an evidence link so that I can respond to your accusation in a reasoned manner. You appear to have a history of harassment of IP anons.  Frankly, I don't know how serious Wikipedia policy is - to what extent admins are allowed to ignore Wiki policy, but I intend to find out. -75.179.159.240 03:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC
 * "I'm not sure I understand your complaint. I haven't seen you dispute that you're the same user as user:Psychohistorian." As I stated here, "At the very least, I deserve to have evidence provided."  You need to provide whatever grounds you have for your accusation now.-75.179.159.240 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "But if you don't deny it then I don't see a need to go to that effort. It's really quite obvious, based on your contributions, etc." Baseless accusations deserve no confirm/deny response.  To treat them as such would be the equivalent to responding to slander.  It quickly leads to mud slinging and a destructive spiral of more and more accusations.  I will not stand on trial for a case you cannot present.  I am trying to respond to you in the most civilized manner I can, however you have been intent on ignoring Wikipedia policy and acting in a very aggressive manner (such as locking down my user page so that I can't edit it - a clear effort on your part to force me to get a user name despite the fact that IP anons are permitted by policy).  My patience is wearing thin.  Either provide your "evidence" so that I can properly defend myself in a rational and reasonable manner or cease your hostility.-75.179.159.240 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence
Here is evidence that user:Will_Beback is the same person who edits under various IP addresses: Given the contribution histories of these accounts there is no doubt that they are the same person.-75.179.159.240 21:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Will_Beback
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.144.84.99
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.240.75.2
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/206.255.22.250
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/155.43.81.54
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.232.148.110
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.149.187.139


 * Okay, that's pretty easy. All a person has to do is take some random collection of IP anons and post it in another person's user page to slander them.  Sadly, I was hoping for better from Wikipedia admins. -75.179.159.240 21:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Watch your toes!
Sorry about stomping your warning to the anon posting to Jimbo's page. I was in the middle of doing mine while you were doing yours apperantly. BTW, kudos to you! I see you in lots of places doing lots of good things. Keep up the good work, noble encycopaeditiste! Hamster Sandwich 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Pensacola Christian College edits
Sorry if I am bothering you, I am relitively new to editing on Wiki. Today I edited quite a bit and added a bunch of info in the PCC page (which I understand is one that you oversee) under accredidation. I did not realize that I had been logged off, and instead of my username coming up as the one that did the edits, the server number (209.64.87.68) came up. Is there any way to switch these to my user name mortsey? If they can't shame on me for not double checking to see that I was logged out. you can reply to my talk page if you would like. Thanks for your help. Mortsey 23:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes
Well, I thought by making redirects, it was actually organizing it more, sorry about that.

Would you like me to revert it?

TheHypnotist 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

→Gotcha. I made my post in the page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neoconservatism#Making_this_the_disambiguation_page

TheHypnotist 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

minor edits
Sorry... I must not have configured TW properly. Thanks for the notice. --Rrburke(talk) 23:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks to all the editors who've helped revert vandalism from this page. I appreciate the help. Cheers, ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 01:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Any time, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet vandals
I'd personally suggest a semiprot while we sort out all these sockpuppets.--AgentCDE / Talk / 03:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is semi-protected. I was thinking of just letting the vandal get it out of his system. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

420
420 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicholas J. F.  (talk • contribs).
 * Seriously, it was nearly a month ago, and besides is this guy trying for even less creativity than a page blanker? 420, lol. Utterly ridiculous and somewhat surreal. &mdash; Michael Linnear   05:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg
I removed some blog refferences, added fact tages... and just noticed that at some point shashwat put them back in. :)

The blog argueing is feeling kind of old to me, does it qualify as vandalism? Sethie 06:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

David Silver, Sailor, Actor, Everyman
Hi. I thought it was him and this confirms it. Cheers. --EarthPerson 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

David E. Kelley
I rv'ed your change to David E. Kelley. I realize the term pedophile, colloquially, can mean sexual abuse of children under the age of consent but the strict definition is abuse of prepubescent children, which is more encyclopedic. Please point me to a change in policy on this issue or that the page Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases will be changed to "Roman Catholic pedophile cases".  &#8756; Therefore  talk  16:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Question
are [] and Voices of Britain the same user? DPeterson talk 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Question
I see that you removed my edit. Is there a rule against linking to YouTube? Let me know, Mr Keck 14:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks. --Mr Keck 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Shane Ruttle Martinez
Could you vote on this issue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shane_Ruttle_Martinez#Protection

Thanks. AnnieHall 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Roman Polanski
The edit and those similar, are the few moments when I feel I've accomplished something at Wikipedia. I was trained to be a lateral thinker, so it is rewarding when I can actually put the training to work. It is even nicer when it is noticed. Thanks. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Cho
Regarding an edit from April 2006, I had fixed that page from it being vandalized, I am not the person who vandalized it. Please confirm before accusing. Thanks. Northernstar79 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was over a year ago, however, you do not have a vandalism title on your talk page and I do now and you were incorrect. The version that I revised had changed all masculine pronouns to feminine pronouns and vice versa among other things as an act of vandalism. I believe I attempted to report it at the time, if there were some errors then they were some that I missed. I didn't use a previous version of that article. It's a moot point now but you clearly should change your approach as rules do state that you should approach other users as though they were acting in good faith, which as an administrator you did not, and as an administator you really should. Northernstar79 01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your participation. Sethie was about ready to leave the dialogue... and your participation convinced him to stay. It was feeling like too much to handle on his own.Sethie 18:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Kitty
Will, I do not appriciate your comment on my talk page, I have done nothing to Kitty - if he wants to churn out non notable article then that is his choice - if he even was able to discuss their notability with any degree of objectivity then we woldnt have this problem either. As you can see he is now blanking his talk pages in an attempt to hide his past - there is no reasoning with him at the moment and I cant believe that he is getting away with what he is getting away with - may some people are impressed that he is a Baronet, I dont know, I cant figure it out but I do know is that we are treated very different idead. As for my block log - 3 of the blocks are from Mr.Darcy, another after I rose to the bait of a sock of a permanently banned editor and the other was for a 3RR (in an incident when I didnt even breach 3RR but infact Kitty did - but guess what I got blocked and Kitty got warned - now theres a shock!). Anyway think want you will but I bare Kitty no malice - I was nenver even aware of him until he and a few more editors in his cabal being abisung AfD's and vote stacking - then I starting to look into the articles which he had created and they are the hardly notable - the rest is history.--Vintagekits 22:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Milo's incivility at LOGRTAC
Hey there. Milo has repeatedly been acting uncivil in Talk:List of groups referred to as cults despite numerous attempts by myself and others to advise him against it. He seems to respect you quite a bit, so if you agree he has been behaving a bit out of line, perhaps you'd be interested in encouraging him to chill a little. Thanks for your consideration. Ichibani 03:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be glad to debate here your civility issues with me, if you will first do the quotation research at WP:CIV to back up your complaints. Milo 04:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstarred!
Wow, your talk page is protected? You must be in the middle of a grand ol' time...

But nevermind that now, I'm here to to award you this Slightly Alarming Star of Merit for general contributions, and thank you! Herostratus 12:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)



Comment re: "Right to Vanish"
I find it interesting that you said that the exertion of the right to vanish requires that the user actually vanish. I know of one problematic user who exercised his right to vanish just so he could come back in a month (supposedly; haven't caught him yet) with a new username. That seems to be at odds with what you said, but I agree with your statement. Maybe some clarification on policy application is needed, because RTV should not be used as a way to give yourself a clean slate. MSJapan 22:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible article?
Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:


 * Flora and fauna of Greenland

The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sons of Confederate Veterans
Nice work on the sourcing :)  Dei z  talk 08:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

BJU & trivia
A bot slapped a trivia tag on the "Mentions in Popular Culture" section of the BJU article. I removed it but left a note on the talk page. I'd appreciate your thoughts either there or on my talk page. I have no problem trying to incorporate a few things while ditching most of the rest if you think that's a good idea.--John Foxe 14:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. Glad to have someone to whom I can turn when in doubt about the mysteries of Wikipedia.--John Foxe 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection of University High School (Los Angeles, California)
Hi Will. I requested unprotection of the Uni High article twice at Requests for page protection, only to have my requests removed by a bot VoABot, which was "Moving/clearing older requests." My first request was cleared after 20 mins so I reposted and was cleared by the same bot 10 hours later.

I decided to request unprotection because discussion had ceased, despite my attempts to involve editors. When I originally posted my request, it had been a little over 24 hours since commenting had ended (from commenters other than myself) on both the Rfc and the talk page (with the exception of one recent comment on the Rfc). It's now over ten hours later and all related pages are still silent. As I said on my original request, I do recognize that this is a fairly short period of time to be asking for unprotection in when no consensus has been reached, but discussion seems to have ended, at least for now and I can't make people comment. I've had tons of experience begging for input at this school's articles and waiting/never getting it, and sparking conversation required significantly more "canvassing/spam" then I did this time around.

I'm requesting unprotection here, since you were the protecting editor and I keep getting botted out of WP:RPP. I'd also appreciate any light you could shed on why I got removed by the bot, and any advice you could provide on dragging editors kicking and screaming getting more editors to the talk page without canvassing or spamming. Thanks, Miss Mondegreen  talk  22:52, May 25 2007 (UTC)

Joie de Vivre's Post on Notable Wikipedians
I think I shall wait quite a bit longer before I try to answer any policy questions. Sometimes, you just have to have been around for a while to know exactly how things will be interpreted. I hope I did no damage. Should I just go back and cross all of my answer out? If you could respond on my talk page, I'd be grateful Bielle. Bielle 22:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
Sorry to sound rude or anything, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I find it hypocritical for you to say "It's better to take a few minutes and integrate that material into the article" and then just restore it to the way it was, when most of the material stated wasn't relevant. The least you could have done was take a few minutes to integrate the important material.Hoponpop69 00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of links to nielsenhayden.com.
Please stop removing these links. I'm not sure what kind of vendetta you have against the authors of this site, but the links you are removing are to relevant and useful content, and frankly I don't know what you're talking about describing the site as an "attack site". This is one of the most well-known and highly regarded blogs in the publishing industry. JulesH 00:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree that I have seen no evidence that the site in question qualifies as an attack site under any of the proposed wordings for either WP:NPA or the old WP:BADSITES, even the most expansive. Never mind, found the offending content. JavaTenor 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bebeck: this started as your retaliation against me for adding my 2007 books to my own entry. Why are you vandalizing the entries of my husband's colleages at Tor Book? 00:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See my essay for commentary on the whole contentious "attack sites" issue. *Dan T.* 12:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with that essay. We are here to make wikipedia better; not use it as a battleground. Try being creative: replace one source with another source ... or rewrite the article so the source is no longer needed ... if the source is being used on a talk page, wait a week to delete it ... use nowiki on a source. All I'm saying is unthinking kneejerk editing is not good. Apply thought. All else follows. The first rule about BADSITES is don't talk about BADSITES. Shhhhhh. Don't give them publicity. Quietly over time, find a thoughtful way to deal with individual instances. Be creative, not mindless. WAS 4.250 16:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Will, please stop acting like a dick. Really really - David Gerard 12:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Subpage
As I stated in the MfD I had no preference whether the page was deleted or not, as the information is stored elsewhere anyway. As you may or may not be aware, I voluntarily took a step back from the entire dispute and decided to spend more time doing something more constructive. However based on the actions of some of the involved parties here and elsewhere, I can see someone apart from me initiating some sort of process in the near future, and I'll be happy to present any relevant evidence there. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  10:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat
Will Sethie thinks he has been rather paitent, and he isn't seeing a change in Shashwat's behavior.

To be sure, it could be a lot worse, there is no full on edit war happening, dialogue is happening- at a snail's pace, and the article is looking better.

Yet the article is still full of problems and Shaswat seems to be hunting the internet for anything that he can use to discredit the group and adding them in. Have a look at the youtube video he wants to use as a reffence... it's... well, to put it midly it doesn't appear to qualify as a RS! :)

And his latest set of edits such as [] are just blatant OR.

Sethie's request of you is - would you talk to him about his overall style and what you see happening here? First off, he seems to listen to you, and 2ndly, Sethie is getting tired of the same old thing and unless a change happens real soon, wants to take this to some form of DR. Any preventative measures you can think of would be very helpful.Sethie 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

 * An/I — Burntapple, sock-puppet of Grazon

He's a bad apple alright. —SlamDiego 19:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Madison Grant
I took a look at it. Some of the changes were OK, some were not. I suspect the IP editor was trying to apply some light whitewash. I used it as an opportunity to add a few things, remove a few things. --Fastfission 21:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Dennyfeelsbad
What do think, is 24 hours enough I've fixed the 35 articles he vandalised Gnangarra 09:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Murder/killing
Thanks for stepping up on the Emmett Till talk page re: the weird mini-debate about replacing all 'murder' with 'killing'. I admire your even-headedness. Ford MF 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Elysium
Of course, thanks a lot for checking. It seems to make sense now that I look at the page again. Either way sorry for not digging a little further and thanks again.

,V

Hippolyte de Bouchard
I am completely sure that the information is right. I translated the spanish featured article, and have the books I have quoted. In addition, I have provided reliable internet sources for the information that I could not check in the books I have.--Argentini an 21:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Im afraid I dont understand. What do you mean whit "previously so wrong"? It was right, but it ommited a lot of information.--Argentini an 21:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser Request
You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. GrooveDog 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Linking year-only dates
Obviously I agree that year-only references shouldn't be linked (see talk:Glendale, California). I would love to have a page to reference that says "don't link years unless there's a reason" but I haven't been able to find it. In fact Only make links that are relevant to the context seems to indicate that there's a controversy. Is there something specific in the MoS that you could suggest I point to as I remove these annoyances? Gruber76 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Eric Foner
I undid a change by a vandal user... was the previous entry wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Foner&diff=next&oldid=134484166 Stellatomailing 05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC) }}Thanks. I assume that I did not give it much thought, I was undoing his other edits. A vandal with a conscience, looks like. Stellatomailing 05:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles Asistencia
You provided some input on this article in the past. Please have a look at it in its current state before evrik starts another useless edit war.

Thank you. Mdhennessey 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please roll back that change. Even if it is the correct name it should have gone through the process and used a moveto tag. --evrik (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bueller? --evrik (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * could you also include Template:Alta_California_Missions and Spanish missions in California. --evrik (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bueller? --evrik (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)