User talk:Will Beback/archive44

Blogs
Does Wikipedia have a "no rule" towards blogs? Because on my main edit page, United States House of Representatives elections, 2010, I sometimes pick up sources from blogs announcing a candidate has decided to run. No one has ever reverted me. For example, would the CNN Political Ticker or Glenn Thrush's Politico Blog be considered legitimate sources? BrianY (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The same goes for many other pages. Many users know policy. So what you are saying is even if the only sources that pick up information are blogs (sometimes that is true for more minor candidates running) we still can't include them in articles? We have a habit of including minor and major candidates in the US Senate and House pages, but we can't source them if they from blogs? Or on biography articles when they announce their intent? (sometimes it is only picked up by blogs in the relevant area, such as Virginia for Ellmore) That makes no sense at all. BrianY (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So...if someone makes a statement of candidacy for an election (National news rarely cover House races this early in the cycle) it is ideal to use one's own blog announcing the run rather than another announcing it? BrianY (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No they aren't. Take this for example. Do you see primary election results from District 2? John Jacobson] lost to Jeff Morris in the DEM primary by 170 votes. Is his name included on Wikipedia? No. And he did have news surrounding his campaign: There are others. So, in response to your comment, minor candidates are not always included in the election results. BrianY (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added the book Ellmore wrote. Is Amazon or Ebay an adequate reference to link to? I don't think so. But I can't find any other sources for the book expect his main website. (which is an external link) BrianY (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Clitoral damage?
Until I read that, I was holding out some hope...now...not so much. Good call! It does warm the cockles of my jaded heart to turn around a problem user though. Hope springs eternal, or something... Keep up the good work Will. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * hahah. It was funny without context, and funnier with it. tedder (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

China Youth Daily
Ju Hui (鞠辉) - China Youth Daily American Journalist. Jim101 (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind, in fact I'm trying to find a way to clean that place out. Jim101 (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 现行的世界金融体系已经无可救药 - The Current World Finacial System is Unsalvageable. You can swap the word current with present. As for the word Unsavlageable, it is a keyword in the article, thus I have to keep it consistent. Jim101 (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Realist Think-tanks
The sources? The sources are the think-tanks themselves. Some describe themselves as realist, in others much of its staff considers itself realist. - MiguelNS 3 August 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

Civility is a requirement
Please have a look at WP:NPA, where it describes various forms of personal attacks, including Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. In light of this, I'd like to request that you stop referring to other editors as "LaRouche accounts." And please don't try to justify this behavior with allegations of sockpuppetry, unless you are prepared to provide credible evidence. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acknowledging my attempt to solve the problem. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your inquiry
Replied. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

quick FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maelefique#Rumiton --Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RS/N thread
Please have a look whether this summary is okay. Thanks. -- JN 466  19:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Block
Hi Will. I am hoping you can help it seems both my ip (which I have obviously changed) and my "matriarchal" account - have been blocked by the admin below for the reasons stated:

You have been blocked for continued edit warring on the TM article after being warned. Plus your account is only three days old and you're already making threats and and personal attacks. Use this 72 hours to figure out how to edit constructively in a consensus based environment.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was never "warned" and I am struggling to see the personal attacks - except those made to me repeatedly. You are also aware, I think, that edit waring was being done by the others - and the original edit was done as part of the being bold editing process. The removal of the primary sources was of course correct under med referencing guidelines, the users were told in advance and the person really involved in the edit war agreed with their removal!!.

I suspect, that the admin in question has not even bothered to read the page - they certainly didn't notice an admin around or the the page was being monitored as part of informal arbitration, or that LB is my second login!

Anyway, I was hoping - if of course you agree with me - that you might have a "whisper in their ear like" and explain the background of the situation.

I think, as can be clearly seen how, without trying, I can circumnavigate the IP ban, that if I had wished to truly be a "disruptive influence" it would not be very difficult.

Anyway, if you think it is worth pursuing on my behalf please do and if not, well at least it may get them doing something constructive with the article.

During the "ban" I will not - although I easily could, do anymore editing - indeed I may simply not bother fullstop.

Namaste The7thdr (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am certainly impressed by the utter absurdity of this ban. How is it that the disruptive members of the TM Cabal escape this treatment. How is it that olive still manages to post on the TM articles despite the decisions at COI? How is it that the new sockpuppet/meatpuppet 76.76 from beautiful downtown Fairfield comes into an article cold and starts reverting repeatedly? I could go on, but I won't.Fladrif (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Its the7thdr
Sorry, due to an error in the template that i used that admin has now banned the7thdr. I will only be able to respond briefly on this user account —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyouandhim (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Herchel socks
Go ahead and send me any pertinent info; a SPI might be appropriate, but I'll duck test as appropriate... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Betsy McCaughey
Will, I hate to bother a busy guy, but would you care to offer your perspective on the discussion at Talk:Betsy McCaughey? I've never known you to be shy about telling me when you think I am wrong, so I'd really like input on the issues discussed at that talk page. Am I off the reservation on this one? Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Confederate entry in Wikipedia
I see that you let a neo-Confederate nearly rewrite the entry from a neo-Confederate point of view. Yes, Liz Michaels is sympathetic to neo-Confederacy, even is she isn't actually one. I have seen her here and there online.

I spent a fair amount of time digging up sources and footnoting them for this entry. I see there is no editorial responsibility in Wikipedia. I won't be making any further edits.

HOWEVER, I do think parents should be warned that white nationalists write a lot of Wikipedia and that their children will be subjected to white nationalists propaganda, and that Wikipedia doesn't care whether white nationalists use Wikipedia as a vehicle for their agenda. Parents who are concerned that their children aren't subject to being propagandized by white nationalists should avoid Wikipedia.

I am sure the management of Wikipedia will make some commentary denying it, but I don't think it will be very convincing. The comedy paper, "The Onion," has already done a comedy piece on Wikipedia and its inaccuracies. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

I can only imagine what the contents for the entry for President Obama contain. Does Wikipedia have him born in Kenya? Does Wikipedia claim that he is Muslim.

I have printed out versions of the Wikipedia entry for neo-Confederate over the years and the slanderous Ed Sebesta page which I think documents very well what goes on in Wikipedia.

Other historians have notices some of the Wikipedia entrys related to the Confederacy are written by neo-Confederates.

Newtknight (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the OP, there needs to be some watch into articles that attract fringe believes, or people "of the cause" trying to edit their page themselves, skewing it in their own favor. We've seen it happen with The Political Cesspool, and Stormfront. Feel free to watch the CofCC, Amren, White Separatism, White Nationalism pages as well if you want. Rock8591 (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Newtknight (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I am not going to monitor anything. I spent a lot of time on Neo-Confederacy, and the page is now junk. I think the thing to do is to warn people that white supremacist write a lot of Wikipedia and Wikipedia is negligent about doing anything about it.

TM articles - 76.76 and olive
I've taken up the anon IP editor from Fairfield as well as olive at COIN. I'm convinced that 76.76 has to be a TM-org employee, and is probably a sockpuppet as well, but (i) I don't really know how to put together a SPI complaint, and (ii) I'm not sure who 76.76 is a sockpuppet of - though timidguy is my best guess. I wasn't going to bother further about olive at COIN until she threatened you on my talk page. That changed my mind.Fladrif (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fladrif. Will is an experienced admin., who knows very well all about what he should and should not do on an article. Nothing I said can be news to him or threatening. The information I gave was for you since you seem to misunderstand the influence admins have and where they can operate.(olive (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC))


 * My understanding was that a ban on my editing would have to come from arbitration. I am not waving this in anybodies face, I'm just trying to address your comments with my understanding, wrong or right.(olive (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Communist media
Practicing what I preach, I just used a report from a PRC newspaper in an aticle-. Cla68 (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. You are consistent. Though I wonder why you identify it as "PRC media" rather than by name. Why is that? Would that be an appropriate characterization of the source for other articles too? IIRC, HK's accounts were strongly opposed to linking the paper to the Communist Party because that would be "red baiting". Is he right - are you red baiting or are you giving a reasonable description of the source to inform readers?   Will Beback    talk    21:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This makes it fairly clear that that source is a state-controlled media outlet. It's a reliable source, but it's also tied to the Communist government, exactly how much, however, is probably open to debate.  Again, it's up to the reader to decide on their own how true the information is after seeing what the source is. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Note about categories
Thanks for your feedback about my insertion of tags into certain categories. I left you a reply on my talk page.  -shirulashem (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Loretta Sanchez blogs
The fact that a public figure is subject of persistent rumors, which affect her career is a significant piece of information. Your ham-handed application of the blog rule is intellectually dishonest, inconsistent and irresponsible. By deleting my edit to the Sanchez page you have made a serious logical error. I did not assert an opinion about Sanchez or about her alleged adultery with Mr. Einwechter. Rather, I asserted that she has been the subject of persistent rumors on that point and my cited source materials clearly demonstrate the truth of that fact. Moreover, not all blogs are created equal, and the sources cited by me contain better source material and intrinsically important facts than the so-called "mainstream media." How many times have the New York Times and CBS News been exposed as total frauds? The point of the Latinopoliticsblog story, which is based on verifiable facts, is that there are serious substantiated allegations against Sanchez. How can that be an inferior source to TMZ, for example? The TMZ sources cited in the Sanchez article pose questions about Sanchez's use of drugs or alcohol and a possible illicit relationship with Hefner. Yet you allow those to stand. On what grounds? NOT THAT THEY ARE TRUE! Rather, the fact of her appearance in the media, even as an object of ridicule by TMZ, is the fact which you allow. My point is that she is also the object of serious allegations, which she has refused to talk to the media about. That is a fact and you should not suppress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4GRANTED (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rep. Sanchez allegations are TRUE
By the way, Beback, the widespread and persistent allegations about Sanchez and her adultery are completely true. I have direct personal knowledge, but I can't really cite myself, can I? (Although I really don't know why not, given the informality of the Wikipedia knowledge base.) Sanchez hasn't, won't and can't sue anyone for libel about the adultery allegations (which are just as egregious as those made recently against Gov. Sanford and SEN Ensign) because they are true. That's also why she refuses to talk to the media--blogs and "mainstream." So, you aid and abet her cover up by refusing to even acknowledge that the allegations exist. That is a mockery of even Wiki-credibility. Shame on you and the rest of the censors. You have no integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4GRANTED (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

UserCompare
Your access key for the usercompare tool has been set, enjoy and please dont do anything stupid like compare Cydebot and Clue Bot. ♀ βcommand 00:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Posting Name
Now who isn't practicing censorship and hiding behind anonymity, cynic. Once someone finds out who you are your whole pretense at neutrality and lacking your own non NPOV becomes transparent and gets blown away. RichardBond (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem
Your veiled assumptions that I am in some way COI at WP:Paid are uncivil and, of course, unwelcome. I think you'd be quite surprised at what I actually think on the issues but I hope you'll allow the page to be accurate and discussion kept on contributions not contributors. Injecting our own POV to declare all paid editors are COI is just as unhelpful as declaring all green animals as lizards; it's certainly not accurate, it's unhelpful and evidently unproductive. -- Banj e b oi   00:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cult
Hi Will. Working on various pages about religious movements I stumbled on Cult and I was suprised at the bad state in which it was. It has serious POV problems since it unquestioningly adopts the popular negative definition of the term and the sociological viewpoint on the topic has largely been relegated to the spinoff article New Religious Movement (in my opinion a POV fork). It also has serious issues with coherence, style, tone and referencing. Reading the archive I realized that these things had been discussed before and that you had shown an interest in the article. In order to improve the problems with the article I am trying to invite all editors who have previously edited the article or otherwise shown interest in the topic to come to Talk:Cult and discuss how we can best improve the article.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Informal Mediation of LaRouche movement articles
Hello, in response to a mediation request I've opened up a topic here, your input is appreciated. Thanks! --  At am a chat 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tender heart
Vis-a-vis your three edits to Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills). You're too tender-hearted, you just don't want to see people die. Heh, heh. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

David Orme Johnson
Interested to see you have created an article on David Orme Johnson. --BwB (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Osho tendentious
Hi Will, if you have time, please cast an eye over said article, editors ignoring WP:RS verdict and also removing material they deem too critical of subject, this editing is upsetting the POV balance we arrived at after considerable effort.Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will, have refactored proposal text. Would like to move to next stage of dispute resolution if still unacceptable. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the input nonetheless. best. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Norman Clyde
Will, I see that you are taking a break, so respond when you are back at Wikipedia. Beautiful mountain photos on your user page, by the way, especially Bear Creek Spire, which was one of Norman Clyde's favorites. I see that you commented on the Norman Clyde article in 2006. I am planning to correct, revise and expand the Clyde article. Your suggestions and feedback would be welcomed. By the way, you motivated me to add a photo I took to the article on Arlene Blum. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made significant changes to the Norman Clyde article and have also written an article on Allen Steck. Feedback would be appreciated. Jim Heaphy (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
RE:

Prem Rawat material
I noticed you added the Category:Prem Rawat to the NRM work group page. Generally, I think the NRM group would leave the bulk of the content of any subject which is already within the scope of another group to that other group, maybe just including the main articles. Would you advocate that the NRM group also cover all the material related to the subject? If so, I will go ahead and tag all the relevant articles when I get to that category. Also, would the Prem Rawat project like its own banner, or would it maybe want to use the existing Religion banner? If the latter, I think I can do the adjustments, but would want approval from the PR group in advance. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't necessarily misplaced. I'm guessing you do want the NRM group to include this subject as well, which is fine, particularly if you hope that the Prem group becomes inactive after a bit when the work of the mediation is done. If you do think that the Prem project would want to use the Religion banner, there probably should be some sort of image added, just to help get attention to the project link in the banner. File:Prem Rawat 2007 cropped.jpg seems to be eligible for use, if you want that. And I could make sure to tag all the relevant articles for both groups, thus allowing article alerts to work and maybe the recent changes function as well. John Carter (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. I can tag all the articles for the NRM group, and actually intended to; I just hadn't alphabetically gotten there yet. If the Prem group doesn't want attention, I can well understand that. I can try to see if I can set up the banner to do dual work for both groups while listing only one on the banner. It isn't something I've tried before, so I don't know how well it will work, but I can try tomorrow. If it does work, I'll do the setup that way. And I do think having at least the recent changes function available to the Prem group would probably be a good idea in any event, so that no outsider could try to ruin things for the discussion while they're still trying to reach an acceptable answer. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Paid editing alternative
I noticed you recently edited WP:Paid. Did you see WP:Paid editing/Alternative text which I think is the home of those wanting stronger language for a proposed policy? See WT:Paid editing and WT:Paid editing. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will also invite you to edit WP:Paid editing/Alternative text. There's no rule that I know of that would prevent you from editing both versions.  It is more pleasant to edit something without constant reversions.  I ask that everybody follow a WP:1RR rule on the Alternative text page.  Smallbones (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck.
Your return to the page would be welcome; the amount of conflict is increasing, and since you already showed support for the material, another voice would be helpful. ThuranX (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder
Thanks, I hope I didn't overlook anything else. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

David Thorstad
So is the article properly sources now? Can we take off the no reference tag?--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Anonymity
I appreciate your suggestion to not pester other users about their identity, but the Aesthetic Realists are special case, since they have insulted former members up and down the street on their "Countering the Lies" [sic] website for choosing to be anonymous. It's intensely hypocritical for them to do that and then come here and edit anonymously. When they pull that kind of crap I certainly intend to call them on it. MichaelBluejay (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
As you participated at the above discussion, this is to let you know I've proposed an alternate wording (for reasons stated there). However, it is essentially the same proposal. If you have any objections to it, please note them down. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)