User talk:Will Beback/archive47

Battle of Konotop
Dear Will, please take a look at the article Battle of Konotop, at its discussion, as well as on the recent edits of Voyevoda and Galassi in affiliated articles. Voyevoda who adds his information always with arguments and references on serious researchers has been blocked for a week while Galassi who never shows any efforts to seriously justify his actions blindly reverts anything he doesn't like. Please do something about this situation. Also, please help to resolve the dispute on the discussion page of Battle of Konotop. The neutrality tag should be removed finally and the problem resolved. Please evaluate the contribution, the discussion style and the arguments of both sides. Thank you!--HenrichB (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "HenrichB" is now taking his edit war to related articles of Treaty of Hadiach and others. I am inserting anglophone citations (in place of cherrypicked Russian ones), and he just reverts them.Galassi (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Galassi randomly declines any Russian sources, as if foreign language sources were not accepted widely throughout Wikipedia. Tairova-Yakovleva is a professor of history and even a friend of Mr. Yuschenko http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/9066.html. Her citation that was added by Voyevoda gave a very detailed information, while Galassi's sources remains quite abstract. His behaviour is disruptive--HenrichB (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Magosci is the definitive source on Ukrainian history in English. The treaty's emendations are spelled out in the article, and it is not necessary missumarize them. Also HeinrichB's English had a 100fold improvement recently, I believe Voyevoda is using his account.Galassi (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Voyevoda et all and Battle of Konotop
Hi, I thought you might be interested in a note I left at User talk:Tedder about this situation. Maybe we can come up with some more effective way of dealing with the mess together? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments so far. Just for your information, I've also just blocked, for proxy editing and apparent meatpuppet/proxy revert warring during Voyevoda's block. Those block appeals in favour of Voyevoda here on your page are clearly not Henrich's own English, but very closely mirror what Voyevoda said in his own page, so it seems safe to assume he was proxying an appeal on Voyevoda's dictation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to engage
Outerlimits is again accusing me of something I didn't do -- this time he said I removed Michael Bluejay's link. I only reverted Outerlimits' changes, bringing it back to the way the links originally appeared. I don't want to fight with him on the talk page. His personal references are unacceptable. I find his name calling very insulting, for example, calling me "our Jersey City friend." He makes up facts, he thrusts his edits without consensus, and he insults people.

I am completely in favor of following Wikipedia's rule of having only one link to the official site. I can state that again, but I have already stated it twice.

Alternatively, we can leave all the links.

What will happen when I revert again, for a third time? LoreMariano (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Glenn Spencer
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Glenn Spencer. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Glenn Spencer. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat
Will, could you explain to me what is on your mind at Talk:Prem_Rawat? You know as well as I do that this is a reliable source by any WP standard, the author's faith notwithstanding: Geaves is a widely published religious scholar, he is within his area of expertise, and the book is from a top academic publisher.

The ex-premies have hinted that "Geaves must be lying", without the shadow of a supporting source. You have not contradicted them. I have posted links showing that John quotes the same attendance figures as Geaves in his forum conversations on his site, as do other ex-premies. Do these protestations that the figures must be wrong still seem credible to you in light of such evidence?

Mike Finch, whose self-published (!) book you were happy to add to this BLP (and who, incidentally, credits in the book, by name, two of the editors whom you supported in arguing for the book's inclusion here), states in the ex-premie forum that "many new premies" who have gone through the Keys programme have written to him. Yet, the argument on the talk page goes, Geaves must be lying when he speaks of "new students" attracted through such means: there are none.

So we have the absurd situation that the ex-premies say the same as Geaves in their forum, only here they say Geaves is lying and the material should not be included in the article. Do you think that is satisfactory?

You yourself, while remaining silent on all of the above, argue that adding material on the state of Rawat's movement in the 2000s would be undue weight. I could understand that if we didn't have lots of material on his movement in the 70s, 80s and 90s (we do), or if we had lots of material on his following in the 2000s already (it seems to me we have practically nothing). So how does this make sense? Due weight means describing his movement 30 years ago in detail, and saying nothing about its present state? Please explain. -- JN 466  18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I am letting you know that I have started a thread on Geaves on RS/N. However, I would ask you to refrain from commenting until uninvolved editors have had a chance to comment. I have linked to our recent discussions of the topic, so outside editors can see what we have been talking about, and what our respective arguments are; there is no need to duplicate these arguments at RS/N. Thank you. -- JN 466  16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In the discussion
I always suggest editors read the discussion... and perhaps ask me if i've posted a notification, and if not, why not instead of assuming I'm not playing fair. Since I've always notified editors when I went to a Notice board, by the way this is just a talk page for discussion and not a Notice Board so I treated the whole thing more casually, and since you know that, why not give me the benefit of the doubt. The assumptions from some editors in these discussions that I'm not honest is beyond tedious. I'll bold the post notification in the discussion in case it was hard to see. Thanks. (olive (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the apology. Had I bolded it in the first place it might have been easier to see.(olive (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Springbok Club
Hi Will. I have no idea where to start looking for reliable sources on this. It seems to be marginally notable, but I'm struggling to verify what's been written. I'd rather delete the article than have somebody find this excuse of an encyclopedia entry. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Best, AGK 00:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: As your proposed deletion was vetoed, I've nominated the article for deletion at Articles for deletion/Springbok Club. Regards, AGK 14:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mileva Maric page
Will. I'm having a dispute with Anjem about items on the Mileva Maric page. I made some changes a few days ago, and fully explained the reasons on the Mileva Maric discussion page. Anjem has now reverted most of them, and criticized me on the grounds that I am involved in a "crusade". Would you mind arbitrating, and possibly call in another administrator to provided additional opinion. Esterson (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is just to let you know that I have responded to your and Ajnem's points and (via his/her talkpage) invited Ajnem to respond.
 * Esterson (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * hello will. i sincerely hope you'll find the time to put an end to this alleged "dispute" between esterson and me. thanks, ajnem (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Will: Sorry to come to you directly again, but I really don't know what to make of Ajnem's latest comment about me on the Mileva Maric talk page. He/she writes:
 * "…i'm not going to recount the number of times, the esterson-website, which is imo not a reliable source by wikipedia standard, and includes material, that should not be touched with a 100-foot pole, is cited as reference in mileva marić-wikipedia-articels, or indulge in any other similarly asinine pastimes, sorry. it's the marić-wikipedia-articles, particularly the one in english, that imo need editing, not the marić-talk-page."


 * I've asked Ajnem more than once to provide one single example of a citation/link to an article written by me on the Mileva Maric webpage. No answer. I've asked him/her to provide examples on the Mileva Maric webpage that, as he/she has asserted, are POV or biased. No answer. All he/she does is repeat his/her assertions as if I hadn't either rebutted them, or requested specific examples.


 * Ajnem writes: "i'm not going to recount the number of times, the esterson-website, which is imo not a reliable source by wikipedia standard, and includes material, that should not be touched with a 100-foot pole". It is, of course, entirely irrelevant what my website includes if such items have not been cited on the Mileva Maric webpage, though as for the "should not be touched with a 100-foot pole" comment, I can supply statements from half-a-dozen historians of physics/Einstein commending my work, including Gerald Holton who has encouraged me to write a book on the issue. Esterson (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Suite101 page
Will - in October you deleted the page Suite101.com. That site is now a top 100 US destination according to -- the original reason for deletion 3 years ago was "notability", but the site is much bigger now, the article is quite different from the old article and it had several high profile sources of citation stated. Could you please re-create the deleted article? Psb (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, thanks for your reply -- could you be more specific about why you think the site doesn't meet notability criteria? The site is both very popular and meets the criteria: high profile media like National Post, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Spiegel, Miami Herald and a larger number of specialized publications have covered the site with larger features. Additionally, the article was suggested to be a re-post of an old (thus "Speedy Delivery"), deleted article - this is not true, it was a completely different article. Please re-instate. Psb (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yellow deli merger
I am doing my restructuring of Twelve Tribes Article, i think i have salvaged as much out the article as i can, there just is not much there to bring over to the TT page. unless i wish to talke about the runaway lodging and menu spiel which is 100% Tribes Produced. only thing is the Critism section that is poorly sourced for half of it at least. i was wonder if you could merge it i dont understand the directions on the wikipedia Help page. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

John Smith Clarke
Looking back at my talk page, I realised that I never thanked you for your kind note about the article - it's great to get feedback like this! As you enjoyed reading about him, I wonder if you've read about the O'Gorman Mahon - another politician with a highly varied life. Warofdreams talk 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Wheat Building-Leesburg VA.jpg
File:Wheat Building-Leesburg VA.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Wheat Building-Leesburg VA.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

TFA day
Congratulations on TFA day for Millennium '73! :) Cirt (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Well done! SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of One Good Fellow
I've been reverting his edits - not Minor, in one case not formatting, unsourced, possible BLP violations, OR, etc. I note you haven't left a block notice or reason. Do you want me to do the latter? Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see he's the IP you blocked also. Any comments I make will take that into account. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
Thanks for your nomination. We try to encourage all nominators to review as many nominations as they make to keep the queue short. If you get a chance please review a nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 68.215.42.44
I noticed it too - it's a little strange, but it seems to be consistent with WP:BLPCAT for the most part, so it seems to be okay. Ray Talk 06:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski NPOV: The Sharon Tate murder section now gone
(Buried in Personal life and no link to main coverage now). See: this new talk topic. (Please excuse if you're not interested in that, but since you were in the heavy going ... FYI ) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Secret voting
Hi William. I was reviewing the upcoming Arb election and I saw that you were signed on for secret ballots. I understand the arguments for it, but it is so fundamentally contrary to an open and transparent community I was disappointed to see you supporting that position. Accountability is very important. I hope you'll reconsider. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Alarming
Despite the fact that an editor /admin /arbitrator of Rlevse's experience has suggested that you are not interpreting part of the COI policy correctly and was generous enough to come to our article and say so, you continue to interrogate another editor  while drawing conclusions that in no way can be attributed to the editor's answers except by your own mischaracterization. I hope those mischaracterizations are not deliberate. Even so I find this behaviour astounding and even shocking in an administrator. Although I'm sure Kbob does not need my comments and can handle this situation himself, I now have very serious questions and concerns about the agenda  that drives an administrator to a user's page and to carry on what looks very much like another instance of harassment. I'm not sure by what right you think this is acceptable or by what logic you create answers and draw conclusions where there are none, but I know that nothing on Wikipedia supports this kind of action.(olive (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC))


 * A face saving exit, from what? You imply shame. For what? Editing in a neutral manner. How insulting to equate your stated Wikipedia mission with editors who work as hard as you do to advance Wikipedia as if they do not care about Wikipedia, and its aims. What an assumption of bad faith. You continue to mischaracterize: Nobody said this, made this comment, "putting TM ahead of Wikipedia is itself a COI" . Its an invention. For what purpose? How does this kind of mischaracterization of other editors advance Wikipedia. You know very well that on COIN found no fault was found. yet this comes up again and again Why is that? is that the fault of the editors who in the middle of some discussion,  face another editor who gets frustrated and leaps over to the COIN to see if they can have the editors removed from the discussion. This is what happens again and again. I'm sure you are a good admin. Consider these points.


 * You could take this to ArbCom. I'm not concerned to have my work scrutinized. Are you? Is Fladrif? (olive (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC))


 * I am also alarmed Will, that you have potential conflicts of interest ie. pushing editors around with your Admin status on an article(s) that you actively edit. You seem to pick and choose who you want give the third degree to. An editor like Fladrif who has a history of personal attacks and discipline gets little or no action from you even when its posted on your user page. You seem to ignore bad behavior and wait for another Admin to respond. While you seem to have plenty of time to spend on long discussions with other editors over alleged COI issues often with no basis except for the accusations of an abusive editor. -- — Kbob • Talk  • 16:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism
Dear WillBeback,

As a graduate of Oxford University (BNC) I was extremely unhappy to see, in a Wikipedia External Links "Noticeboard" page, your characterization of Aesthetic Realism as a “small group.” Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy whose principles are there for anyone to study and test. In fact, that is precisely what the founder of Aesthetic Realism, Eli Siegel, asked for. No slavish devotion, no mind-control -- critical study. I spent three years at Oxford studying philosophy, including John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, the works of Descartes, Berkeley, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and more. Aesthetic Realism is no more a group than Brasenose College, Oxford is. Moreover, I’ve seen that the principles of Aesthetic Realism make a connection that is new and accurate – between the nature of reality, beauty, and the human self.

Sincerely, Christopher Balchin TomP76 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomP76 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert my edits, then protect the page
I opened my edits to discussion for a fair period of time. NOBODY. N-O-B-O-D-Y contested. I am sick and tired of following protocol here and only when my edits are made after no objections are raised to them do people seem to object. If the discussion is raised and no one objects, my edits should stay in UNTIL others make their point. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence page
Your interaction with a user is part of the evidence here, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. You may wish to comment on it. Miami33139 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading list
For what it's worth, I just read Seal hunting, in the form you protected it in. It seems to be a well written (although I would edit the lead in section. Use the first paragraph, split the remainder into a separate ==Brief overview of Seal hunting==...) A well sourced article in the current version.

Just as a bit of history, I noticed User:XBValyrie had been blocked for edit warring. I asked him what he felt the problem was, and he replied. I let him know that I would look into what had been happening, read the article, then its history page, which brings me here. Good call to protect under the circumstances.

Now I go to read the talk page... (* sigh.) Care to weigh in here? I'd appreciate your opinion. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Dov Hikind
What is defamatory about stating that Dov Hikind seeks to silence David Irving (and put him out of business)? Hikind is quoted as saying exactly that in the newspaper coverage of the incident. And interfering with (private) speaking and sale of books and DVDs is censorship, is it not? It isn't (quite) governmental, in that the public officials (including Hikind) involved aren't exercising explicit legal authority, but it's censorship all the same (interference of Party A with expression by Party B to Party C). If you block, or continue to revert, I will bring this to resolution by parties not of Yosseia's (or your) choosing.--Joe (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC) (sorry-forgot to sign) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottsf (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

American Express, Ken Chenault
I am prepared to consider your assertion that the matter is not significant as part of American Express's history, though censorship is a serious matter to me and many other Wikipedians. As for Chenault, I am prepared to consider the censorship was not HIS purpose (though it certainly was his effect), and I have put in a new heading that is more meaningful than "David Irving" but omits the "C" word. In a similar vein, I have left in place your use of the hateful propagandistic slur "Holocaust denier," complete with link. Perhaps you may consider letting Chenault rest, and of course American Express, in which I have given you your way fully.

There is a difference between what Hikind wrote in his letter (he was just policing compliance with American Express's merchant standards, if you'll swallow that) and what he said to the press about his purpose in sending it. This is precisely delineated in the paragraph as I have edited it.--Joe (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Censorship Template
You placed the page Transactional Interdiction under Consideration for Speedy Deletion, but edited this template so as to remove it from the page. I trust this was an error on your part. The page cannot be completely considered without inclusion of its context, so I have taken the liberty of reverting your reversion of my edit to the template. My edit to the template will and should be considered together with the article.--Joe (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

comments
See my comments at Joe's user page. Let;'s try to keep this in proportion: having it mentioned where appropriate, but there only.  DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * & in fact, I'm not sure you were right in keeping it in the Sampson article   DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of male performers in gay porn films
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of male performers in gay porn films. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Four Award
I read the FAC's... nice perseverance! Cheers, Sasata (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Request to Unprotect the Seal Hunting Article
I've earned consensus on both edits I've recommended in the above mentioned article. Please review the "GDP" and "Equipment" sections and see that consensus was reached with Hamster Sandwich in the face of 99.245.37.46's unwillingness to defend his resistance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seal_hunting. This is my formal request to have the article revert to unprotected so the edits can be made. This does not, however, rule out that 99.245.37.46 could return to his/her old habits of turning the undo button into their favorite form of communication. Thanks. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't exactly say, "Consensus was reached with..." I read the article and offered my opinions concerning, what are I suppose, the more contentious aspects. It seems to me: a word here, and a word there kind of thing. As opposed to wholesale revisions, and POV pushing. I've had a discussion with XB concerning "being baited" by random editors, and I think he has gained a much better understanding of process, during the discussions he has had with all parties recently. Because of my involvement, I cannot unprotect Seal hunting myself. I would, however, encourage any editor who reverts the changes that have been discussed over the past few days, to refer to the discussion on the article TP, for clarification and direction. Thanks, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. I took it that the only suggestion you had was that you might use the word "cudgel" instead of "club" meant that you were fine with the rest. This is the first you mention that the Equipment and Methods section only needs some word tweaking. Let's go back to the Seal Hunting Talk page for more dialogue.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Will, I just read your comment at Talk:Seal hunting, and I have to admit, I am only familiar with only the most recent past there. I assumed that it would be amongst the most contentious articles in the WP. The comments you make there vis a vis template for admin additions is a good one, as is exploring all possible dispute resolution avenues. Perhaps XB70 is not aware of the particular circumstances (he is fairly new) of editing such articles as are closely watched/often protected. As for myself, well, since I've actually suggested changes to the prose and content of the article, I am not willing to make additions to it that would necessitate admin intervention. If XB wants to ask my opinion about things, fine, but seal hunting is not within my scope of interests. I only kill what I want to eat, and seal meat is horrible. IMO, wax crayons that have been burnt up in a frying pan have a slightly better flavour, and a not dissimilar odour! So, I appreciate your commentary on that talk page, and just wanted to let you know that it put the situation there into a better perspective for me. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)