User talk:Will Beback/archive49

TheSmokingGun.com
Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!--otherlleft 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Will Beback! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Martin Litton (pianist) -

AfD nomination of Mark Ellmore
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mark Ellmore. 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/Mark Ellmore (3rd 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) 01:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo request
Sure. Next time I'm around there and the weather is reasonably clear, I'll get a photo of the Clarion Hotel.--ragesoss (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The weather was nice today so I took a little bike trip. Here are the shots I got of the Clarion Hotel building:
 * File:Clarion Hotel building in Hartford, Connecticut, 2010-02-20.jpg
 * File:Clarion Hotel building in Hartford, Connecticut 2, 2010-02-20.jpg
 * File:Clarion Hotel building and environs in Hartford, Connecticut, 2010-02-20.jpg
 * File:Clarion Hotel building and environs in Hartford, Connecticut 2, 2010-02-20.jpg
 * --ragesoss (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Confusion
You're discussion on the Canada study is very confusing. You began by asking to have the study shortened and moved which was done. You indicated Luke's edit was too long so I shortened it as much as I possibly could while still retaining the most basic information about the study. In between you have shifted the discussion to deal with whether the study is WP compliant, and now you are including all of the studies. You seem to be attempting to create a framework into which you can quickly slot in any study. I don't support that kind of editing.The Canada study is not particularly important to me but attempts to create a framework for all studies is, and is a concern. I don't know what your agenda is or why you have conflated al of these different issues but perhaps you could clarify.(olive (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Its not that I wouldn't say. I was involved in another discussion with you. You aggressively asserted I was saying the study was secondary source when I had said no such thing. As well your intent to focus on the single point of whether the study is a primary source is as far as I can see  a way to support a superficial reading of the guideline, and I don 't feel that is a hole I want to be dragged down.  I would simp[y take the study as a peer reviewed study and in one sentence outline it so it had some meaning, in so doing leaving out all of the attempts by multiple editors to discredit the study, the research, and much more  on the TM pages including the editors. I don't play games Will, and I edit simply, because that's how I  stay neutral in the face of implied criticisms. I don't have to answer questions when you come at me aggressively, and  when I don't trust what you or some of the editors on the TM pages will do with that information. Is the Canada study a primary source? I might have said yes a day or so ago, but I find I am intrigued by Luke's reading of WP:Verifiable and will look at the policy and his statements more closely tomorrow. Its about trust. Nutshell: Perceive agenda? Look for traps. I don't play games, but I am aware that others do.  Not you necessarily, but some editors do. (olive (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Will you misunderstand me. I have never said they are not primary information. WP:VERIFIABILITY "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made:..." We aren't making any claims. And if we were, we can't ignore that WP: Verifiability specifically says peer reviewed sources are good sources, and it is the policy. There is no simple fix for determining what is compliant. If we were using the studies to make a claim in an article like, as I said. the ME cures cancer then we would want multiple studies sourced to very good secondary publications. We are simply citing studies as ME effect studies without claiming anything. We do have to say where the studies came from, but they are not underpinning "claims" in the content of the article, a different matter.  I am more of an inclusionist on the matter and would say if its very short, why not. That was your first position too as I remember.(olive (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC))


 * I think we are at cross purposes here. I know what primary sources are, and I am familiar with the policies. I have never said peer reviewed studies are either primary or secondary sources. However, I have a published, scientist friend who asserts that the actual data and paper are the primary sources while the publication in a journal becomes the secondary source. I haven't specified where I stand.  WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR both say peer reviewed journals are reliable sources. Both are two "of three core content policies", and as such   must be taken as dominant policies. WP:Verifiability says,"Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, and both Verifiability and NOR  clearly say that peer reviewed studies are reliable sources. As an aside: WP:MEDRS says, "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles.", another place we have to be careful of. One wonders how  reliable Randi or a popular press newspaper article is as a source for comment on medical related research.


 * Pigeon holing anything is in my mind a somewhat futile business, and in the case of medicine possibly a dangerous business, one of the very reason WP:MEDRS was created.  The issues in such articles is the safety of the reader so a single study may not be the most authoritative source for something like cures for cancer, in which case, sources that cite multiple studies for example, are probably better. We can call these studies anything, even lollipops, but we have to discriminate rather than pigeon hole to use them . I am suggesting that if the studies are used as information about themselves, for example, the Maharishi Effect  is only a meaningful topic if we lay out the ME  studies, then single, peer-reviewed studies are not only acceptable, but are necessary. If we want to use a study to support a claim made in an article of some kind, especially a medical article where the information may affect a reader's health, and in claims made in an article beyond the boundaries of the study, then  multiple studies and published comments in reliable sources are  the best kind of sourcing per WP:MEDRS.


 * In adding studies on the Maharishi Effect the issue is not what we call the studies, but how we use them. They are descriptors of the study, and are not so-called   sources used to make claims. The real concern is "weight" and if, we are using the best studies we have to describe the ME. (This looked a lot shorter before I saved it.) (16:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Prem Rawat changes his colours (again)
Just to let you know that the probationary articles on Elan Vital, Divine Light Mission, and Prem Rawat (inter alia) are in need of amending:

Elan Vital in the UK has changed its name, and the reference on that page now links to http://www.hdsk.org.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revera (talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just seen your response on my talkpage, Will. This might help clarify:
 * On WP's 'Elan Vital' page, the link to their UK site is given as http://elanvital.org.uk/ If you click on it, it redirects you to HDSK. Revera (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the proof of the pudding - official acceptance of name change by the UK Charity Commission - http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ShowCharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1016818&SubsidiaryNumber=0 Revera (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summary Comment
Hi Will, In response to your cmt on my User Page: The phrase "Tag team POV editing" was made in an Edit Summary. It was not a formal accusation or assertion, just a simple comment about a one-two punch edit by you and another editor that decimated my original entry which was a balanced quote and turned it into an out of context, one sided piece of text. That was probably not your intention but that is how it was perceived by me and so I described my feeling. As you know I also wrote in my Edit Summary that if my summary was not clear to "please start a talk page thread" so we could discuss it. On a related topic you have become, in my opinion quite overbearing and controlling in your editing style in regard to the TM and related articles in the past weeks and you are very quick to criticize, change and on occasion delete content. I am not accusing you of doing anything outside Wiki guidelines I'm just saying that the intensity and voracity with which you are editing has created an intimidating atmosphere on the articles and its not comfortable nor is it conducive to progress and harmony. This is just my subjective feeling and evaluation and something I am saying to you in what I hope is a gentle and constructive manner, not to start a debate. Today in particular, when I tried to be friendly and humorous with you on the talk page you reacted with a administrative reprimand and you perceived mal-intent in my playful comments, when there was none there. So, just to summarize. I am not accusing you of conspiratorial editing and in a friendly way I am suggesting to you that you slow down and lighten up a little bit and take a day off when you can. Relax, go for a hike. It will be good for you and all of us. Best Wishes, Peace!-- — Kbob • Talk  • 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kbob, in the past three days you've made 51 edits to MUM, 33 edits to TM, 26 edits to MSV, 21 edits to MVC, 19 edits to Greer, 17 edits to TMM, 11 edits to talk:MUM, 10 edits to MVAH, and 10 to DLF, plus other related edits. And yet you're saying that I've been editing the TM topic too much recently. You deleted a properly sourced assertion, without using the talk page to explain it, yet you're accusing me of deleting material. You've made accusations against me and another editor of colluding and other malfeasance, and yet you say that I am creating an "intimidating atmosphere". And now you're telling me to go take a hike. I suggest again that you follow your own advice.   Will Beback    talk    00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Settle down now Will. It was a friendly suggestion to take a day off and enjoy the outdoors. I took my own advice yesterday and I literally went for a hike, as I suggested for you. Just a friendly suggestion to take a break. I'm sorry you have taken it so defensively. All the best, -- — Kbob • Talk  • 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

888chan
How is a short-lived chan (who is surpassed in Alexa ranking my many other chans that ARENT listed) almost entirely devoted to raids and restoring project chanology relevant enough to merit it's own section on imageboard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.161.15 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Articles and Independence/Other Issues
Will, I hope it's OK to add this new section. Please feel free to delete.

I just wanted to share a very preliminary beginning of the references in the TM-Sidhi program article, and their independence (esp. re: WP:FRINGE), along with other issues, like reliance on newspaper and other print articles for promotoing a non-mainstream, non-established fringe ideas. This is about half of them so far in the TM-Sidhi entry. I have not added all the magazine and newspaper entries. I'll add them all if this looks like a direction worth heading in.

Here's the summary table so far.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Will, as per previous agreed recommendation, I have compiled a list on the WP:FRINGE non-compliant references used in the TM-Sidhi entry and included it in the Talk page []. It seems best to do this on an entry-by-entry basis, rather than to compile one huge list.


 * Also, as per previous discussion and agreement, I remember you commenting that if these sub-standard entries were presented to some WP editorial process, the FRINGE references would likely not be tolerated. What was that process? How could that be helpful? Could it hinder in any way?


 * My serious concern is that this entry and other entries have been subject not only to biased protectionism, territorialism and edit warring for a long time, but the inclusion of so many non-compliant FRINGE refs. also makes me wonder as to the reliability of the editors who put them there.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In recent post on this page and on Kala's talk page we have references like "to biased protectionism, territorialism and edit warring for a long time", and "TM true believers". Any idea who she is referring to here? As a Wiki administrator, how would you classify these types of comments? And who are "TM true believers" anyway? Are they a class of Wiki editors? --BwB (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not a term I'd have used. But Kala is not the first editor to express the same concern. In fact, there have been five separate threads at WP:COIN over the years about the involvement of members of the TM movement in editing the articles. Unfortunately, all of those complaints have been ignored. Since you've asked me about it, I'd advise you or an any editor with a significant commitment to the TMM (or to anti-TMM groups) to avoid editing those topics directly. Wikipedia does not exist to provide a platform for advocacy.    Will Beback    talk    21:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Posting this response from you here as I am not sure why you are raising this point as a response to my bringing you attention to Kala using derogatory language to describe other editors. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi BigweeBoy. A True Believer is defined as "one who is deeply, sometimes fanatically devoted to a cause, organization, or person". In the context of TM-related entries and their editing, it would refer to persons with an admitted COI who use edit warring and obsessive edit tactics to control, intimidate and manipulate the entry. Apparently some of these issues go way back on the TM-related entries. So it is a legitimate concern for many of us who are serious about not allowing bias, organizational control, and poor, primary sourcing to creep into entries. In the context of editing, such TM movement "true believers" are strongly advised per WP policy NOT to get involved in editing. Ignorance of this key warning has caused severe corruption of these entries. But it is avoidable. Unfortunately the only to curb it may be to somehow block the offending parties.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For continuity of the discussion and thread I am posting this copy of Will's reply to my comment above which Will posted on my talk page:
 * "Teacher, teacher - Johnny insulted me! He said I'm dirty."
 * "Well, Peter, you are covered in mud."
 * Are you complaining about the content of the statement or just about the way it was expressed?  Will Beback  talk  23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD Renato M.E. Sabbatini
I'm asking everyone to take another look at based on recent changes to the article. Upsala (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! -- Jayron  32  01:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

James Bevel sources
Hi Will. I'll get to the sources request within the next few days, have had a very hectic and full time since mid-December. Slowing down a bit now. Thanks for the patience. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Rind et al
Hi Will. I don't think the PPA editor you reverted is taking the hint: -Legitimus (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Will, Happy new year.


 * Please take a look and comment regarding the issue you posted at WP:PEDMEN. Thanks, --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletions
This is very ackward because of all the deletions of my own comments, this is the only one that has been met with any particular objections. I may have overstepped my bounds deleting an entirely unrelated comment I didn't write, but what I did write is not something I want around anymore and it is about a common misuse of a term which is no longer on that page. I delete my own comments all the time and frankly I am pretty shocked that anyone would claim I do not have the right to delete my own comments. However, the other comment, which was unrelated to mine anyway, could stay if it's that important. 01:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC) The reasons I give for my deletions are this: Since the subject I post about is no longer on the page, there is no particular reason to keep it because it is no longer relevant. This is hardly the first thing I've written which I have deleted for this reason. I was especially glad to delete this one, since I was always less ambivalent about the now-irrelevant (at least to the page) issue I raised than to the subject of the page itself, and time has done nothing to reverse this. I also believe that, whatever you or I is or is not officially allowed to do, simple civility and common decency demand that you allow me to edit comments I have made which do not interfere with others, as Wikipedia has done countless times before. By the way, if I have ever said anything in the past to you in some silly argument that perhaps fell outside of what "simple civility and common decency demand," I apologize and I would like to put that behind me. 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but what about my signature? 03:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up
And, if I may say so, it's about time. Thanks. I will be on my best behavior. Fladrif (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you take this to arbitration. I have lots to say.(olive (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

COIN - BwB

 * Thanks Will. I am glad to see that you are concerned that the TM related articles are being edited in a neutral, NPOV, fair, non-biased way, adhering to all the best Wiki principles and guidelines. This is what one would expect from a respectable Wiki administrator.  So I am grateful to you for that.

I can say wholeheartedly that my intentions are to abide by these Wiki ideals with every edit I make to any article on Wiki. I consider myself still a relative novice in Wiki and may make mistakes and am happy to be corrected when I do by more experienced and seasoned editors and administrators. This is the beauty of Wiki - the ability to participate as a novice and to learn from others in the process.

Once can see from my participation in Wiki that I have edited in a neutral manner. If I have doubts about edits, I bring them to the talk pages of the article first to get input from others (Beatles section of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as an example) and have participated on the talk pages, both to give my opinion and to learn how and when certain Wiki policies could/should be applied. I have been a strong advocate for keeping the focus of attention on the content (message) of the discussion, and away from the editor (messenger), and have expressed this directly on several occasions. This is not always how other editors behave, unfortunately.

Recently, when I brought some comments by another editor to your attention on your talk page, rather that address the specific situation, you instead began to advise me on COIN editing and implying some wrongdoing on my behalf. (You comments have been posted on your talk page) My request was a direct and genuine request for you, as an administrator, to address the growing tendency of Kala, a fairly new editor, to indulge in name calling and using an aggressive and dismissive tone in his approach to other editors. No doubt Kala has raised valid concerns that need to be addresses, but, in my opinion, the tone of the discussion has deteriorated since his arrival. You were not at all sympathetic to my request to do something about the name-calling, and in fact you trivialized by request to you and insulted me by implying I was acting like a child. This was a disappoint to me as I felt you were a mature and experienced administrator, from whom I had learned a great deal over the past 8-10 months.

Again, I reiterate that I have acted honorably in my editing of all Wiki articles and have done my best to adhere to Wiki policies for NPOV, neutrality, etc. Where I have made mistakes I have address the errors quickly and responsibly. I have engaged in the talk pages and sought advice from editors and administrators, and participated on the talk pages in a civil and respectful way. My editing record bares this out, I believe. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaint
Please. Your editing shows a bias toward fundamentalist Christianity (or the version adopted by the religious right in this country) and also a pattern of denial concerning GOP obstructionism, greed, theocracy and cronyism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.96.198 (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this comment from 66.57.96.198 has to do with me? --BwB (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding five categories to which the article Aesthetic Realism belongs
Right now there are only two categories at the bottom of this article, and I believe this gives an incorrect impression. These categories are: "Aesthetic Realism | Changing sexuality"

Can we also have the following: Philosophy, American Philosophy, Aesthetics, The arts, and Education?

All these categories are relevant. Aesthetic Realism belongs to them. They are needed for people to search for this philosophy in the categories to which it actually belongs.

In fact, the matter of "Changing sexuality" is really long past, and should probably not even be there.

Thank you for considering these matters. B.K.S.J. (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)B.K.S.J. (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Updated page to include Aesthetics, Philosophy, and Education in the Categories list. American Philosophy and The Arts didn't seem to be categories, at least the macro didn't convert those to a link.  LoreMariano (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we really need to start devoting our effort to getting secondary sources in the article and less time debating ideas. I like talking about the philsophic ideas but we need to regroup and get focused.  LoreMariano (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Previous account
Will - I've never edited wiki entries in this particular field before. I have contributed to wikipedia on other topics, for which I (legitimately) use a different account for privacy reasons. All of my edits in this field have been, and always will be, under Psychword. Psychword (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Psychword

Tinyurl Blacklisted?
Will - Why is tinyurl not allowed on Wikipedia? Is there any way to compress a long url that's allowed? Thanks. LoreMariano (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was trying to correct the way a reference link showed up in the footnote list. It's reference link "3" -- the long Google books link.  In the body of the article, it's a superscript 3, in the Footnotes list, it's a long url.  I guess it won't bother anyone.  I just hate long links. LoreMariano (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for fixing. Your request for more mainstream references is noted!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael Lee Shaver, Jr.
An editor has nominated Michael Lee Shaver, Jr., an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ludwig von Mises article
Hey! :) Could you please check the history of the article, and prevent the re-adding of the unbacked, unsubstatiated claims of von Mises sympathizing with fascism? It's simply not true. Many revisions ago, the IP who kept adding it linked to this as a source, I read it and nothing in it says anything about Mises supporting fascism. He noted that fascism arose as a responce to marxism, but expressed no favour towards or sympathy with fascism whatsoever: http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp

Furthermore, you should note this edit, it's quite insightful: 11:57, 12 January 2010 Closedmouth (talk | contribs) (26,375 bytes) (→Criticism: removing paragraph, this is a "criticism" section, not a description of his personal views; references are also vague concerning his actual belief in fascism and don't come from third-party sources) (undo)

Thanks! :)

-- Dark Apostrophe (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

email
I will, but how do I do it? B.K.S.J. (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
–MuZemike 08:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David F. Haight
An article that you have been involved in editing, David F. Haight, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Will. I suggest you do not accuse me either. I do not have to deal with personal attacks from Kala. And if you want a clarification of the COI Notice Board ask me on my user page. I will be happy to give you a clear explanation although In have neither the time nor the desire for a discussion. I have a right to ask for civility. And if you want to compare that to a Notice Board were once again its a free for all of nasty and untrue comments, well sorry, just doesn't cut it. You attack. I defend. You make a comment that isn't right. I will clarify as I see it. I'm a civil editor but i'm a little tired of being attacked.(olive (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Littleolive Oil. I don't believe someone who has had so many factual examples of incivility [] pointed out to them should go casting aspersions at others. I think you need to have a long, hard look in the mirror!--Kala Bethere (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Help!
Will, come on....a brand new lead has been posted on the Aesthetic Realism entry by someone who doesn't really know what he/she is talking about. It's not malicious, it's just not accurate. If the lead is going to be stubbed until there is a consensus, it should be stubbed. Can't it be locked down? LoreMariano (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am really upset but I'll work on a new shorter lead. I don't like the article as a whole at all and was always of the mind that a person wouldn't get past the lead anyway.  Maybe we should start entirely from scratch and keep the whole article 4-5 paragraphs. LoreMariano (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm upset because the work we did over a period of months has been destroyed and it looks like it's open season for assault once again. I'm upset because people are slipping things in without discussion.  I'm upset because there presently is a lead that was written by a person who summarized Aesthetic Realism in his/her own words without understanding what he/she was writing. I'm upset because I don't see an end to this.  I want to know what the procedure is for having the article locked down or what it will take to get it locked down. LoreMariano (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you get my message? LoreMariano (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Did you get the second attempt sent last night? LoreMariano (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you know for Tony_Nader
Hello Will. Just have a couple of questions regarding your latest nomination at Did you know .... Kindly Calmer   Waters  22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Email
Sent.(olive (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread
I don't want to get involved in editing another walled garden, but since you've gotten involved in yet another contentious subject, you might want to check out these sources on one of your current projects.  Almost all of them are Letters to the Editor at the Village Voice, and as such don't qualify as Reliable Sources. But, this LTE probably qualifies as a reliable source for what how the inventor of the subject described it himself. And this one, which is not a LTE but an actual article, is sufficient to dissuade me from getting any further involved, at least without getting an unlisted number first. Good luck.Fladrif (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It would appear to be a very localized NY art community thing, and very odd that the debate was played out 50 years ago almost entirely on the LTE page of the VV. That might be worth an article in and of itself, but perhaps not on Wikipedia. Good luck herding those cats.Fladrif (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)