User talk:Will Beback/archive5

Archives

 * User talk:Will Beback/archive1 - January 2006
 * User talk:Will Beback/archive2 - February 2006
 * User talk:Will Beback/archive3 - March 2006
 * User talk:Will Beback/archive4 - April 2006
 * User talk:Will Beback/archive5 - May 2006

Bill Lawrence
I don't see my name in the edit histories of Bill Lawrence or any of the three articles it links to, nor in my contribution list, so I don't really know how to answer. Niteowlneils 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:AfD-List of religions once classed as cults...
Would you consider changing your vote to keep the information if it were merged with List of groups referred to as cults or expanded into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't. If you can find scholarly sources which deal with the topic you are proposing then such an article could be written. But the existing sources are not sufficient to write about such a broad concept without getting into original research. -Will Beback 23:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting a change I made
I notice you reverted a change I made which included ASFAR in pedophile organizations, claiming that I was making a point. How is it that if I add an organization to the pedophile organizations category, when that organization meets at least one of the two criteria set down on the category's page, it is "making a point." But when you put NAMBLA in the category, on the basis that it meets at least one of the criteria on the category's page, it's a good edit? Please explain this inconsistency, or I will have to assume you're making edits in bad faith. Corax 02:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How many members of ASFAR have been arrested for sex crimes? How many have called each other "pedophiles?" The group does not fit the criteria of the category, and the only reason you haev added it is to make a point about NAMBLA, which you seem to think must not be called a pedophile organization. -Will Beback 03:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If a certain number of arrest of an organization's members for sex crimes is a criterion for inclusion of that organization in the category, then you need to list it. If a certain number of instances of members of an organization calling other members of that organization a "pedophile" is a criterion for inclusion of that organization in the category, then you need to list it.  Adding articles to categories when those articles meet the criteria listed on that category's page is not making a WP:POINT.  The case can be made, however, that reverting such edits is an instance of vandalism. Corax 03:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please make the case instead of making threats. -Will Beback 03:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made my case, and I have not made threats. Please respond to my case with one of your own so we can get the ball rolling on this. Corax 03:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What ball? Roll it on your own. -Will Beback 03:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The ball we've been trying to start rolling for the past week. The one that we can't start rolling until you come clean with the specific criteria you are using to determine the composition of the Pedophile organizations category.  The ball is impossible for me to roll on my own because you have insisted on getting involved, and Wikipedia is a collective effort.  Corax 03:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That category has had a criteriq since it was made. There's nothing to "come clean" about. -Will Beback 03:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please inform us hayseeds what a "criteriq" is. There apparently is something to come clean about when you remove an article from the category page, and those removed articles meet the criteria stated on the category page.  Such actions make it appear that there are requirements for being listed that are not currently on the page, but which you are applying on your own. Corax 03:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a typo of "criteria". -Will Beback 03:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I don't see how the length of time for which a criterion or two criteria has existed has anything to do with my observations that you are making edits pertaining to the category which fall outside the scope of the listed criteria. Corax 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

redirect
I assure you I merged and cleaned it up thoroughly. I spent about a good 40 minutes to an hour doing it. I didn't miss anything. They are identical pages and I assure you the merger is good.

Cheers!

Are you sure?
I did read the talk page and it seemed to me the consensus was to merge the article into that one - the opposite of what was done. - Gl e n  TC (Stollery)  05:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said it was vandalism?! I simply reverted an incorrect indirect - Gl e n  TC (Stollery)  05:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Los Angeles photo
I've got the same picture taken at 3pm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LA_from_mulholland_dr.JPG You can modify it if you want and if decide to use it as the featured pic instead of the nighttime pic, you're welcome.

OR
Hi Will. I am having a problem over at Media Matters for America, and I was wondering if you could have a look at it and inject some perspective.

added the following (the portion lower down the page). The non-neutral language aside, it looked to me like original research, and I added a fact which he has repeatedly removed.

In essence, the addition says that MMFA isn't holding true to their mission statement when they post Olbermann's criticisms of O'Reilly, and the like, and believes that links to a few of these posts counts as support for his assertion. I have, with no success, asked him to provide his source for the information, but all he has done is add more links to MMFA posts.

IMO, this isn't enough to support the assertion. To begin with, it's OR, since he appears to have come to his conclusion that they are not true to their mission statement by looking at the clips they post. While the OR problem associated with posting a non-controvertial synopsis of a TV episode or movie is trivial, I believe this is a bigger problem because it requires analysis (analysis of their posting history in the context of their mission statement) and it asserts a notability based on a handful of anecdotes. This should be left to an external source, not done by an editor (especially one who doesn't realise that calling things "rants" isn't exactly using neutral language).

Our converation on the matter is here and here (I believe that everything of importance is crossposted to both talk pages). Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Guettarda 15:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

*grumbles*
I'll try 132.241.246.111 04:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

advertising
Hi, just saw your comment. Wasn't advertising. Have noticed that many pornographic articles have links to useless external sites. Some are blatant advertising by the people the article is about. But those remain up. So, went through and linked to custom searches at an adult search engine I found useful. Should I use several ones instad of one? Stillmountain 05:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont' understand your point about several versus one. If you find useless external links, please delete them. Do not add more. If you continue to add commercial links you'll be blocked from editing. -Will Beback 05:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your response. I guess I wasn't clear about the several versus one.  I was referring to the fact that I could care less about advertising and would be happy to add links from several sources.  As for your second point, given the confusion I've caused, I don't feel qualified to go on a deleting spree.  I guess what confused me is that many of the external links were commercial sites and they weren't deleted. Stillmountain 05:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * External links do not help the encyclopedia very much. When such links can provide substantial information to readers we allow them. Due to the popularity of Wikipedia, commercial spam has become a major problem. I remove at least a dozen links a day, on average, and I'm not even one of the special spam-patrollers. If you want to help the project, the way to do so would be to add the info that you think is important to the articles themselves. However multiple pictures of porn stars does not really qualify as "additional information". But other information, such as filmography, is useful. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Byck
I just thought that "Jewish Americans" was supposed to be the parent category, and I couldn't think of an appropriate sub-cat to move him to. It was probably a mistake - some people just belong in the parent cat and can't be categorized under a profession/etc. Mad Jack O&#39;Lantern 07:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

please help
User:75.3.4.54 is at it again; it is unlikely to be a set of random people because nearly all the vandalism/POVism is in the same direction. This user recently vandalized my user page, can you consider a block again see his discussion page (to which I didn't add my complaint) to see a (partial) list of the mischief. Carlossuarez46 14:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I left him a note. Yes, it appears to be a single user. -Will Beback 21:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

edit to my talk page
You do not get to dictate the content of my discussion page. If you feel that another admin needs to know something about my past behavior, feel free to discuss it with him on his talk page, and provide him links there. Corax 04:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The many faces of Bill Lawrence
Ouch -- yeah, looks like that's a nasty dispute and they need to be politely told that there's no place for it here. I'd really suggest making the trademark article a redirect and pulling all of the trademark dispute into its own section (any that's properly referenced of course) and try a crash course in Wikipedia editing for the people involved. If it becomes a problem, you can always AfD the trademark article, since on its own, the trademark dispute doesn't appear to have notability or be encylopedic and you'll probably get a merge and redirect outcome for it. I'll be happy to watchlist the articles and see if I can't help a bit, but after the Shiloh experience, I'm fairly certain that with fueds, its best to just show them the door. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your post at Talk:Ballard High School (Louisville)
Was that a reply to my post or the original poster? Since you indented it from my reply, it looks as though you are replying to my post. --rogerd 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The best way do indent is:

Post1
 * Post 2: 1st reply to post1
 * Post 3: Reply to post 2
 * Post 4: 2nd reply to post1

That way, it is more clear.


 * And BTW, thanks for reverting that offensive reference. Mr. Crawford may still be living, and there is no need for that anon to post insults towards a living person, especially one who is not a public figure.  --rogerd 23:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Scaife
Please defend the revert of the sublime edits of the Richard Mellon Scaife article.

The he-said/she-said pissing match between Scaife and the reporter is meaningless without access to the four or five-part series in the Columbia Journalism Review, which put the encounter in perspective and which is no longer online-- and that was stated in the deletion, contrary to your claim that that part of the edit was not explained. The information about the reporter is flat out wrong, as she occasionally wrote more than 25 years ago for The Nation, and moved on to other publications. Why is that still there?

More specifically, what does the paragraph about that chance encounter tell us about the subject of the article that his life story, which I added awhile back, not tell us? His relationships with his family members are much more revealing about his character than a chance encounter with a reporter whose four or five-part series we can no longer read. But maybe then Wikipedia is trying to out-Enquirer the National Enquirer in the area of titilating readers by throwing the word "cunt" around. Great!

Explain exactly what using the nickname --Dick-- in the middle of the article accomplishes? Exactly why did you put that back in? Please point to other articles where the subjects of articles are not referred to strictly by their last name. Why the sudden informality?

My edits made sense. Yours did not. Perhaps you will explain in detail what you did. Skywriter 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I'll reply on the article talk page. -Will Beback 07:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Pwctoday
the forum is a very important asset to the pwc community, making a wiki article about it would be best. i ran into some troubles, and yes deleting it would be best right now. thank you.

Rename
You asked to be contacted if the user-rename limit was increased; it has been increased to 200,000 edits, so you may request a namechange if you wish. Essjay ( Talk  • Connect  ) 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well
I'm gettin tired so I should tap out in a few least I should get cranky. lol grazon 07:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Archetypes, etc.
Hi, I'm actually not spamming. I'm putting info about Archetype Work and how its evolved Method Acting training into an article about Method Acting. I think I have the right to do that. Please explain why the info is not correct or shouldn't be in there. Ucprof 21:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On most of the pages about acting, there are links to private acting schools, when its relevant to the subject. Since Jason Bennett article is copyrighted, and since that is where the article is, I'm putting the link there. Why discriminate only against Jason Bennett's work? Please leave it in there so people can read about the work. It isn't an advertisement disguised. It's useful work. Ucprof 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think Wikipedia policies require censorship of Jason Bennett's work, any more than it requires censorship of any other acting teacher. Your request is unreasonable. Jason Bennett evolved Archetype work, and deserves credit for it. Ucprof 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

See, I noticed you removed an article by Jason Bennett, but you left an article by a private acting school in St. Louis. Both articles are useful for people to read, and both articles have info about method acting. Please don't single out Jason Bennett's work for discrimination. That isn't right. Ucprof 21:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are several other private acting schools on the page that you left, and books by private acting teachers. Shall I go through and remove references to all private acting schools and teachers? It will cause Wikipedia pages about acting to be massively superficial and incomplete. That is where your logic will take us. Please tell me your view. Ucprof 21:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So I'm going to respectfully ask again for you to explain why you are against the information I'm putting in articles about acting being read by people. You continue to delete ONLy references to Archetype Work and the tools Jason Bennett created, while leaving other private schools web site and names all over Wikipedia. You selectively deleted a post in the Meisner article, and left the private school externals links to OTHER schools. Would you like me to clean ALL references to private teachers, methods and schools out? Or can Jason Bennett's work be disseminated in an EQUAL fashion. Please respond. So far, your agenda seems only to be to censor me... Ucprof 00:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Howard Zinn
Hello,

I noticed you protected the Howard Zinn article, and this was likely a wise choice. However, as for reaching a consensus on the isuse, I'm not quite sure what to do in that regard. I have explained the reasons why I believe the article is written in an inappropriate tone, and subsequently needs to be restructed to make it more encyclopedic. The only editor opposed, skywriter, has shown no interest in debating this point, or in reaching consensus on the issue, at least not as far as I can tell. Additionally, he has been generally abusive towards me and my attempts to improve the article, both on the talk page, and on my talk page. What are my options here? I believe I have consistently acted in good faith and to uphold Wikipedia standards, and I would like to continue to do so, so I'm at a loss here. To my knowledge, skywriter is the only editor opposed to the tag being there, so I'm not sure how to reach consensus with such an editor.

Thank you for any help or suggestions you can provide. Bibigon 00:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As another editor who has worked on the Howard Zinn article, I have to say that I don't agree with having tags placed on the article, though I do agree that there are problems with the article that need to be addressed and resolved. I believe the tags - and a number of reversions, etc. have inflamed the issue, provoking (the too-provocable) skywriter, and producing a lot of misdirected effort to deal with a growing edit war, rathern than the article itself. I still believe a more productive, consensual approach is possible. Pinkville 02:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct yourself
In regards to your latest attempt at correcting a situation, here is the quote I responded to "If you want me to find some minor clause that saves you, give up. My way is the spirit of the policy and that's what counts. (Besides, I doubt even the letter would support your argument). The point of talk pages is to talk. You being a dick." If that is not a personal attack, then I don't know what is. In the future I'd suggest you'd make more of a discernment as anyone who can read should be able to see so. I'd appreciate it as well if you'd subscribe to appropriate behavior set forth at Wikipedia. If someone calling the other person a "dick" isn't a personal attack at it's base you've surely lost a screw. --Redwolfb14 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Jason Bennett
You seem to not understand. Jason Bennett is a notable, respected acting teacher in New York City. Information about his work belongs in articles about acting, where relevant. You are selectively censoring info about his work, while leaving MANY other private school and teacher references in all kinds of acting articles. Why? Any unbiased observer can see this isn't what should happen. You do not make policy for all of Wikipedia. You can continue to block me, but you'll see that over time, others will come along to insert stuff about Jason Bennett's work, since the work is really important. Stanislavski invented emotional recall, Bennett invented Archetype Work and other stuff. See? Censoring Bennett's work isn't right. You can't keep blocking me just to censor information you don't like. The Archetype articles are copyrighted, and external links to them are as appropriate as any other external links to schools and books from acting articles. You don't seem interested in a dialogue to work this out. You are just issuing unfair commands to me. You can't do that. Ucprof 00:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem confused. The "community" of eight people voted that a page for Jason Bennett was not important enough to keep. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about now. The "community" of eight on Wikipedia don't know who is notable in the New York acting community, and frankly they were wrong to vote for deletion. If the poll had been among New York actors, of course it wouldn't have been deleted. But that has nothing to do with anything. The issue we are talking about isn't a page devoted to Jason Bennett. It's whether or not you will allow, as if you have the right to decide, any mention of the significant contributions Jason Bennett is making to actor training on pages where it's entirely relevant. I say it is allowed. And what you wrote isn't true anyway. I haven't put links "all over" WIkipedia. I put two, maybe three, on pages where it was entirely appropriate. And you don't have the right to censor true information about actor training on pages about those issues. It isn't right. You shouldn't have, and don't have, that kind of power. If everyone agrees none of Bennett's contributions should be allowed to be mentioned, then we'll have to go through and remove all the other current private teachers and schools in those pages, there are probably about 25. Tell me your criteria. Ucprof 00:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Watchfulness
Hi Will, Thanks for being so watchful regarding the Jason Bennett advertisers. Whoever this is occasionally attacks acting message boards too with spam. I occasionally do a sweep for Jason Bennett propaganda but I missed the round that started a few days ago. It is wonderful that you stuck to your guns - Jason Bennett is a not-yet-notable New York acting teacher whose greatest strength is vigorous public relations. I think that UCprof is a sock puppet for Sgactorny. I am uninformed about what I could do about this and would appreciate any advice that you might offer. Thanks again, you are my guardian angel. Tree Trimer 15:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Zinn
* Re: Howard Zinn

Good edit conflicts result in more information, better sources, and greater neutrality. Bad edit conflicts result in blind reverts, contorted prose, and endless sniping. I suggest talking some more. Try to find out what they are expecting from the article, and share with them what your expectations are. Try to pin down the differences, and see if there is a compromise or a third way which will at least barely satisfy everybody. I'll go post the same adminition to the other editor to be fair. Please, let's have a good edit conflict. I don't want to get into the details of this dispute, but I know it's about a tag. Would it be possible to exchange the article-wide tag with a section tag? -Will Beback 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The dispute archived on the page accurately reflects the dilemma. Bibigon wants tags to stay on the page until someone comes along and restructures the page the way he'd like. He has stated he wants all of the biographical material to be separated from the political material. I have suggested he go ahead and do that, and if it doesn't work out, it can be reverted. Bibigon says he doesn't want to do the work. He wants someone else to do it but in the meantime, he wants tags to stay on the page. Bibigon has what he wants-- the page is tagged and can not be edited. He has no reason to pursue change. Cheers. Skywriter 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal Watercraft
Thanks for editing the articles, and the new catg. There is alot of editing to be done, and i am learning :)

erotica vs. sexual arts
sir, erotica is the more known term of the two. enjoy your day.

the plan is too streamline erotica and sexual arts

It's about time
User:Herschelkrustofsky...thank god, he was becoming to big of a problem to deal with.--Jersey Devil 02:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed.--Jersey Devil 10:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Carr
Sorry, I wasn't aware there was a revert war - my fault for not looking closer. I'd incorrectly assumed a change prior to mine was done in bad faith. I see that it's now been changed back to a redirect which is fine with me. Regards -- I@n &equiv; talk 08:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. Regards. -- I@n &equiv; talk 09:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

far right
I certainly do not remove every far right term on wikipedia. I just feel that in most cases stating that someone is far right as a fact is inaccurate because it's really an opinion. The person is far right according to who? There is huge debate on what right and left exactly is and can not be 100 percent pinpointed and this is even stated on the far right page. It's inaccurate to state that people are far right and it should generally be left to desciptions for example:

David Duke is a far right politician --This is stating something that can be debated as a fact and is POV--

David Duke is a nationalist politician who is seen as far right and neo nazi by the ACLU, SPLC etc.

Then you can go on and present the facts below and the reader can determine if this person is far right or not. People do not come to wikipedia just to get a repeat of CNN. You don't need to feed them an opinion/generalization the information can speak for itself and this will greatly improve the quality of wikipedia as the reader will come to their own conclusions.

Jerry Jones 09:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually removed the term "far left" from the British National Party page and you can even verify this if you dont believe me. I think its stupid to use both terms and I definitely believe that the same standard should be applied to far left. I think both terms are ridiculuos. Who determines what far right and left are? Some group of elitist political anaylists? Should we just take everything they say as heart? Can we not think for ourselves anymore? There is a difference between liberal and conservative because these ideologies have a strong base to them which have been built upon for decades and there are many forms which can be confirmed and generally agreed upon by everybody. Nobody disagrees that paleoconservatives support small government, neoconservatives support an interventionist foreign policy, liberals generally support internationalist organizations etc. This is documented and can be verified, it's a fact. There is a difference between saying someone is a conservative, nazi, socialist, liberal etc then saying someone is far left or far right. Just the other day someone said Hitler was far right and it was debated because Hitler supported "National Socialism" which certainly isn't your traditional conservative policy. Communists also believed in Eugenics it wasn't only reserved to "conservatives". This stuff can be debated so for it to be stated as a fact violates wiki NPOV policy.

Jerry Jones 09:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * At the same time that you removed "far left" in regard to a socialist party you added, "The BNP is accused of being far right and neo fascist but they vehemently deny such accusations." I can find no mention of "far right" on the BNP website. On what basis did you add that assertion? -Will Beback 09:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I didnt add any socialist part I just removed the term far left from their page along with far right because both terms are retarded. I added this section to give people an idea of what I want them to do because I was nearly positive someone was going to revert my edits considering I removed a lot from that page so I did it to ensure that my edits would stay. I was hoping for it to be re written in a better way but I just put it there as a draft. The BNP denies being far right but pro British and if you just read their ideology they say this but they do not deny being Nazis and have ties to Nazis and many of their members are Nazis. I also didnt remove the evidence of racism down in the body of the article and other "far right" terms just as long as its not stated as a fact. I think its beneficial to leave the term far right in certain cases and that is why I havent removed every single one.

One primary reason why I believe that its important to remove "far right" from pages is 50-60 years ago you had many parties, ideologies, and organizations that were your standard conservative organizations. They were not considered extreme or far right in any sense. Yet as time progresses and people move away from certain beliefs people start to say this ideology or group is "far right" when it was not considered so 50-60 years ago. It's not good and it certainly doesnt conform to NPOV policy. Who determines what is far right and far left?

Jerry Jones 09:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not a neocon and if you knew anything about neoconservatism you would know that nationalists groups are strongly opposed to it. Will, I only added that sentence as a temporary example because I didnt want to go into a huge edit war and I wanted someone to take a hint and use the format of the sentence and change it. I didnt expect it to stay up for more then a day. Yes, I can find a source but I dont care too. Take it down that wasnt the purpose of me putting it up. I only put it up so people wouldnt revert my other edits.

Jerry Jones 19:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't innaccurate information they do deny being far right. In their minds they are not far right anything because everyone else is so far leftist. Its a POV. So are we pretty much done here?

Jerry Jones 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Corporate fascism
Will, I agree that the corporate fascism page should be as factual as possible and I want to move it in that direction.

However there is now a partisan called Rehpotsirhc who is reverting anything that contradicts his quasi-neocon viewpoint. This will complicate things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panem (talk • contribs).

Sweden Democrats...

 * Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) (SD), founded in 1988 by Leif Zeilon, is a far right Swedish political party. The party describes itself as a nationalist movement and dissociates itself from all forms of totalitarianism and racism. Most reputable observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right and anti-immigrant, including CNN [1], the BBC [2], the Expo Foundation [3], the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [4], and the Stephen Roth Institute [5].

This is from the sweden democrats article. I will show you the edit I made here:


 * Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) (SD), founded in 1988 by Leif Zeilon, is a Swedish political party. The party describes itself as a nationalist movement and dissociates itself from all forms of totalitarianism and racism. Most reputable observers characterize the Sweden Democrats as far-right and anti-immigrant, including CNN [1], the BBC [2], the Expo Foundation [3], the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society [4], and the Stephen Roth Institute [5].

Note how I only removed one term of "far right" and left the other because one is accurate and the other isn't. They state they are far right yet the party denies it. How fair is that? Wikipedia is going to become a joke if this continues and is just going to get a bad reputation.

Jerry Jones 19:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Neo Nazis
I wouldnt need to if wikipedia did its job and delivered things from a NPOV. All I do is remove POV but I leave facts.

Jerry Jones 04:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

JJ is going though all far right organisations and individuals "clensing" them.--Michael Johnson 05:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Thank you for the help with the Edit Summary: box with the article "Illegal immigration to the United States." I would have kept working on it, but it is passed 1:00 a.m. here. I will try and get back to it tomorrow and finish cleaning it up. Maybe it can be removed from the May clean up list. :) Regards: ProfessorPaul 06:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills booster is back
Hi Will. Would you mind keeping an eye on the Anaheim Hills, California article again? The "Anaheim Hills is a city" guy is back and I've already reverted his changes to the article three times today. Also, he tried to remove the mention of his user account from the discussion page. Mike Dillon 02:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I got a nice note from Mr. Original Research on my talk page. I'm going to hold off for a bit before I respond as I don't think this guy has much perspective... He seems to think I wrote the version I keep having to revert to, or that I actually prefer it. In actual fact, I'm trying to preserve the status quo in the absence of properly sourced additions, for what it's worth. Mike Dillon 03:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw your note about the IFD. Thanks. I am thinking about reporting User:Ericsaindon2 at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for repeated vandalism of my user page. Since there are already two admins (you and User:Zzyzx11) involved in the content dispute on Anaheim Hills, California, it may not be necessary. What do you think? Mike Dillon 02:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like there is another copy of Image:Ahills.jpg at Image:Ahills65.jpg. I guess this guy doesn't understand that he isn't going to "win" here. Mike Dillon 02:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not done a darn thing wrong here. Everything is cited, and Mike Dillon keeps reverting it back to the way it was before. Just keep him away from the page, everything is, and has been varified. You can even email the city officials of Anaheim, they will verify all of it for you as for I work with the City of Anaheim as a major part of my day. I just am trying to perfect a page. I dont understand why I need to cite that there is a shopping center in Anaheim Hills when I drive by that shopping center everyday, thats like citing a birthdate or something. Can you and Mike Dillon just leave the article alone. I am sick of the insults and attacks you guys keep portraying on different talk pages. It reads no different from any other page, and has twice the number of citations as many other pages currently have. And I dont think it would be ethical to report me to the Wikipedia people because all I was doing to your page (referring to Mike Dillon) was exactly what you were doing to the page I created. If you call that vandalism, then it was done on both sides. Besides, most of my proof is through the work I do through the City of Anaheim, and verbal communications I have with the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Superintendents almost every day as part of the project I am currently pursuing with all the major governmental bodies in Orange County. You two are no experts on the Anaheim Hills area, I am.-Ericsaindon2


 * Personal information about a topic is not permitted in this encyclopedia. We can use our expertise to identify sources, judge contributions, balance different elements, but we should not put in any facts based only on our own personal knowledge or research. What we should do is verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. In this matter you appear to be insisting that Anaheim Hills is a city in its own right, yet you have not produced any sources for its independence. Nor have you even made reference to a secession movement which seeks cityhood. However, regardles of the facts or details of the article, you cannot simply revert other editors without discussing the issues. This is a collaboration and you need to seek a consensus about the material you want to add. -Will Beback 04:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like User:Ericsaindon2 created a new account after the block: User:Es92808. I noticed it while looking through related changes for List of neighborhoods and unincorporated communities in Orange County. Mike Dillon 02:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, it looks like User:Ericsaindon2 is reverting again from ... Mike Dillon 03:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Diebold
OK, I put in an explicit link to the DES messiness. If Diebold merged with Diehard.... Gzuckier 17:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

US Immigration articles
Thanks very much for your great attitude and help in improving these articles. wallie 22:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Anchor baby
Hi Will, I have been working on the Anchor baby page, and I noticed your change in the first paragraph.

From :

An anchor baby, sometimes jackpot baby, is a pejorative term referring to a child born in the US to illegal immigrants or non-citizens as a means for the parents to attain citizenship or residency rights.

To:

An anchor baby, sometimes jackpot baby, is a pejorative term referring to a child born in the US to illegal immigrants or non-citizens as a means for the child to attain citizenship or residency rights.

The idea is that the child acts as a means to place the parents at the head of the line for XYZ. The child is already guaranteed citizenship. So the first statement would fit the term Anchor Baby; however, the second would not. Or i.e.,

“Tancredo and others who advocate denying automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants describe them as "anchor children," saying that their citizenship enables them to draw generations of family members into the country through family reunification provisions in U.S. immigration policy.”

I am a fan of your work on articles that are inherently POV (as in how you are always the level headed one), just noticed that this one got flipped around a little. Thanks, Brimba 00:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I had never looked at the Anchor baby article until a couple of days ago. I had herd the term before, so I knew what it meant, but never put much thought into it until now. It seems the whole concept of Birthright Citizenship is being danced around in this section, as though the issues being talked about have no legal history, but just developed a few decades (years?) ago. Filling in some background will in itself probably flesh out the article pretty well. With that in mind, breaking off Birth tourism into a separate article would likely be a good thing. Thanks Brimba 01:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!
Hey, thanks much for the barnstar - I try my best! Just trying to poke around and redeem school articles used for defamation and (re)write ones that are woefully inadequete (not just in California!) -- anyhow, thanks much for the barnstar, and more education-pertinent articles will follow. :) -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 03:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a present for you


I think you deserve one too, for trying to keep the articles factual at all times. Wallie 23:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first one
You should be. It's the first one I have ever given out. Wallie 23:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

POV
Whats there to talk about? You are trying to shove POV down the readers throats then you accuse me of POV. I am just trying to make the article fair and non bias then you get your friends to come and stalk every edit I make. If you want wikipedia to be a joke by all means fine but I just think its sad you are destroying what other people tried to build by emulating what wikipedia is supposed to fight against.

Jerry Jones 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's POV to replace a line that says the Nazis were rascists with one that calls them patriots. -Will Beback 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ANyway, the proper place it discuss it is on the article's talk page. Please don't restore your ideosyncratic edits until you've gotten a consensus. -Will Beback 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly didn't make such a change. Please show me if you believe I did.

Jerry Jones 01:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Nazis
ORIGINAL ARTICLE:Nazi racial policy and the Nazi Nuremberg Laws represented some of the most explicit racist policies in Europe in the twentieth century, and culminated in the Holocaust, a systematic murdering of millions of Jews, Gypsies, disabled people and others "undesirables".

I didn't disagree with using the Nazis as an example of racism I disagreed saying carrying racial viewpoints specifically was the reason the holocaust happened. That is a MAJOR POV and this is probably the biggest example I have seen on wikipedia. '''

My change:'''Nazi ideology believed that Jews were controlling the German press and were not patriotic, and were subverting the German government with Bolshevism. takes the NAZI's from being rascists to being patriots. -Will Beback 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I made this edit because the whole article and all of the race articles on wikipedia for that matter just go on and on about racism agaisnt minorities like they are 100 percent innocent and never show the other side. I just tried to make it more balanced. This is hardly saying the Germans were patriots and I was only showing their viewpoint. Putting people in gas chambers even if they are communists is not acceptable. We are never going to learn from history if we hide information and sweep it under the rug. I dont see how adding this sentence is against wiki policy because it's factual and eliminating it would be censorship. Dont you think its strange that the media, schools and every single maintream news source NEVER shows the other side of the story on these types of issues? They only make it seem like one group is racist and other people are 100 percent innocent victims of evil racist oppression from terrible bigots who "hate" them for no other reason except for their skin color. I am just trying to make the article balanced and I would be more then happy to work to make it balanced with you so we can come to an agreement together. I do not have an agenda other then presenting all sides of the story regardless of their perceived radical or inflammatory state and that applies to everything.

Jerry Jones 08:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've responded at Talk:Racism. -Will Beback 08:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR
So its ok for you to ignore wikipedia NPOV policy, keep reverting my edits and then go and blame me for not following wiki policy? LOL.

Jerry Jones 01:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer RfC
I've filed a request request for comment at Requests for comment/Irgendwer and your input would be appreciated. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 05:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User Page Talk Page
Thank you for your concern over the banned editor. I have archived his posts on my talk page for future reference. I reviewed them and he doesnt seem to be harrasing anyone or referencing any articles. The posts are also coming from an anon ip address and I was uninvoloved in the banning action against him. If it is the same person, and he wants to contact an admin about something, I see nothing wrong with that. Kindly cease remving his archived post from my talk page. Thank you. -Husnock 00:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop your edit war on my talk page. I have no knowledge of this banned user of which you speak and have simple archived an old post.  Your constantly removing it is borderline page vandalism. -Husnock 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have no knowledge of the matter then please defer to those of us who do. This is a serious matter and your cooperation would be appreciated. There is no need whatsoever to keep posted that message from Morrow, and there are plenty of reasons to not do so, including policy. Please give us the benefit of the doubt, assume our good faith, and allow us to remove that text from public pages. -Will Beback 01:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, it is okay for any user to delete any posts they want on thier talk page. Users typically clean up talk pages all the time, some archive, some do not. -Husnock 13:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy is clear and this particular incident also has Jimbo's backing. Amorrow may not post anywhere to Wikipedia, edit any Wikipedia article or otherwise assert his presence on Wikipedia. Anywhere. Anytime. It doesn't matter what the substance of those posts are, or whether they're on your or anyone else's talk page. While deference is generally given to users for what they wish to keep on their talk pages, nobody owns their userspace, not even administrators, especially when the information in question is potentially harmful to someone in real life. &middot; Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to my removal of YOUR comment on my talk page. The other banned editor was removed by other editors and that is a closed issue.  I saw you had reinserted several comments you made on the subject after the debate was closed and, after they were removed, had reverted the edit  to reinsert them. -Husnock 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-)
Thanks for the vandalism correction over at Child abuse. Who ever would have thought a website could cost someone so much in real-world negative karma? Thanks for bringing some yin to the table. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 05:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't give me too much credit. I usually revert undescribed deletions by anons, but in this case I did so with reluctance since the material is unsourced and poorly connected. If you're aware of any special problems with Child abuse (too yangy?) then I'd be happy to help you fix it up. Otherwise I'm just trying to keep it from getting worse. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, man! Tranquility Bay was founded by an American citizen, at great extra expense, in Jamaica merely so that it may escape all supervision because Jamaica has virtually no civil laws and is not a signatory of any U.N. resolutions prohibiting child abuse among other things.  These parents will spend $10,000 in just transportation costs to send their children to these camps for 6 months and when you read the reviews on its website they will frequently say: "I thoroughly enjoyed my free time while my child was away" and "they came back completely different! Completely submissive!" Several younger adults have been killed, many have run away only to be trapped in a 3rd world country with no money, the vast majority come back reporting some form of trauma.  Sorry if this is too POV even for a talk page :(  It's really sick that parents will do stuff like this; pay top dollar for professional abuse and systematic demoralization/reprogramming. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 08:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

KP article RFC
You appear to have an interest in the Kaiser Permanente article. I have called an RFC on it and on User:Pansophia in relation to it. Please review it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pansophia  Midgley 16:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a thanks. A guffaw, at the least, is of help in the midst of certain forms of madness, yes? I'm new at Wikipedia, and it doubtless shows, hence my particular thanks for shows of sanity, responsibility, and clarity. It speaks well, it would seem to me, as a new contributor, for the community at large. Fucyfre 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Dickstein
This is the category heading for "Soviet Spies":

This category lists people who were convicted of commiting espionage for the Soviet Union, were convicted of related crimes, confessed to spying, or were documented to the satisfaction of scholars such as Haynes and Klehr as being employed by Soviet intelligence apparatus in files revealed after the Cold War.

This is from the VENONA files. There is no getting around that he was a spy and I am merely complying with the directions of the category and you are accusing me of white washing. Perhaps you should be convicted of vandalizing and commie washing articles.

Jerry Jones 00:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The place to discuss this is Talk:Samuel Dickstein (congressman). Thanks, -Will Beback 00:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

KKK: RE

 * moved to talk:Ku Klux Klan. -Will Beback 01:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Block
Dear Will; Thanks for the word on the blockage, I appreciate you looking it up and trying to help me. Curps is a good soldier and Im sure he makes it for the goodwill of the website.

That one last number I posted was the last of a series of numbers I found,. The person who Curps was blocking was someone who had a name like "Im the Motherfucka Mexican" or someting like that. Broke the naming rule.

Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio Rabbit out of the Hat Martin


 * Dear Will: Thanks for your kind words. I am glad too. At least now I will be able to give Angel Lopez the honor, if you will, of having his name on recent deaths. He designed the dress that helped make Deborah Carthy-Deu Puerto Rico's second Miss Universe winner. Died at 44 of a heart attack. Well, amigo thanks so much and God bless you! Hope to hear from you asap!. Sincerely yours Antonio Type Writing Machine Martin


 * Dear Will: My condolences for your loss and I hope the services you will attend soon go as well as things can in these situations. As for me amd Mr. Lopez, he wasn't a personal loss, but rather a notable countryman of mine who achieved a level of importance so yeah I thought he shouldn't go unnoticed. The three deaths that made me real sad this week were that of Soraya, the Colombian singer who had apparently beateb Breast Cancer but later on was re-diagnosed, Jorge Porcel, the Argentine who was hilarious in his heyday, and Floyd Patterson, a gentleman like boxing had never seen before. He actually signed two items for me about 10 years ago. Well, God bless you! Your friend, Antonio Don Omar Martin

User:AmazingRacist
Hi, someone with Admin powers needs to take a look at this individuals editing. Probably a blocked user on a vandalism rampage. He/she knows the system, and knows enough to place comments into the Edit Summery box that makes the edits look legit at first glance. Anyway, the contributions when looked at speak for themselves. Sorry to dump it on you, but …:0 San Saba 11:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What the??? What pages have I vandalised? I'm currently trying to get the page which was at Missing Protestor unvandalised myself! I haven't the foggiest idea what is going on here. Can someone please look into what has happened to this page? --AmazingRacist 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Elijah Mohammad
Will Beback said: "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -Will Beback 03:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elijah_Mohammad"

Why did you revert my article....that was a legitimate article....what was wrong with it?

User:Elijah Mohammad
Will Beback said: "Our article concerns the famous Elijah Mohammad, not non-notable people by the same name. -Will Beback 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)"

There is no famous Elijah Mohammad (unless you think that the large volume of viewers of my internet sites makes me famous).....there is a famous Elijah Muhammad....but his name is spelled differently, with a "u" instead of an "o" and there is an article about him listed under the correct spelling of his name. Why should he get two pages with differently spelled names, where the incorrectly spelled version is only a link to the correctly spelled one?


 * If you're not famous then why should we have an article, or even a mention of you? Elijah Muhammad (thanks for the correction) is sufficiently famous, and the name is sufficiently rare among English-speakers, that he merits the a redirect from the misspelling. If there are other notable persons with the same or similar name then we should think about a dismbiguation notice or page. -Will Beback 07:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dante7777
No problem from me. --pgk( talk ) 09:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura/Bi-Digital O-Ring Test
This same adherent is now 'improving' the entry for both the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test and for Yoshiaki Omura, making them billboards, imho. Has Wikipedia any effective way of dealing with this sort of conduct by a lunatic fanatic? Yes, I'm new. Fucyfre 14:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Illegal Immigration in the US
I notice that you are cleaning up the article, and removing some of the unstructured waffle. Great stuff! It seems to be improving, and there are not to many edit wars, which is very good. 20:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing Protestor
Why did you delete this article? --222.117.17.200 12:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why did you write it? -Will Beback 21:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Jerry Jones//User:JJstroker
I'm getting tired of his Jew-obsession, Nazi-defending, and lying; what's the next step? Jayjg (talk)

EDIT RESOLVE PLEASE WITH JERRY JONES
You are really breaking NPOV policy by removing "far right" and "far left" from every article. Please read this: Courtesy of wiki NPOV "Under Examples" '''

'''Let the facts speak for themselves Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:'''

'''You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.'''

This is the same exact thing for the word racist and breaks wiki NPOV policy. It takes away from the article to say "The KKK was a racist"

What I am telling you to do is not even state the word racist as a fact because no matter how obvious it might be its still a viewpoint. I have read a lot about KKK history and it was a mainstream political movement in history and not everyone was racist I assure you. What I am telling you is to show why they are racist with facts. I do not object to that. If you want to post prominent member quotes of using the N word and lynching people go ahead. I dont care because its valuable information. I just think it takes away from the article to say "The KKK was racist" and it makes it extremely amauter and removes content quality. The same thing goes for saying if something is "far right". What I object about that is on virtually all of the leftist group articles not one is listed as "far left" and "radical" or "extremist". Not even for the communist party USA but every single non mainstream right group is labeled as far right. You cant apply different standards to different articles. I want to resolve this once and for all.

1-You either let me remove far right and let information speak for itself like NPOV tells us to do, or I will go to every leftist article which I think is far left along with the populic opinion from conservative groups and label them far left. I really hope I dont have to do this because

1- Its retarded 2- It breaks wiki NPOV policy 3- It makes the articles seem amatuer 4- Its a viewpoint of mine and just because its common viewpoint among conservatives it doesnt mean its right. I would rather have the information speak for itself.

You are really breaking wiki NPOV policy. You accuse me of right washing articles but the only reason is because its not necessary to do it for leftist articles because its already been covered. Now I would appreciate if you follow NPOV and actually see what I am saying and no I am not right washing articles. If you want me to put far left on every single non mainstream left group determined by a group of conservatives I will but I really hope it wont have to come down to that because its stupid and breaks wiki rules on so many levels. You cant just pick what policy you want to follow for certain articles and ignore it for others. You either follow through with all articles or dont do it.

Jerry Jones 22:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

plagiarism...
What did I plagarize? Care to point it out?

Jerry Jones 06:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nuerenger is cited in the disputed paragraph. If I tried to pass it off as my own I wouldnt have cited him or added the reference. Is that not allowed? I can put it in my own words but I didnt think it was a problem because I cited it as Nuerengers work and not my own.

Jerry Jones 07:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Disingenuosuly, you pretend not to know the answer to your question. Pinkville 00:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's see, the only question I asked was "Do you deny it?" I really did not know whether the editor would confirm, deny, or weasel around the question. As it happens, he chose the latter. -Will Beback 00:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's kind of weasel and deny - you gotta two-for! Pinkville 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I interpret it as an admission that he copied the text, along with a weasel that the copying wasn't really plagiarism because the author himself had copied the original author. He does get points for advanced sophistry. -Will Beback 00:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not too many points, I hope. Pinkville 01:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How can you accuse me of plagarism when Nuerenger is cited in the disputed paragraph and I added Nuerenger as a reference? If I wanted to plagarize the work I wouldn't have cited Nuerenger or let alone add him as a reference. I don't see the problem. Jerry Jones 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are eight instances of plagiarism that I've found. You've (sort of) explained one. But that doesn't explain why virtually the entire article, Immigration Act of 1924, is copied from other sources. -Will Beback 18:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * When you quote material (word-for-word) without using quotation marks you are passing the quoted material off as your own writing - even if you add a parenthetical citation. That is plagiarism. Pinkville 19:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in re Omura/BDORT
Just wanted to say, thanks, for my part, for your efforts in the Omura/BDORT enry. Fucyfre 20:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

American System
The criteria you set up at the end of each sentence is based upon your limited view of "American System" pertaining to Clay's actual plan. Further, the criteria does not take into consideration that the "American System" was a continuation of the "Hamiltonian" or "American School" of economic thought that developed under Hamilton's, Raymond's, List's, Carey's (father and son) et. al. We are, I think, speaking of two different things. The observation about 'economic nationalism' however does open a possible solution over definition to suit the purpose of presenting facts pertaining to American economic history per the Hamiltonian wing of economic thought that competed with the Jeffersonian or British School/System advocated by the opposite party prior to and afte the Civil War. That "Hamiltonian"-"American School"-"American System"-"National System"-"German Historic School"-"Protective System" was embraced by Washington then Adams then Clay then Lincoln and the GOP until 1932 and reformed slightly by FDR and maintained afterward by his successors until the Free Market/Free Trade era began in 1973 according to Batra and others. I am willing to move the host of the material pertaining to the "American System" in its broad definition (also called National System and Protective System at times) to an "American School" page and leave there at the "American System" that which pertains to the narrow definition applying to Clay alone and his plan even if I disagree based on citations already given to nameing with your narrow definition. What are your thoughts? --Northmeister 01:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia in literature
Hi there

Just read your post on my additions to the page. I read the FAQ etc on original research and thought that I was in line with Wiki guidelines:

"An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments" : I'm certainly not putting foreward any ideas/arguments

" research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged" : All I have done is pull extracts from the articles on each book from Wikipedia. Nothing new is added.

"We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic." : I have naturally read all the books that I have referred to, and the statements are naturally all verifiable from the source books (all on Wikipaedia).

I did consider adding a couple of paragraphs to each book in the long list but thought it would be more helpful in an encycopaedia article to write it as I have.

over to you!!

Tony Sandel

Inhofe Amendment
There is a new special article on Inhofe Amendment. It seems to me biased supporting English-only and it makes to articles whcih critisize this point og view. It also lacks accurancy by not stating that an oppsite amendement was voted shortly after. I do not know enough about the categorization and the articles of the english wikipedia and I do not also have enough local knoledge to fix it, so I am asking you to take a look.--Michkalas 20:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please try this out
I am asking you to not edit American System (economic system) for a little while. Maybe a week? And not to directly or indirectly address Northmeister during that undetermined time period. I am not asking for anything other than simply give it a try, see what happens, talk to me on my talk page about what is or is not properly sourced on the article. While you watch rather than otherwise, I will work with Northmeister and see if progress can be made in making sure everything in the article is Verifyable, NPOV, and Not Original Research. My intent at this moment is that everything you find questionable is to go into some other article (I don't care which). So, do nothing. Watch. Let's try this out. Thanks. WAS 4.250 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's in your hands. Thanks for helping. -Will Beback 17:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Troubling patterns of edits and what to do about them
Hi, can you drop by my user talk page? User:ObsidianOrder and User:Omegatron are very upset over my recent activity correlating anon edits with each other and in some cases suggesting real life identities to explain a concern about possible conflicts of interest. Obsidian is threatening to ArbCom me and Omegatron seems to believe that I posted personal contact information which is absolutely not true. ---CH 22:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

David R. Hawkins
I found another source of dubious distinction that Hawkins is claiming (I put the note under the Hawkins discussion page). I think we should add something about these dubious sources of credibility - the Ph.D. being a diploma mill is noted, though there is nothing about the knighthood and "foremost teacher" claim still, as we have discussed before. Now I've found that his website is boldly claiming that he is so great, as backed up by his Marquis Who's Who entry, a bunk reference book. It seems this pattern could be pointed out in a proper way. It just seems endless - the more I find out, the more ridiculous his claims become. I do not know how to proceed, and you may not feel it is possible to add anything regarding this pattern of bogus claims, but wanted your opinion. It seems to me that if it could be added properly and with respect, it could be a public service. Thanks! --66.31.144.141 00:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, take a look at Narcissistic personality disorder, which cult experts believe Hawkins suffers from (once this information is made more formally known, I will add reference to it possibly, and certainly web links). The first of the criteria for NPD seems to fit pretty well: "has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)" Interesting, right? Take care, looking forward to hearing your response. Thanks!--66.31.144.141 01:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:198.31.189.120
Hi You previously blocked this user. I am not sure how to do it but they seem to be doing more of the same.Paul E. Ester 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage
Hi Will. I came across User talk:WBardwin while perusing Category:Requests for unblock. It looks like your block of User:Es92808 accidentally autoblocked a bunch of AOL IP addresses he had been using, causing other users to be affected. I think this was the source of the "unaffiliated user" being blocked that User:Ericsaindon2 was talking about. I don't know enough about "autoblocking" to know if that's the case. Mike Dillon 01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jones, et al
I may die, reading these and the related entries! Your composure and patience are most remarkable. Pinkville 03:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

SameachMusic Podcast
Hello Will. Sorry if this is stupid, but I changed your speedy to a prod, because a7 doesn't apply to programs does it?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake "read the bio"
Ooops, you're right, silly me. ---CH 22:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Persian sentiments
So we have quite an AfD debate for Anti-Persian sentiments. Do you think you could throw in your opinion or mediate? We need a big gun to come in and throw his weight around. Too many "fluffy" arguments. Thanks. Adambiswanger1 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Spam rollback
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.81.150.49 spammed a commercial link across many pages. Can you roll it back?--Paul E. Ester 13:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills:What a Controversial Page It has Been
This is used on another community page, Ladera Ranch, Mission Viejo, California, so why cant this little thing go on the Anaheim Hills page. Anaheim Hills has 10 times the people as Ladera Ranch, and the box is on a community page, not on a city page afterall. Plus it isnt clunky like the others were, its small, compact, and right to the point. --Ericsaindon2 02:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because you promised not to addit without a consensus, that's why. -Will Beback 03:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And cant we remove the protection thing at the top of the Anaheim Hills page? I mean the only person that you are trying to block the page from is me, and now that I am unblocked, there is no reason to block it from editing by forgein parties. --Ericsaindon2 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the protection, but understand that we won't tolerate mischief. -Will Beback 03:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Compact ways of making my point
True. However, other times I've made similar headers, I've been unpleasantly suprised by people voicing support under them. Sometimes it's useful to give people space to say stupid things. - brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that providing people with places to say stupid things helps the project. -Will Beback 23:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because, in the vast majority of cases, once a person has commited to black photons something, then we can actually deal with that in a positive manner. If, to use this example, someone comes out and says, "Yes, I'd like to see a dead-cat at the end of this."  Than we can talk about that.  "How does this realate to 'cat powers", "Do we still believe that they are held to the much higher standard?" "We don't take away sysop that often and never over community outrage, would this be the start of that?" etc.  It's better than the idiotic "vote over rhetoric" slugfest that passes for a normal RfC. -  brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)