User talk:Will Beback/archive50

Hey
I saw that you were interested in Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks as you added a comment to the proposal discussion. I total agree that we really need to ignore the special cases and focus on something concrete... and this is in fact why I'm here! We have some policy text we are formulating here, would you be able to provide some feedback? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing Content
Will,

Is there any way we can work in Word format when editing text collaboratively so that we can use track changes? I am finding it difficult to copy and paste the same text repeatedly, having to spend an inordinate amount of time cleaning up formatting.

Can we attach our suggested changes in a Word document with track changes turned on or in a redlined PDF document? Thanks for any advice on this subject. LoreMariano (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for info on WikEd! Can't wait to try it when I get some time.


 * Am I supposed to be doing something with respect to resolving dispute, outside of continuing efforts to edit on Drafts page? LoreMariano (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lindsay Ashford (activist)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Lindsay Ashford (activist). 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/Lindsay Ashford (activist). 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) 01:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Primal Therapy
Done. Sure I need an hour or two with WP:MOS!. Thank you!. If you have time take also a look at the texts I added at Primal Therapy because English is my second language and sometimes I write (and talk) funny. Have a good day Randroide (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Gah... too much snark
Will, sorry about the snarky comment. I've apologised on the talk page also. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources Page/Talk
Dear Will--Sorry I'm new to this. Went through and cut one poetry review, but it is hard to cut more becuase: (1) principles of the philosophy that are expressed in the article have to be sourced, (2) these principles are implicit in the poetry, (3)reviews dealing with the poetry express an opinion of the person, his art, and the philosophy. I want to make this as clear as possible, but I think it would do a disservice to those referring to the source page for editing to remove more than I have. Is it absolutely necessary to create a separate page? Thanks in advance--D.Trouver. Trouver (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Religious movements founded since 1950
curious-- please explain on talk p. what's incorrect, and what it duplicates.--I think a chronological list would be useful

NRM MOS language proposal
Will,

I thought you might be interested in looking over a section draft I put together for the New Religious Movement manual of style (WP:NRMMOS). I added a section on Language; basically, it's just a compilation of existing wiki policies on using jargon, slang, technical terms, etc. applied to the NRM field. Let me know if you have any thoughts. 71.224.204.226 (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Now what?
CheckUser User:Dominic has now confirmed what everyone suspected about the Fairfield/MUM/TM Org sockdrawer. What's the next step?Fladrif (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, –MuZemike 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Early political career of Sarah Palin
Did you mean to revert this edit of mine? I ask because I commented on both edits on the talk page but you only responded to the NYT related edit. Here is my talk page entry on the edit in question. Bonewah (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Warnborough College
There is no connection that I am aware of. My first edits at Wikipedia began in Feb 2008 at the Warnborough College article. I spent a term there over 35 years ago when it was brand new. I have no idea whatsoever what TG's interest in that article is or was. About a year later I was curious what other articles the Warnborough editors like TG and Orlady were editing, and dipped a toe in a couple of them. My first comment on the TM article was on a talk page thread on whether a Neutrality Tag should be removed and opined, as a complete outsider with no axes to grind and no interest in either the subject matter or in editing the article, that the article did not appear to be neutral. About a month later, I made the mistake of looking more closely at the substance of what was going on in the TM article, pointed out that there were some very serious problems with highly problematic and apparently coordinated editing to exclude reliable sources and to misrepresent others Within days  I started up a new thread a COIN. Perhaps I should have stuck with my first instinct that it wasn't an article that I had any interest in editing.Fladrif (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand
Hi, Will. You wrote this: "@Timidguy: Logged out edits show that some editors have used IPs registered directly to the Maharishi University of Management (MUM). Using the MUM network, and perhaps using MUM computers, while asserting that one has no conflict of interest regarding MUM strains credulity. Is it possible to be a member of the 57-person faculty of MUM and be neutral about it, its research, or its cause? That has yet to be proven. It's worth noting that LISCO, the ISP which supplies MUM and WP editors with their Internet access, is also owned by a TM practitioner.[92] Will Beback  talk  09:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)"

I'm confused. Where did I assert that I don't have a conflict of interest? Where in my statement did I speak about other editors? I simply explained why an IP assigned to me at some point might also have been assigned to another editor at some point by virtue of Lisco's DHCP server and the fact that there is a small pool of IP numbers for those who use Lisco. TimidGuy (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your reponsse:


 * "TG, my comment was not limited to you, sorry if it gave that impression. Will Beback  talk  19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)"


 * You/re not giving an impression. You're explicitly attributing it this to me by saying "@TimidGuy." I have never edited Wikipedia from the MUM network. I have never asserted that no one has a conflict of interest. Your statement in unrelated to what I said in my statement or elsewhere. Please could you fix it? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You write: "TG, you gave an extended discussion of your IP usage, much of which I assume applies to other editors of the TM articles from Fairfield since they are all using the same networks. Since LISCO provides internet access to MUM, it isn't always clear which IPs are specifically registered to MUM versus the non-fixed IPs given out to dial-up, DSL, or cable modems. In any case, I said that 'Logged out edits show that some editors have used IPs registered directly to the Maharishi University of Management (MUM).' That is true. 'Using the MUM network, and perhaps using MUM computers, while asserting that one has no conflict of interest regarding MUM strains credulity.' Do you think that's true or not? 'Is it possible to be a member of the 57-person faculty of MUM and be neutral about it, its research, or its cause?' I know that you believe it is possible, even though you've deleted well-soured negative material and added poorly sourced positive material. It's hard to believe that the nine editors from Fairfield, at least a few of whom are on the faculty of MUM, do not know each other in real life, and it's apparent that there is off-Wiki communication related to the project. If I'm wrong please say so. Will Beback talk  10:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)"

What I said applied to me. You have accused me of using a sock puppet or of being a sock puppet. I was explaining why the checkuser evidence against doesn't prove that. I wasn't talking about any of these other things. Why are you raising truth statements that are unrelated to my statement? Please can you fix this. Just remove "@TimidGuy" at the beginning so it doesn't say that I asserted these things. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "I'd be quite happy to fix any errors, and I'm sorry that I don't see the error here. My recollection is that many, though not all, of the Fairfield TM editors have denied having a conflict of interest and/or have claimed to be neutral. Do you consider yourself neutral? If so then the message I wrote seems to apply. I recall you saying that there were no neutral editors on the topic, but I assume you were excepting yourself. Is that correct? Will Beback  talk  11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)"

Your error was addressing a comment specifically to me that didn't apply to me, since I've never asserted that I don't have a conflict of interest. You had a chance to correct the problem and you didn't. I feel like this is an example of dishonesty. I may use it as evidence in Arbocm. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

John Birch Society
I took a new stab at the first sentence with your suggestions in mind. I also left a note in the talk page. Take a look and tell me what you think.UberCryxic (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question
Hi Will. I have a quick question regarding attaching PDFs to the talk page. Is it allowed? We are struggling with a finding an easy way to view hard coded cites and I thought maybe we could just PDF original text w/coded cites.....As you know, cites are being viewed on the article page; on the talk page; on the drafts page; back on the talk page; etc. It's driving me a little nuts. Can we just PDF? Thanks in advance for any advice. LoreMariano (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but adding the reflist didn't solve the problem. There was an original ref list that was copied and pasted more than once on the Talk page, and the original cite numbers were relisted as new numbers; then it was pasted on the Drafts page and I think they came through as numbers only, not actual links; then the new text + cites were pasted again on the Talk page....in summary, the numbers now are all wrong....I think IP 71 is right in saying that it's not such a big issue with this section, but in the future, we need to figure out a better way of moving text from page to page and retaining the cite numbers and corresponding list. LoreMariano (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)  PS: Can I put a link to this comment on IP 71's talk page?  Sorry to be such a pain.  LoreMariano (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good to know. Thanks, we'll use that method in the future. LoreMariano (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

FUCKWIKIPEDOS.FU
Regarding your comment at WP:AN — how did they acquire your email address? Do you think I have any reason to worry about my email address being used this way? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks; I'd expected that this was it, but I wanted to check. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Need look at Multi-level_marketing talk page
I am having an issue with an editor known as User:Insider201283 on the talk page and have noticed you and several other editors had called him on WP:COI issues regarding specific MLM and I seem to be having the same problem with him on MLMs in general. Since you are an administrator I would like you to take a look at his antics on the Talk:Multi-level marketing page as I am rapidly reaching my limit and he doesn't seem to do anything but put roadblocks up to actually improving the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism sources question
Will, things seem to be going well so far with the AR sections. Looking ahead to the cult sections, I'm curious if the statements of ex-members, published at Steven Hassan's Freedom of Mind website or Michael Bluejay's website would ever be suitable for use (obviously as primary sources)? I assume Wiki policy would discourage this, but there seems to be a moderate understanding between sides on the issue to reasonably accommodate clearly attributed primary sources.71.224.206.164 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Signature
Thank you for your advice, although I can only say sorry regarding my colour co-ordination.  Tuckerj1976 talk 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Chaton0602
Thank you very much for your message. If it interests you, have a look on my user page on the French Wikipedia : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Chaton0602

Chaton0602 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Weekend
Looks like the gatekeeper (at SP) has given you the weekend off. Enjoy your freetime.--Buster7 (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)