User talk:Will Beback/archive52

Question about sourcing
Can statements made by the subject of a BLP captured on video on YouTube be used as a source? Maria202 (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ruben Studdard was on AI last night and announced the tour. It's not up on his web page yet but it is on Clay Aiken's.  I wanted a source from both but it's not up on Ruben's official site yet.  I understand about the copyright issue, that's why I asked before I used it.  Maria202 (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are lots of secondary sources now but it's good to know about the YouTube and episode info. Thanks.Maria202 (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

About deletion of Natural Stress Relief
Please read my comment on theTalk Page related to the Deletion page of the article Natural Stress Relief. Thanks. Fabrizio Coppola, Istituto Scientia, April 1, 2010, 18:30 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.206.19 (talk)

Network 21 AfD
Will, I've made significant changes and updates to the Network TwentyOne article since the AfD was submitted. I've outlined the types of sources now used and reasons why it passes WP:CORP on the AfD page and I'd appreciate it if you could review them and consider your position. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out on the talk page on the AfD all these sources seem to have problems with WP:CORP. The entire notability of this company seems to hinge on either passing references, overseas non-English publications, blogs, local rather than international references, WP:OR, and WP:SYN.  While we are on the topic of AfD could you start one on the PearC article?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Insider asked me to take a look at this AfD. I hope you understand that I am a neutral party, and I am only participating in it because I have worked with the two of you in the past. As I mentioned in the discussion, I believe that this article's references are being held to a higher standard that 95% of the encyclopedia's references are. I also understand that because of the promotional nature of these types of organizations, greater scrutiny is required and is generally a positive thing. But in this case, it seems to be being taken to extremes. I would suggest that you look back over the information with fresh eyes, as I have just done. You remember what the article looked like before. Look at it now, and see if you still think it looks as terrible, or if the modifications and supposed improvements haven't made it "good enough" to deserve to remain here. Comparing it to other articles I've edited, it seems pretty darn good and extremely well sourced. Not having examined the sources directly, I am not saying the sources themselves are good, but it sounds like there are enough good ones mixed in with questionable ones, that the article should not be deleted. If you disagree with my assessment, that's fine. I just wanted to be sure that you were focusing on the current article, not whatever it looked liked when you first nominated it. Also, I am happy to serve as an independent set of eyes anytime you might need some. :-) Hope you are doing well. &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 02:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking for your advice
Will, I would like to keep the AR article moving along and I notice you said at one point I should inform people the re-write was on the Drafts page (I thought this was obvious to everybody, and frankly was surprised that I received comments only from you). So what is the proper way to do this?--should I post a comment on the Talk page informing people that the entire re-write is posted on the Drafts page? Then, as individual sections are approved they can be moved to the main page? I am not the only editor involved in this re-write, and while I have attempted to address some of the questions you raised about "my" sections, there are others I haven't gotten to yet. Thanks for your direction and understanding.Trouver (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

SPLC Link
The link I changed in the SPLC article went to a major website by the David Horowitz Freedom Center foundation. Horowitz is an academic and a prolific author and would know better than to violate copyrights by not getting reprint permission first for articles on his website. Do you have evidence that the article is in violation of copyright? If so, then obviously the link has to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 01:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Are we boring?
Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

With all the Internet going basically nuts over copyrights and copyfrauds, you would think that there would be more than one editor and one administrator/editor to talk out how it applies to the Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

TM case sock
You'd be interested in this: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Workshop  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, care to archive some of this talk page ;-)  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do! What's the point of me having your page on my watchlist if it won't load and I thus can't wikistalk everything that happens? ;) AGK 18:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Some questions
Hi, Will. I seem to recall that there's a guideline that says not to duplicate blocks of material in multiple articles. Do you know of such? The most recent instance is Kala's copying a section of the TM-Sidhi article and putting it in the TM article. Fladrif has also tended to do this, duplicating material in the Hagelin and TM-Sidhi articles, for example. Curious if you recall there being a guide line that mentions this. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to reply. If you can tell me who those editors were, I'll point out the guideline to them as well, once I find it.
 * I have another question. I really like the archive bot on the TM talk page. But I'd like to keep the Hendel thread from being archived as I research it further. Is there a tag that can do that, or do I have to keep adding a comment occasionally to make sure it doesn't appear inactive? Thanks.TimidGuy (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Will, for your most recent reply. Hadn't realized it was kosher to move a discussion from an archive back to a talk page. And yet another, tangential, question if you don't mind. You once said that Google Scholar is an imperfect citation index. Am curious about that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

whose payroll are you on?
your dedication to slandering the Birch society (using SPLC links and David Gergen quotes as evidence!) smack of extreme bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectard (talk • contribs)

Jargon
Thanks for the kind words... and it was a pleasure to help. Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

About Mustafa Kemal ATATURK page

Hey i believe we can contact you with this page,i am new at Wikipedia and became member cause became angry when see this

. Mustafa's father was Albanian, and his mother was Macedonian,[3]

Both of his parents were Turkmen today his relatives are living in Konya/Karaman and they are Yoruks,a Turkish history magazine give info about Ataturks background too,in Turkish http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/12833636.asp

I hope someone gonna change this mistake,i believe this page edited from a Turkish hater or something again. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulytau666 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright & uploading images
Hello Will, Thank you for your prompt attention. You could assume that it is Emy Kat uploading his images using this account, therefore, it was better that he attest his own images, "I (Emy Kat) created this work entirely by myself."would you like him to send you an email to confirm that he is the copyright owner of those images ? I am also quite new to this and I have taken notes on your advise regarding sources, previously editors have asked to make a clean up and I did help clean up, can you check now and let me know if you approve? much obliged. --♥Chita1234♥ 08:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chita1234 (talk • contribs)

Yes, i understand, it can confuse one. I hope now its clear ? or do you still need the artist to send you an email to confirm his copyright ? as for reference, I will take a stab at it again and will let you know once completed. what is your advise in DOB, shall i get a copy of a document that shows DOB from artist and send you ? or remove DOB ? what is your advise ? --♥Chita1234♥ 09:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chita1234 (talk • contribs)

Hi will, Here is the link of where his name is mentioned, please et me know how would you prefer i do this. Thanks a million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Institute#Notable_alumni.2C_faculty.2C_and_students --♥Chita1234♥ 08:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear will, I have done some work on the article Emy Kat and completed editing the article as per your recommendations. I am grateful that you have drawn my attention to help improve this article. I have to admit with your coaching, its looking much better. Please take a look and let me know if you have any comments. Thanks again and have an excellent day.--♥Chita1234♥ 16:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Will Beback for taking a look. I appreciate all your kind assistance. --♥Chita1234♥ 10:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgotten something?
I don't see much difference to the lead since Yorkshirian added text which you said was a misrepresentation of the source? Thanks. 2 lines of K 303  13:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You brought it up during the Yorkshirian ban discussion. I don't know anything about the subject, unless you can get access to the source again it might be best just to remove the addition from the lead and just summarise the article using what's already sourced there? 2 lines of K  303  12:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

don't be too gullible
Compared to the anonymous editor I'm a more established editor. And if it concerns addition that seriously besmirch the character of the subject you should put more weight on the verifiability of the source. How can you be sure 1. that the entries were exactly as written in the supposed source; and 2. they weren't taken out of context? Think! Conrad940 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Would like AFD for MacScoop
I would like a afd for MacScoop article as the site now directs to Silicon Rumors which has numerous 'Warning Cannot modify header information errors, the most recent article in its Active forum topic is dated 12-28-2008, and the text was a verbatim repeat (including the references) of what was in the Apple community page (ie it provide no additional information warranting a separate page). It might qualify under ''G6. Technical deletions'' for speedy deletion due to original verbatim nature but I'm not sure so I didn't apply the tag.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also like an afd on 9 to 5 Mac as it doesn't add anything that is not already in the Apple community and since nothing of note has been added to the PearC link can we go to afd on that as well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI
You might want to weigh in here. --causa sui (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate this fix
Thanks, Will. I appreciate this.. I've left a note on Kala's Talk page quoting the relevant portion of WP:TALK. And thanks for trying to resolve the dispute by suggesting mediation. TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

LA Neighborhood move reqs
Dropping 12 characters you don't really need seems like a good idea, right? That's what I said. I went about it in the standard RM way...only I had to make five different for the neighborhoods that just couldn't be straight non-admin moved because of 20-page bundle limitations. The first neighborhood request Talk:Angelino Heights, Los Angeles only had four participants in over a week (all ayes), but that's three users more than it needed. Four of them are going on right now Talk:Bunker Hill, Los Angeles, California, Talk:Harbor City, Los Angeles, California, Talk:Miracle Mile, Los Angeles, California and Talk:Van Nuys, Los Angeles, California. Feel free to participate, and notify whomever about it. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken)  (Trails blazed)  23:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I started your thread at Talk:Los Angeles. I am a bit peeved that you consider a 4-0 discussion on the oldest, if the not the biggest, neighborhood in Los Angeles "no consensus".  I'm hoping I can have you on board for this proposal. I've invested a lot of time in this endeavour.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Trails blazed)  23:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, on a somewhat unrelated note, what I said to Granucci about neighborhood naming conventions on Talk:Harbor City, Los Angeles, California is correct, isn't it? 03:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Matthew C. Perry
I moved it to Matthew Calbraith Perry because there are at least 2 famous Matthew Perrys, the most famous from Friends. Just wanted to make a significant difference. Qotsa37 (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

MCP Move
Okay, I wasn't sure if it was necessary. Thanks for helping. :) Qotsa37 (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Disagreeing with edits is not vandalism. Adding CANADA to Ontario is not vandalism. How is this the encyclopedia anyone can edit if YOU decide what to TRIM with no reason whatsoever?

"You broke the link." What "link?" How about responding to the above?

I didn't mean to break the link. It was not done on purpose for intention to break the link. Ontario isn't a country, what if an article just said Evansville? How would anyone know where it was?

Unrelated to that entry- Is wikipedia running out of space? Why trim things with no explantion?

Verdugo
Will, I assume we are talking about the use of accents. I have been paying as much attention to Wiki naming conventions as I should - especially with all these Spanish names I have been working on with the California Ranchos. I have generally observed that that the "good" "authoritative" references use the Spanish spelling (accents). I personally have no preference.Emargie (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW
Look at the Soldier section of Verdugo's article. It has Mexicoto encoded or wikilinked to Mexico yet I can't find the code. I added a section on this. I have to leave. Thanks for your observation my talkpage. I left a note about two articles I recently worked on. I am proud of both. I hope you can tell I am not upset and not trying to "be in anyone's face". As an editor, I visited a page; saw a discrepancy and acted upon it. I hope my replies on Verdugo's talkpage are not taken in the wrong way. Ronbo76 (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification
Could you please clarify your opposition to topic ban Mathsci? Specifically these 2 questions:


 * 1) Did you give Mathsci a license to use WQA as a battleground (by importing unrelated disputes about uninvolved users) as he has here?
 * 2) Were you of the view that Mathsci is not the worst offender and should not be the first/only user sanctioned? Or were you of the view that everyone except Mathsci should take a break from the dispute? Or were you of some other view?

Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The comments in this exchange should provide more background, and the last comment should touch on what it is I'd like. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Amen to that - I too hope that this is resolved before arbitration is necessary! (Ironically, that's what I thought you meant too, but I started doubting myself after reading Mathsci's interpretation which seemed to suggest something more along the lines of "if my conduct deteriorates, it's justified by admins who commented there".) In any case, thank you for the sanity check. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

More on LA Neighborhood Move Requests
The ones at Bunker Hill, Harbor City, Miracle Mile, and Van Nuys come due tomorrow. I'd appreciate it if you left a note somewhere asking them not to be closed until there's been a week's worth of discussion at you centralized discussion at Talk:Los Angeles. Thanks, Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 19:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Following Wiki policies
I'd rather go the Wiki route. You know, the one where a sentence that is inserted into the lead with out consensus and offers new contentious info not found in the article is removed. I'm not interested in your suggestion where you leave the faulty sentence and then seek to ad faulty material to justify it. And please don't distort my argument as you do when you cannot understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momento (talk • contribs)