User talk:Will Beback/archive53

AN/I

 * Hello. This is to inform you that there currently is a discussion here regarding the issues of edit warring, canvassing, vote-stacking, and BLP/defamation (not by you) at the Emerson article, which you have edited today.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from John Eastman (Ohio politician)
Hello Will Beback, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to John Eastman (Ohio politician) has been removed. It was removed by Gorrad with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Gorrad before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Move comment?
Hi, Will. Any chance you can move this comment to the thread above titled AHRQ and NPOV, where this section of the article is being discussed, rather than having it in the thread where Savlonn has opened a discussion of the lead? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

TM teacher
The article says "Those who became TM teachers or held other positions within the movement are marked with an asterisk [*]." The asterisk can denote several things. I am working on refs. --BwB (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

TMM Source
This just pisses me off. That passage was properly footnoted, and somebody f***ed up the references trying to reformat them. Yes, it is sourced: Gurus in America at pp 68  and 78(fn 36)

The identical information re Chopra is also found at page 31 of the Aug 14, 1995 New York Magazine article

BTW, the first draft from ArbCom appears to have emboldened the Fairfield contingent to deluge the various TM articles with unbelievably tendatious nonsense in the apparent belief that they have been, or are about to be vindicated. You appear to be neck-deep in it, but I really have neither the time nor inclination to deal with this, particularly since I'm apparently the only person misbehaving. Fladrif (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply
I freely confess that I have a very short fuse when it comes to changes which are made to LGBT relevant content. There are quite a few editors who use all the tools available here to them to edit and change any content which doesn't fit in with their particular version of Christianity. It annoys me and, yes, you're right, I should assume "good faith". Except, well, just - where is the good faith when somebody just storms in and starts rewriting texts to match their own version of reality? That is hardly NPOV. I'm going to leave it be for the moment because as things stand now, we would otherwise just very quickly end in an edit war. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept Off2riorob changing everything around which is independently verifiable and doesn't please him. So yes, guilty as charged - and, yes, Off2riorob is obviously coming at this from anything but a NPOV while also doing his best to defend his alterations with the newbie argument. Rather ironic, no? I'm the one using the talk page while he just storms on in and does what he likes with no discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 22:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please block this?
The anon user 203.84.189.136 and his sockpuppets for repeated vandalism and inserting libellous statements and lies in BLP. Thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.231.85 (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion re: Conservapedia
Thank you, Will Beback. I have been posting to the KAL 007 article on Conservapedia http://www.conservapedia.com/Korean_Airlines_Flight_007 and sometimes paralleling what I have been posting on Wikipedia. I do know (electronically) Ed Poor and he has been helpful. thanks again for suggestionBert Schlossberg (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Abercrombie & Fitch
There is a wikipedia user who is dismanteling the entire Abercrombie & Fitch article: It's complete vandalism. There went a lot of work and effort to place all the available information in a concise manner, and the user User:68DANNY2 is completely undoing it by creating an unnecessary redundant article. The user is attempting to make a difference between the brand and company, but the fact is that there is no such thing! The brand is the company (and vise versa) and to think it otherwise is absurd. I have tagged the article Abercrombie & Fitch Co. for deletion, and believed notifying you to be the correct thing to do as you have administrative powers and can put a stop to this. - User:Hpfan1 (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC).

Perhaps another reminder
For Fladrif? I do appreciate the earlier note that you left on his Talk page. See this: " To interject irrelevant, and immaterial objections which make no substantive difference in the conclusions of the report is improper under the applicable Wiki policy, and is a blatant pushing of your POV." TimidGuy (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Barrett (lawyer)
Richard Barrett (lawyer) - the project banner was added three weeks ago. Since then, there have only been two edits to add a small bit that's LGBT-related. Is the project tag really necessary? Will there be significant information that is LGBT-related? I'm just confused :) Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems on Christ_myth_theory talk; PLEASE HELP
There have long been problems on the Talk:Christ_myth_theory page but it now it has reached the level of I view as a personal threat by User:Eugeneacurry. Checking his user page I see that User:Eugeneacurry may be committing Defamation by calling editor Kuratowski a lier. Given Eugeneacurry admits being a First Baptist Church of Granada Hills I also wish to put forth WP:COI as well.

Speaking of WP:COI I would like to also complain about administrator User:Akhilleus who has long pushed a position not supported by all the reliable sources regarding the definition of the Christ Myth theory even if they use that exact wording. If you go through the talking archive you will note several other editors accusing User:Akhilleus of POV pushing which IMHO can be demonstrated by him ignoring sources that contradict what he claims. IMHO this page desperately needs another administrator to oversee it or it will never get better.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am being civil and I haven't edited the article at all (only commented on the talk page). If you can't get involved at least point me in the direction of another administrator who can because unless this issue is addressed this article will remain a joke.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Did I mess this up?
I just archived via move the Talk:Pyramid scheme and included a search feature but it doesn't seem to be working as expected. Did I do something wrong or am I misunderstanding how search works?--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

LA Neighborhoods move (last time, I hope!)
As you're probably aware, the Hollywood discussion matures tonight. The Echo Park and Financial District articles will, and probably. For Hollywood proper, however, it's a little more murky and there really are four options:


 * 1) (Which we prefer, but there may not be complete consensus for) Move it to Hollywood, Los Angeles.
 * 2) (Which some people have favored, but violates naming): Move it to Hollywood
 * 3) Keep it the way it is, closing as "No consensus"
 * 4) Run the discussion for another week

Thanks, Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 15:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 19:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, the move is now five days overdue. Would you be so kind as to resolve at least the ancillary pages?  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 02:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Gordon41. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Gordon 41  20:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation - create a WikiProject and template
Suggestion: It would be a good idea to create WikiProject Transcendental Meditation, in order to have a central collaborative project page, and also to utilize automated functions to monitor quality-improvement efforts to articles within the topic. -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: your recent restoration
The editor, who deleted the material, has a habit of doing the same deletions with any Spanish saint or blessed he follows. FYI. moreno oso (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here comes round two. He just posted his "syn theory" of poorly sourced material. If he follows true to form, he will delete again. moreno oso (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's contested from his viewpoint. He is very pro Spanish catholic saints and blesseds. He comes into articles and does the same deletion, SYN, fringe theory POV push. See John Bosco. I will agree that Bosco was badly worded but it had stood for several months with admins and page patrollers on it. I am on it for vandal patrol as it got lots of hits in February and March. But, a neutral editor rewrote the paragraph. The "contested debate is going on there now." This is his method of operation - move in, delete, watch it get reverted and protest/delete again. moreno oso (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, deja vu all over again. I guess he deleted while I typed above. Now begins round four on the talkpage. R5 should reverts/talkpage WP:OR stuff and if you're lucky, he'll take you to WP:ANEW like he did me. moreno oso (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Spurious claims is another one of his buzzwords. You can see almost the same post on Bosco's talkpage. I bet he has that in a userspace template because "says him". moreno oso (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Spoiler Alert - I hope I'm NOT spoiling as this for you because I have there; done that with this editor. Round 7 should see some other Spanish named editors show up to do reverts followed by an anon IP or two. And, wait for it - WP:ANEW. If I'm spoiling this for you, let me know on my talkpage. I had to step out to get some popcorn to settle in the next couple of rounds. Seriously, I am prepared to revert and cite him if necessary. I left the general substitute 3RR template on his talkpage. He's pretty close to 3RR3 or 3RR4. moreno oso (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

TM Talk Page/Religion
Hi Will, It seems the sub talk page you created only has a minimum/limited amount of viewable space. So much of the content can be viewed only in Edit This Page mode. Any ideas? Thanks, -- — Kbob • Talk  • 19:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for figuring out the problem and restoring the dates. -- — Kbob • Talk  • 23:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ready to Post
Will--I'm ready to post the rewrite of the history section. Should a new page be created: Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts3 or can you archive the text on drafts2 so we can start with a new uncluttered page? Thanks very much for your assistance and patience.Trouver (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Forum
You are not Lord High Censor. You are absolutely wrong in characterizing what I said as somehow off topic. The question is whether we should include information about her being gay. That editor said it bears on her qualifications. I responded by saying it does not, and the editor really just wants his or her curiosity satisfied. How on earth could you take that to be off topic? You really need to be more careful before deciding which talk page comments to delete. -Rrius (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Small Cultural Revolution and Transcendental Meditation
Hi! Your idea is thrilling, but I must say I would prefer the topic to be treated as a Transcendental Meditation affair (Romania) or something, rather than as a "mini-Cultural Revolution". This seems to follow usage in most Romanian sources, and probably because Ceauşescu's "cultural revolution" obsession began much earlier. It's also because, under a "Transcendental Meditation" title, it "folds" into other topical articles - for example, in the future, the renewed comparison with Mao's theory and practice could be addressed as a final section of July Theses, as a portion of the Ceauşescu article etc., without making the article itself dependent on that comparison. The article could then be linked as an event (which it was) rather than a phenomenon (which it only probably was, and only so in relation to Ceauşescu's other ideas) in articles on those involved or articles that are missing it. (Also, I must confess, it was the title under which I was originally imagining it.)

I'm afraid I don't own a book on that topic, but I do have access to some interesting printed sources, and I could review, translate and add from some of the online sources (Jurnalul included). The only problem now is that I'm focusing almost 100% on a sandbox article on an entirely different topic. There isn't much work left there, but it is quite absorbing when it comes to my wikipedia time - which doesn't mean I'm not going to follow up on your proposal, or that you should avoid starting it at your convenience, or even that I'd be postponing my involvement on it; just that I may not work on it at "full capacity" for the next couple of days to a week. This I guess is fair warning if you wish to, for example, DYK it - x number of characters in y amount of time is a deadline we may fall short of otherwise.

Thanks for involving me on this, and let me know what you decide, Dahn (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, your title works just fine. As for the sources: I checked, and there's almost two pages (483-484) on the incident and subsequent purge in Adrian Cioroianu's Pe umerii lui Marx, which is one of the best reviews of Romanian communism to have been published after 2000. I haven't checked all the printed sources I have around, so there may be more to milk from other books.
 * I also googled around in the archives of some of the major media outlets in Romania, and this is what I could find so far:, , , , , . Most of it is about consequences and details - they could add some depth. Dahn (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Watchlisted. I'll follow whatever citation format you feel comfortable with. Dahn (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the article on Yogi Bhajan
Concerning the article on Yogi Bhajan:Harbhajan_Singh_Yogi

If titles are not allowed then why have you left the numerous titles Guru fatah Singh has placed for "Sikh scholars"? Why have you left the long quotations Guru Fatah Singh inserted for supporters of Yogi Bhajan and deleted all quotations by Yogi Bhajan's critics? This looks to me like you are biased and your edits do not support a balanced and fair article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.133.234 (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:97.119.133.234.   Will Beback    talk    09:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am, in all seriousness, rather offended by that


You can, and do, disagree with me on substance and style from time to time. I have absolutely no problem with that. But, don't question my motives. Fladrif (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Everything is forgiven. Fladrif (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism article
"Changeling" was a mistake, I'm sorry about that. I copied the text from my own article and didn't catch it when editing it for POV. I do understand what constitutes neutral language for an encyclopedia -- though I don't think the ARists do. Similar deal for the word "bombarding" -- that's the wording used in the newspaper I quoted, and I forgot to change it at first when I made it descriptive text rather than a direct quote. I caught it later and changed it.

Okay, you have me on a technicality about the double-page ad being copyrighted. The Aesthetic Realists spent a third of a million dollars on it in the hopes that it would get the widest audience possible, but yeah, now we have to protect people from seeing it because they put a copyright on it. But okay, you win on that one.

The National Lampoon cartoon is absolutely fair use, and I'm sure you know about the fair use exception for copyrighted materials. What might not be apparent from my reprint is that I reprinted only two panels. The original actually spanned two pages, I certainly didn't reprint the whole thing. And one of the two panels I reprinted is basically just the title. I doubt there are any attorneys who would say that this doesn't qualify as fair use.

Regarding self-published sources, I think we need to make a distinction about "existence"-type sources. For example, I'd agree that you couldn't ref a critic's site if the WP sentence requiring the ref were something like "Despite teaching that a vegetarian diet was essential, the yogi secretly ate meat himself", because the self-published source might not be sufficient to back that up as fact. But I think it's a different matter if the WP sentence is "Critics allege that the yogi did not eat an exclusively vegetarian diet, although he claimed that such a diet was essential." In the first case the self-published source could be insufficient for justifying a claim, but if the source is just to prove that such a claim *exists*, it seems rather sufficient. So if the sentences being cited are along the lines of "Critics allege that..." and then showing the existence of that criticism seems like fair game. By the way, I remember reading that one of the criteria for considering someone an authority is that they've been quoted in the media in the capacity in question, and I've certainly been quoted in the newspapers about my experience as an ex-member of the group.

Also, from now on, please let's discuss on the article's talk page, and not my user page. Thanks. MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles Ravaged by Photobots
I noticed that my historical articles such as the Mount Lowe Railway, Union Army Balloon Corps, Thaddeus Lowe. Mount Wilson Toll Road have been stripped of photos due to technicalities such as "creator not identified". These photos are from my personal collection of over 100 year old photos whose creators are no longer known. I resent the destruction after all these years, and place notice to no longer contribute to these articles and withdraw my bio page. Sorry.Magi Media (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Magi Media


 * Thank you for your assistance on restoring my articles. I take great pride in my photo collection and the maps that I draw.--Magi Media (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
I have asked the Mediation Cabal to facilitate mediation on the subject of the disputed sentence in the lead and named you as an interested party. Momento (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert
Thanks, Will, for alerting me to those things. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rawat's archives bot
The last two entries under the Prem Rawat talk archives (43 and 44), are missing, I seem to remember that we had to do something manually to keep the bot on track, but after so long, I've forgotten how to do whatever it was. I was hoping you remember (since you have nothing else to do around here, hahaha). If you don't know, or it's going to take you more than 10 mins, let me know and I'll see if I can figure it out. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 15:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul newsletter coverage
Will, I posted a short note here about a section that is currently in the Lew Rockwell article, and I wondered if you might take a look as an uninterested editor. Thanks, DickClarkMises (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment
Will, I feel this reply to me lacked good faith. I was articulating a core policy of Wikipedia: NPOV, one which I feel is being violated. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Prem Rawat
I would greatly appreciate your personal opinion regarding the article, the mediation, and possible solutions, if you can, please e-mail me at my Wikipedia only address, wp.ronk01@gmail.com Ronk01 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-pedophile activism" Article Nominated for Deletion
You have previously edited or commented on the article entitled "Anti-pedophile activism." It has now been nominated for deletion. If you'd like to follow or contribute to the AfD process, please visit the page created for this purpose: Articles for deletion/Anti-pedophile activism. Your input would be appreciated. ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC).