User talk:Will Beback/archive60

Would you mind holding off for a few minutes?
I will be finished soon with a re-write. Could you refrain from reverting until I am finished? Delia Peabody (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My intentions were all discussed, and as far as I could tell, agreed to on the talk page. I would appreciate it if you would show me the same courtesy that you showed BillMasen, which is to let my re-write stand until it can be discussed. A lot of work went into it, and if it needs to be changed, please raise specific issues rather than reverting the whole thing. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

GuruDevtint.jpg
Hello, This file cannot be used in other WP pages because of unknowned possible restrictions of licence. I wrote to premanandpaul@yahoo.co.uk (paul Masson) to know if he has the informations needed as it is mentionned if this page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GuruDevtint.jpg If you have more informations that may autorize other country to use it, may be helpfull Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdontfight (talk • contribs) 08:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I don't know what license restrictions you're talking about, but if there are any it'd be great to clear them up. Please keep me informed.   Will Beback    talk    10:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote to Paul Masson, and he answerd me : "According to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (Chapter V) in the case of cinematograph films, sound recordings, photographs, posthumous publications, anonymous and pseudonymous publications, works of government and works of international organisations,enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (ie. as of 2010, works published prior to 1 January 1950 are considered public domain)". I believe the photo you refer to was taken at the mahayagna at Bombay in 1946." (this one)
 * May you make the changes on Wiki Commons in order for us to use it ?

FYI
and have some interesting opinions about you. A few edit summaries were revdel'ed by me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed tag
I see you removed the relationship to THIS city tags from Fairfield, Iowa. Per WikiProject Cities/US Guideline there needs to be a external reference to verify the relationship of the person to the city on the cities page in the Notable people section even if there is a verifiable reference in the persons article. Extensive conversation on this subject can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I have found a rate of around 75%+ of people's article stating a relationship to a city but there is no reference cited. I went back to Fairfield and did research on one of your entries Ashley Deans. Of the three references cited only one had a mention of Fairfield and that was not in a bio but as I quote "Executive Director, Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment, Fairfield, Iowa Professor of Consciousness-Based Education, Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield, Iowa" It does not say anything about his relationship with the city of Fairfield, In fact he could live in another State and still be a Executive Director. However I did use it as a cite. As an administrator I hope you can understand the need for citing the reference in the article being read instead of assuming (wrong over 75%) that it is fact. Thanks-- Rife Ideas Talk  03:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not want to get into a spat but I want to point out that the example you gave on my userpage was of a student and employed drug clerk (stock boy now a days) in the pre 1900's. I seriously doubt that in the days of only horse or foot traffic that a person lived far from where they went to school. Not the same today with the internet and jets. And the cite was from Biography Directory of the United States Congress, a very reputable biographical source. BTW I found it interesting that you had to research my contributions so far back to find such an example. --  Rife Ideas Talk  05:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to thank you for the cites you furnished on the Fairfield, Iowa page as I do not have access to the news sources you used. As you see I updated the web cites to be uniform to the rest of them. I also put a caption under the very top picture being 98% sure that the picture was taken on Main street in Fairfield. Then I seen you actually took the picture so I ask you to verify the caption I put there. If you have a more descriptive ideal for the caption I will appreciate you making the change. Fairfield is in my list of Bigger cities in Iowa (pop 6,000+) so I will be back latter to help grow the article. But for now there are many many more articles that need attention, You and whoever else have developed the article to a good state. I upgraded it's classification in the Project Iowa and Project Cities (of which I am a member of), I almost made it a C-class but I feel I need more experience before I get that bold. Again thanks.-- Rife Ideas Talk  19:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake about Fairfields picture, Thanks for letting me know, I will contact Billwhittaker-- Rife Ideas Talk  20:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Information
Will, I noticed that you have dealt with a COI issue recently, so I'm wondering if you would be willing, as an administrator, to point me in the right direction with regard to the one I'm dealing with now. If you are, the issue is documented here. Dylan Flaherty  04:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. You're right that I didn't do the research to show a pattern, so I fixed it. Dylan Flaherty  04:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Our "beauty pageant" friend stirring the pot
Since you're an involved admin, you might consider a warn and/or IP block on a narrow range (xx.xx.xx.17 & .19 so far) for our AnonIP "friend" edit warring from a BlackBerry & adding what appear to be legal threats to edit summaries. Maybe an edit block against AnonIP's to the article would also flush-out the Sockpuppet Usernames as well. Cheers! &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI: said IP reported both of you as vandals on another project. (and again!) sonia ♫  06:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC) mod 20:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, Sonia! I'm so proud. BTW, to check the BlackBerry's "other activity", I peeked at subject's Twitter account and &mdash;lo & behold&mdash; it's been suspended. Can't control their "virtual tongue" I guess. Looks like another stale link (like so many others in the article) was to blame. New "official" Twitter page has a link for her new Cookbook cover here. Might explain all the sudden interest in quashing bad press.
 * (And after reading the simple.wiki link, I can only say "simple sites for simple minds!") &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC), 06:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC) & 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Krystle Nicole Russin
Hi Will,

. The subject has been in touch by email (2010120610019928) and has become rather agitated at your reversion of content apparently added by her agent. I've explained why getting your agent to edit your Wikipedia article is a bad idea but I think it would help you to know who is adding this content (especially since you guessed anyway). Apparently she normally goes by the name Nicole, this may affect searches for sources.

I agree with you re prod. There's no doubt this is primarily a promotional vehicle and the subject is apparently angry at not having editorial control, something we cannot grant of course. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinatown photos

 * Don't you think the East Gate is the single most important structure in Chinatwon? Why is an editor be allowed to keep deleting it? Also the roast duck photo goes with the text "with glass displays of roast duck and suckling pig". Both photos wee not taken by me nor I posted them. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Darell Hammond
Hi, Will. You've just G5ed an article I wrote. Would you mind awfully pointing me to the ban discussion? Sadly, I wasn't informed. ;) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Stuff happens, and I got a good laugh out of it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa! I had no idea there was so much paid editing going on. I see that the "proposed" tag is gone from Paid editing (policy). Is it all official now? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Names of neighborhood articles
Since you have participated in previous discussions about how to name the neighborhoods of cities, you might be interested to know that another proposal along those lines is under discussion at Talk:Alta Vista, San Diego, California. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What does it take?
Will, I'm at something of a loss here. I reported that COI problem with the hope that a neutral administrator would look into it, and the expectation that it might lead to a firm slap on the wrist that would at least encourage them to be something other than a visibly-biased WP:SPA. At the risk of understatement, nothing of the sort has occurred.

Am I doing something wrong, aside from not having initially provided diffs? Do I need to report this under some other category or notify some mysterious cabal? Is the COI reporting process hopelessly broken to the point where I should just shrug and focus on editing? Clue me in, please. Dylan Flaherty  07:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Re returning user
I know that Cicorp was blocked for username violation alone, and is free to edit under another username if he wishes without any taint of sockpuppetry. If the new user is Cicorp or the Cicorp-owned Anon IP, I have no problem with that. I am solely concerned with reversion of sourced material and addition of unsourced POV material. My point about this possibly being the same editor is that, if it is, he has already been warned 6 months ago about the same behaviour and can't claim ignorance. Fladrif (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

mention of you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ucla90024#08_December_2010

You are mentioned. I think Grayshi is in the wrong. Username 823878701234 (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Tarcisio Tadeu Spricigo for deletion
The article Tarcisio Tadeu Spricigo is being discussed at Articles for deletion/Tarcisio Tadeu Spricigo, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Scott Mac 15:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD - merge?
Hi, its looking like merge (snow?). Have you got any objections to closing it as snow merge and if not would you please merge whatever content you think is appropriate to wherever you want? Articles_for_deletion/Tarcisio_Tadeu_Spricigo - Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have no objection I will merge it myself, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is disruptive?
Creating an RFC and calling for discussion is disruptive? That's how consensus is determined in Wikipedia. Why refer to this genuine effort to improve Wikipedia (at least in my opinion) as "disruptive", except to be demeaning? I don't appreciate the incivility expressed in the statement, "Born2cycle's endless campaign on this issue is more disruptive".

From WP:CIVILITY:

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The suggestion that a campaign by a user may be disruptive is an analysis with which people may agree or disagree, but it is not incivil (unless altogether without merit and designed merely to provoke). Will may be wrong (I've opinion on that), but he's not being rude.--Scott Mac 02:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So, suggesting that your campaign against me is disruptive would not be rude and incivil? My point, of course, is that there is no such campaign.  Not the one in this hopefully illustrative example, nor the one to which Will refers (I have not made any proposals about changing the guideline with respect to cities in almost two years, maybe longer... by what definition is that a campaign?).   The (mis)characterization of good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia as "disruptive" "campaigns" is uncivil and rude.   So are the ad hominem attacks.  In his only comment, Will completely ignored the content of the proposal, gave no indication that he even read it, much less gave it serious thought and consideration, and only made his snide remark about me and some alleged "campaign".   How does that kind of commentary contribute to the betterment of the encyclopedia?   --Born2cycle (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement
Ok, I'll ask: any particular reason Newport is the only we mention when we have so many other sources? Dylan Flaherty  07:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flaming Sword cover.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Flaming Sword cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

COI and possible SPA
Hi, Will. user:Eclipsed has done major contributing to an article Ern_Phang. Elsewhere, s/he has admitted s/he works for wikiexperts.us which was featured in December's Signpost. I flagged the article for COI. I am bringing it to your attention because I suspect this was a paid article (looks a lot like the ones we used to do, lol). I wanted to flag it for deletion, but don't really know if I have that right, so I'm bringing it to your attention, as you've apparently conversed with this individual before. Thank you. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sunflowergal34 block review on ANI
The person emailed unblock-en-l, and while I feel that the block was compliant with policy I believe that it may warrant a community review. I've posted a short summary to ANI, hopefully neutral enough. Please feel free to comment there...

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"Illegitimate Socking" on policy discussions
Please try to be a little kinder when you accuse someone of socking, especially in a policy discussion, like you did at WT:Naming conventions (geographic names). Mistakenly editing while logged out is not socking--it's just a mistake. I'm glad you pointed it out, because I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. But someone like myself showing a high degree of policy and "lingo" competence probably isn't socking. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)



notable doctors
Hi Will Beback- can you please apply your expertise in evaluating physician pages to the following doctors - when you get a chance Antonio Gotto James Kocsis Arnold Cooper Neil Flnenbaum David Silverberg Any doctor page that appears when you type "Dr.Weill" into the search engine of Wikipedia Tom Diflo Chumleychat (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this allowed?
"Perhaps Giacomo could proxy-upload good articles on boxing in the meantime." ? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Are these docs wikipedia worthy?
OK but if you DO get a chance, you might want to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosh_Agarwal in addition to all the other docs I listed in previous post -- put Dr. Weill into search engine without quotes and 50 plus doctors appear without validated pages. Curious why all these docs stay in wikipedia - doesn't this bring down the validity of the encyclopedia? Consider applying your expertise to these pages - even if you think I am a sock puppet. Chumleychat (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Maddow entry on FAIR page
Hello Will,

I have been removing the Maddow entry on the FAIR page. First of all the sentence make absolutely no sense, and second if mentions that it needs further clarification. Until further clarification is included, the entry should be omitted. I believe that entries that have proof and can be backed up with facts are valuable tools, but simply including an entry because Maddow makes an unfounded accusation is counterproductive. I am happy to further discuss this at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Steve Young — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syoung10 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Will. BCTWriter here. You left the following note on my talk page. I just noticed.


 * You appear to have a connection to Gnosis Arts. Editing on behalf of banned users is itself a violation. It looks like you have created articles for pay as part of the Gnosis business. Can you explain?  Will Beback  talk  09:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know Gnosis Arts and have not posted or contributed anything regarding them at all. I will do some research but if you can direct me to the content in question I will try and address. Bctwriter (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)