User talk:Will Beback/archive61

SCV
Can you let me know exactly which names you do not have sources for? Sf46 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll go through them when I can and source as many as I can. some of the sources may be a cite from the organization's bi-monthly magazine. Sf46 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Will, I throughly disagree with you about Willie Casey, but do not care to get into a 3RR situation with you over it. The Hylton link I just added has a copy of a letter from the SCV commander that talks about Hylton's SCV membership certificate and therefore confirms his membership.  I used to have a copy of the e-mail that contained that letter before all of my e-mails got deleted. Sf46 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban
Thank you for noticing that. Topic bans being what they are, I would hate to violate it and incur the community's disapproval. I will take it off my watchlist, but I would strongly encourage the editors on that article to work on reducing the bias that pervades it.-- Novus Orator 04:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing
Clearly.--Scott Mac 00:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

User:DickClarkMises
I noticed that you reverted a previous incident of vandalism by an IP on User:DickClarkMises. The IP is back, and I have reverted him/her again. I obviously don't have the permissions to effect a block, so I wanted to bring it to the attention of someone who can block a vandal. I'm new to RCP and wasn't sure if a "final warning" was completely appropriate. On the one hand, there has been no apparent previous warning. On the other hand, the vandal has struck twice now, with a particularly scurrilous message that is almost certainly untrue. It also reminds me of Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. Dead Horsey (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File 18 Dispute Background
I posted the following to the two conflicted contributors and FYI copied you here:


 * Holysmoke.Org is a reliable source and is an organization that has operated since approximately 1978. HolySmoke as well as The Skeptic Tank and the now-defunct Cult Awareness Network and Hate Watch Response are/were volunteer organizations which have had a variable number of unpaid volunteers providing reference materials, answering emails according to subject, and assisting in real life efforts, including providing source information which was included by the State of California in their "Occult Crime: A Law Enforcement Officer Primer."


 * The Primer itself was acquired on paper from the United States Federal Printing Offices of publications which continues to archive the lengthy document which is is available through request. The document itself was scanned in to electronic form and though there may be OCR scanning errors in the content, the content itself has not been deliberately altered or redacted in any way.


 * Additionally the chairman of HolySmoke D. Rice worked directly with individuals and religious groups specifically targeted and referenced in the File 18 documents, unaltered and un-redacted copies of which appear on the HolySmoke web site. Mr. Rice even worked directly with the Police Department Public Relations Officer when File 18 was being produced, and Mr. Rice also worked directly with Mdm. Rowan Moonstone and other religious groups which were specifically referenced in the File 18 newsletters.


 * Also Mr. Rice himself might very well be mentioned in the File 18 newsletters since the original author considered anyone who debunked or refuted his assertions to be part of the world-wide "Satanic" conspiracy which the author believed actually existed. This was certainly true when Mr. Rice contacted the famous Mr. Austin Miles about his own newsletters.


 * Finally, the unaltered, un-redacted, true-and-correct copies of File 18 available on HolySmoke are indeed copyrighted by the original author however they are disseminated with the author's permission provided the newsletters are disseminated freely and without charge, not even postal shipping charges may be requested according to the original release agreements.


 * The referenced provided in the File 18 article are legitimate and as such should remain. Personal disagreement with the contents of the File 18 newsletters, or personal dislike for the original sources, web sites, file archives et al. are not relevant since Wikipedia articles attempt to focus on factuality, verifiability, and neutral point of view, something the article itself as well as the listed references accomplish. Damotclese (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Two things
I believe you are Correct I may be too close to the Issue at WP:Neutrality in Scientology and have withdrawn from active participation there. Secondly have you heard from Cirt recently? She seems to be on a Wiki-break and normally I wouldnt worry but so close on the heels of those AE threads I am concerned as i would hate to lose her from the project over that. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL she is back and taken care of business. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring of my talk page comments
First blatantly misrepresenting a source to insert a BLP violation into a talkpage, and then refactoring one of my comments; seriously, knock it off.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And while writing this warning, you remove my comment. I suggest reading WP:TALKO; I followed guidelines and left a comment that I removed a BLP violation. Altering or removing that comment, as one of my comments regardless of whether or not it's embedded in your own, is a WP:TALKO violation.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  01:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  01:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Some new Good Articles
Hi. You might be interested in hearing that I managed to bring three of my earlier contributions up to the "Good Article" level: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Afroyim v. Rusk, and Vance v. Terrazas. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

B2C FYI
Hi Will

I see that you have commented a few times on the enforce-COMMONNAME campaign of. Since B2C has a goal which clearly opposes existing policy, I think it would be better to have a centralised discussion on that policy than to have the same policy argument pursued in so many forums.

At User talk:Born2cycle, I have asked B2C to open an RFC to do just that, and would be interested in your thoughts on the proposal. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Falsely stating vandalism on the Tide article and subsequently protecting it
It appears to me and several others that you falsely stated there was vandalism on the Tide article and reverted it without any valid reason. Whether or not you like an edit for personal or political reasons does not make it any more or less true. Upon reading your user page, I see other people are complaining over the same type of abuse perpetrated by you. Are you willing to act civilly or shall we escalate this? Ireddit (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ireddit blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and harrassment of an administrator. Knock it off, guys.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is it a sockpuppet of, and how is disputing an edit "harassment"? Did you run a checkuser on that account? Because it's a serious offense to make claims like this without proof, and from an admin, no less Justadude (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Brand new account, no previous edits, right after several other sockpuppets show up doing the same edit on the page, which has been widely undone by several experienced Wikipedians.
 * All a checkuser would do is tell us how many of those IPs and accounts on the article were connected, which one did this account, and how many more of them we'd have to block for behavior unbecoming a Wikipedian. It's probably better to leave it as is if people get the message; this was a throwaway account, and it's been thrown.  Whoever it was doesn't have a long term black mark if they walk away and don't behave like this again.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense, but no checkuser, no sockpuppet. Just an unfounded accusation to avoid a valid point.98.250.153.233 (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Brand new account, no previous edits" - And? Is that supposed to mean something? Maybe in your own fuzzy internal logic, but there is no policy that says "people with one edits are automatically trolls". You should read up on the various policy articles a bit more and understand the attitude Wikipedia takes towards contributors - you're perfectly well entitled to spend years editing on your IP address, only to finally register later.
 * Or if he made an account only to get in on the debate, again, so what? I rarely come here except to debate. I'm a long time Wikipedia contributor - as long or longer than you (2006). I almost entirely use my IP. Guess what? I get to. And I get to see Administrative abuse in a Reddit thread and show up to comment. I don't have to prove myself to you or anyone else with any length of edit history whatsoever.
 * And no, a checkuser would tell you whether he's actually a sockpuppet - you know, a truly "alternate" account, designed for a one-off comment. You know, the whole thing you're accusing him of. It's completely unacceptable per Wikipedia policy to make these sort of personal attacks on character; if you're going to make these slanderous claims, you'd BETTER have evidence!
 * You've broken the first rule of Wikipedia, Assume Good Faith. You saw one comment - a completely reasonable argument in a contentious situation - and you assumed the worst. That's something that's unacceptable for a lowly "regular" user, and for an administrator it's despicable misbehaviorJustadude (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DUCK  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  12:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting also how User:Justadude, having made a total of 10 edits thus far, most of which involved with the above incident, is so familiar with WP:AGF, checkuser process, WP:SPI, etc., don't you think? Addendum: I was about to strike the above having read the part where Justadude claims to have been editing for over four years on an IP, but then I remember that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  12:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DUCK. If it looks like a knowledgeable user who uses mostly an IP address, it probably is Justadude (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fellow redditer accused of being a sock puppet harassing this person
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/exihe/ok_which_one_of_us_did_this/ This thread outlines the issue of the O'Reilly/Tide "edit war", of which it's not an edit war, it's just this moderator that has a "revert everything" attitude. The user above me was banned for making the above post. Just look at all the other complaints on this user page. Next, I'm going to be accused of socking and harassing them for following the same reddit post that has over 1000 up-votes and defending those here who are making contributions only to be stomped over by somebody who in my opinion shouldn't have moderator privilages. I'm not a regular wikipedia user, however, I'm sure if this gets enough attention, that this can be taken to arbitration. There's plenty of other people making complaints just on this page who will back me up. 98.247.167.135 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

American Renaissance
Hello, I noticed that information linking this group American Renaissance to the Gabrielle Giffords shooting has been added, and see that you've participated in the talk page there. Since this is a breaking news story supposedly based on a leaked Department of Homeland Security memo, I think it may be too soon to include this material. Your thoughts? Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I found that the group denied the link on Fox News this morning, so added that to the Am Ren article, and added "Alleged" to the heading. Is that enough, do you think? Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

CSLS
Permit me to continue to work on California Southern Law School. To clarify on the relevance issue, I think you are referring to the Pre-legal education and Law study sections. Well, I think I'll put the "off-topic" info into notes.

But I read in WP:REL that the goal is to be relevant and useful to the reader. With this in mind, keeping the CBE requirements within the various California based law school articles is much more useful to the readers. Legal education in California is a complex system of ABA approved schools, non-ABA/CBE accredited schools, non-accredited schools (which include "fixed facility", distance learning [internet], and correspondence schools), and law office study. (Only much of this info is "buried" in the California State Bar article.) Overall, my goal is to have a concise article that covers the bases and serves as a template for all the other law school articles out there, particularly for the minor ones such as CSLS. (E.g., without all the puffery and spam.) But please note CSLS is completely legit -- it was founded 40 years ago and some of the top attorneys and judges in the Inland Empire are graduates. (Virginia Blumenthal and John Evans to name two.) Past faculty members include Rod Pacheco and Stephen G. Larson. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)12:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to comment on my talk page
Hi Will. BCTWriter here. You left the following note on my talk page.
 * 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.

Follow up: I searched using Google and found a PR agency in NJ. Still no connection to me; I had never heard of them until now.

Will, thanks for your diligence.

On my talk page I also addressed some concerns you had regarding an image I posted.

Bctwriter (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Shane Bunting and Esistnurmir
Esistnurmir showed up literally minutes after Shane Bunting's last edit was reverted. I smell a sock--might want to block them both. Blueboy96 02:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

David Horowitz
What's your opinion of using transcripts of news programs as sources to point out quotes of a BLP subject that were originally noted by a non-reliable source (see Talk:David Horowitz? Drrll (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

lsmodelclub
Hey, man, why did you undo my changes just applied to LS Studio?? Was a big effot to find and compile the information!

It's me again. I've written some explanations in the talk panel. Hope you'll read them.

See you. Hope to hear from you soon!

Lsmodelclub (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Returning editor??? - user: lsmodelclub
"You're obviously a returning editor. What was your previous account?"

Man, this is the very first time I edit an article here in Wikipedia. Why do you believe I'm a returning editor.

I spent hours creating the LS Studio article 'cause I'm suffered a lot with tags and stuff. That's why I want my article become redirected. I'm not a returing editor, I swear it. I used some codes from another pages to create my article, but this is the first time I edit something at Wikipedia.

Lsmodelclub (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP UNDOING MY ARTICLE, I BEG IT!!!
Hey. You win about the 2004 CP raids' article, but please stop undoing my LS Studio article, OK?? Or just delete what you believe should'nt be there, but don't undo everything...I SPENT ALMOST ALL MY EVENING WITH IT'S EDITION, DON'T BE SO SELFISH. Just tell me where's the problem and we can solve it but stop undoing it, please!!!!

THANKS

Lsmodelclub (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing SP article
A long, long time ago (during the 2008 campaign) I made a personal oath to stop editing the SP article. It was her only one at that time. I don't know what made me think anything had changed. I think it might be healthier to just sit on the sidelines and laugh at the goings-on. But...its really not that funny.Buster Seven   Talk  09:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A concerned editor, at the Talk:Sarah Palin main article, this morning, asked why there was not a single mention of the Tucson/Palin situation. She was given directions to sub-articles but her question was valid. I chimed in that no administrator had as yet seen fit to compile or cut/paste an edit. My questions to you are these: 1)Is there any move afoot, by any single administrator or group of administrators, to make mention in the Sarah Palin article of the on-going Tucson/Palin tie-in? 2) Is there a target date for the Palin article to come out of the deep freeze? 3) When the article is open for editor input, is there a way to protect it from the over fabricated monstrosity of an Edsel that is currently being molded and un-molded at Public image of Sarah Palin? Thanks for your continuing efforts. Buster Seven   Talk  00:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Better discuss it tomorrow
Hey, Will. I'm tired, man. It's too late here and I'm falling asleep. Better we discuss it tomorrow, OK?

Lsmodelclub (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

References added plus unnecessary information deleted: lsmodelclub
Hi, it's me. I had to change my account because these guys believe I'm a group. Doesn't matter. I've made my last chage to the article about LS Studio. I have added lots of sources (altough is the same for all cases) and deleted unnecessary information about 2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids in this article which just links to that one so we can avoid problems with duplicated information.

Hope that would be ok now.

Note: source of tables are in the bottom of them

Justification of edition
The information provided before in this article was very similar to the one in this article. No information about the company was provided before.

Lsmodel (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Article probation
I've noticed that recently the article probation "notices" tend to be used by one side or another at the Sarah Palin article, usually in response to an editor with a position on the other side of the fence. While that certainly wouldn't be a problem if someone is indeed editing in such a way that likely will require sanctions, in the absence of such behaviour it seems that it could have a bit of a stifling impact on free, open, collaborative, and productive debate regarding the articles. Specifically, the notifications section reads: "Users may be individually notified about the article probation before any remedy is applied to them..." Presumably, one should not notify another editor unless you believe their actions indicate that a remedy or sanction is looking necessary. When "notifying" me, did you believe that my editing or my statements on any Palin-related talk pages required or looked likely to require remedies or sanctions? If so, can you elaborate what specifically led you to notify me and log said notification? (Feel free to respond here to keep this discussion in one place.) jæs (talk)  01:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was, in this case, specifically inquiring regarding your notification, since it most directly pertains to me. jæs (talk)  01:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Aggressively," really? Can you please provide any specific diff (or series of diffs) indicating that I have not otherwise "follow[ed] the highest standards of Wikipedia behavior on that topic"? jæs (talk)  01:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, I'd appreciate a response, or if you don't intend to respond, please let me know. jæs (talk)  08:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidents noticeboard
Will, please be aware there's an incidents noticeboard discussion regarding your recent actions relating to the Palin articles. <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk) 03:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that Will's administrative credentials are being excoriated in the context of the Tucson tragedy and associated Palin controversy. My personal experience has reinforced my contention that Will is a balanced, reasonable and calm editor, even in the stormiest content debates.  After two-plus years working on the Palin article, I can discern the political leanings of most article editors based on past contributions and interaction, but I had never previously categorized Will.  To paraphrase something he once said, Palin is the "third rail" of American politics and seemingly a place where one is prohibited from balancing, but rather must be pulled to one side or the other by forces on opposing sides.  We need to recognize that as these contentious issues arise, as we will certainly see more as long as Palin has her Twitter and Facebook accounts! Fcreid (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Attitude of Ownership
Due to some pressing "real life" responsibilities I have not participated in Wikipedia for some weeks. However today I have returned and found that you have posted this sentence on my user page: This request, gives the impression that you feel a sense of ownership for the topic and that you would like other editors, who do not share your point of view, to leave. As a prolific editor and creator of several articles on the Transcendental Meditation topic, as well as a participant in the TM ArbCom; you have no right and no authority to post such a request on my user page and doing so may violate Wikipedia's policies on Ownership. For this reason you may want to consider avoiding such remarks in the future. Thank you and Best Wishes,--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 11:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "If you can't summarize sources about this topic accurately, or even semi-accurately, then maybe it'd be better if you worked on other topics instead." Will Beback talk  5:21 am, 8 December 2010, Wednesday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC−5)
 * That came out wrong. I was peeved when I wrote it because I'd just find that you'd done the same thing twice. I don't want you to stop editing the topic. I do want you to stop citing that source as saying the opposite of what the author actually means. It's been a general problem. We're all human, but we've been over this before. Anyway, I hope you're well - you've been gone a while. Best wishes for the new year.  Will Beback  talk  6:30 am, Yesterday (UTC−5)  (Copied from my User Page)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 20:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank your for your response (which I have pasted above, as I like to keep entire conversations in one place). Since the issue of WP:OWNERSHIP had been raised before, by myself as well as other editors, I thought it would be valuable to bring the issue to your attention again this time, hence this thread. However, your apology is very much appreciated and I'm glad you recognize that we are both human and that we all make mistakes sometimes and that every editor is capable of recovering and correcting their behaviors, given the chance to do so. Thank you also for your good wishes and New Years greetings. All the best, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And I also note that the issue of WP:OWNERSHIP has been raised before, by myself as well as other editors. 190.80.8.6 (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000000; background-color:#aa9944; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> I would like to give you a Fluffy! Fluffys promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Fluffy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. DocOfSoc (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin Tools...
I agree with your recollection. I didn't realize this other matter was going on and was surprised to read about it on your Talk, as I tend to shy away from WP politics. I've always considered you a moderating force on this highly contentious article, and I was surprised to learn others didn't see it similarly. Fcreid (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters for America
Hi, it was minor in this instance, but can you take care when using tools not to revert previous changes? Thanks, Rostz (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Living persons and their living critics
Will, thank you for your recent comments. I first "met" you at the Wickliffe Draper article, one of many on your watchlist, and since then I've had occasion to read the source we discussed on the talk page of that article from cover to cover, checking many of the lavish references in that book. Tucker's other books and  are also meticulously researched and have led me to many other sources in the library systems in my home town. Here's my promise to you and to our fellow editors. I'm never, ever going to add a statement to a Wikipedia article about a living person that isn't reliably sourced. I figured out after a while that a lot of the articles that get on your watchlist end up there because they make controversial biographical statements about various persons, including living persons. I check the sources. I list a lot of sources for other wikipedians to use while editing articles, and I invite comments about those source lists from anyone. I have mentioned on my user page since early on that I've read books about Wikipedia too. I am aware that Wikipedia has been badly burned in its reputation as an encyclopedia over the years by including in articles statements about living persons that are not properly sourced. I've even read in online sources that various wikipedians are mentioned by name as persons who have been severely criticized for their treatment of BLP articles in the earlier days of Wikipedia. Not wishing you or anyone else on Wikipedia to go through that kind of hassle, I'll be with every conscientious editor here 100 percent in expecting controversial statements about living persons to be reliably sourced, each and every time. With that in mind, I will attempt to cure the kind of mistaken edit I saw earlier today by deletion of the poorly sourced statement, rather than by trying to situate the statement in the context in which it was made, as I did at first. You are very welcome to continue watching my editsand watching who reacts to them and howvery closely, and I appreciate your advice. By all means, let's do everything possible to encourage more and more wikipedians to participate in fixing Wikipedia and to improve article quality with better sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Ethnoburbs
Hi Will, Before all Heck breaks loose, I have restored the article which had been systematically decimated. Since I was not informed of the discussion re: the name change to enclaves, I made the bold move to change it to ethnoburbs, which after a long discussion, I believe had been agreed upon. I sincerely hope this does not engender more significant discussion and that you will be pleased with my work. Since it is now past my bedtime, I will do no more sleep editing, but double check me if you have the time ;-) Talk soon, and TY again for your sage advice. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you remember where we had the extended discussion of "ethnoburbs" being the proper well established term used in academia, and that it is not a neologismDocOfSoc (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found it, actually 3 AfD's., . Since Iam not going to engage Skookum in another discussion/edit war, would you mind changing article back to Chinese ethnoburbs as per discussion if you think appropriate.?
 * Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Weston Price and Focal Infection (again)
Back on October 31, 2010 Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2 you stated "WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere."

Sad to say we seem to have this problem again on the Weston Price article and we are kicking it around at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. However given your comment previously I would like you to look at the current mess.

Here is what the article says now:

"Price was outspoken on the relationship between endodontic therapy and pulpless teeth and broader systemic disease, ideas derived from focal infection theory, and held that dental health - and consequently physical health - were heavily influenced by nutritional factors. These theories fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities. (Baumgartner, J. Craig; Siqueira, Jose F.; Sedgley, Christine M.; Kishen, Anil (2007), "7", Ingle's Endodontics (6 ed.), PMPH-USA, pp. 221–222, ISBN 978-1-55009-333-9)"

and here is what I want to put in:

"The dental part of focal infection fell out of favor in the late 1930s (Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association.) with a special 1951 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stating "Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders."("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951) though the idea never disappeared from the dental community.(Editorial. JAMA 1952; 150: 490.) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136)

While recent discoveries have caused a cautious reevaluation of focal infection in dentistry ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) and there are studies on the quality of diet regarding oral health in adults (Bailey, RL (2004) "Persistent oral health problems associated with comorbidity and impaired diet quality in older adults". J Am Diet . Assnc. 104:1273.), these are independent of Weston Price's work."

Please note that to date I have SEVEN reliable sources that show that what is being referenced to Ingle's Endodontics is flat out WRONG. Yet we have editors harping that the Mcgraw hill reference is the correct one even though all these other references show it to be wrong on so many levels. Also I found out that Mcgraw hill also publishes books on homeopathy--a known medical fringe and one of these is under it McGraw-Hill Medical department.

Also User:Ronz is now using Collapsing to hide comments by other editors. I have never seen this used this way before and highly question using Collapsing in this manner.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Present evidence of my bias
since wen is asking for sources bias? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * since you have no evidence, nor willing to retract your slander, i must slap you with a trout. *no fish were harmed in the insult  Darkstar1st (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Time off wp:activist
Hi .... I would like to answer your question, if I didn't already above in Wikipedia_talk:Activist; however, I've mutuality agreed with WMC to take some time off the essay. Maybe in a few days. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just seen this. Please note: I have made no agreement with ZP5 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I must have misunderstood. There was no agreement. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
Thank you for agreeing to participate in mediation in the past. We don't seem to be able to resolve this "bone of contention" on our own. I will be requesting formal mediation on the lead of the TM article, specifically this sentence, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education." Please let me know if you wish to be included, or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Nikki Hornsby
Thanks for cleaning the wikicode with AWB. However, please be more careful next time because you messed up a link to a photo, please compare File:Nikki Hornsby in 1980s.jpg and the original File:Nikki Hornsby in 80's.jpg. Regards --Zureks (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.8.6 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ip 190.80.8.6.
You appear to be having a bit of a problem with Ip 190.80.8.6. at the article on Lyndon Larouche. I noticed that you suspected that he/she was a sock-puppet. This captured my curiosity, so I checked all of of his/her previous edits and the bulk of them were blatant vandalism, which I reverted if they hadn't been already reverted. I put Level 2 warnings for vandalizing EIGHT articles on his/her talk page.

I did not make any changes to the La Rouche article or the National Caucus of Labor Committees article; I feel you are better qualified to deal with that. Good luck. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Improving communications
In light of PBS' comment on the WT:RM proposal discussion, my frustration with how you and I communicate (or don't) has flared up. PBS' opening sentence is,
 * "Oppose this change because 'a requested move discussion they participated in' is objective (something easily measured), while 'or about which they cannot act neutrally' is subjective. ".

He goes on to clarify why that's a problem, but this is exactly the point I tried to convey in my first comment on the thread, by asking rhetorically:
 * "How would the determination of whether someone 'cannot act neutrally' be made?"

Looking back at your response, you didn't seem to get it:
 * "It's intended to cover editors who, like yourself, have expressed strongly held opinions about page naming. Can you suggest better language? "

And we went on from there, to a point where I thought you were understanding the fundamental problem with what you were proposing (how could you not?), and then suddenly you declared,
 * "Let's see if there's any objections from others and if not I'll add the proposed language.".

I have to say, that really threw me. I mean, at least at first you seemed to think that there might be a problem with the wording, and so I was trying to get you to see that it was a fundamental problem, not just the wording. But here, not only were you ignoring the fundamental problem with the proposal, but you appeared to be ready to go with the original language again! It's like there was no discussion at all.

If this was a one-time incident I wouldn't bother bringing it up here. But I've had a number of discussions with you like this over the years, and if anything they seem to be getting more frequent. Maybe something else entirely is going on, but I'm left with the impression that you're not really thinking and considering what I'm saying; you seem to be just skimming or something, and then just reacting to the literal words here or there without much thought, and holding on to your opinion regardless of what is said. If that or something like that is going on, that's obviously not communication.

So, I was wondering if you had any thoughts in general about this, and in particular on why the apparent disconnect occurred in this discussion, and whether you had any ideas on how we might communicate more effectively, because nobody gets anything out of discussions like this.

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Ibykus_Farm_combined.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ibykus_Farm_combined.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Radical Right
appears to me to have several major issues. The primary author has removed tags relating to its problems. I know we disagree on some (many?) issues, but I think you would also find problems in this article. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * TFD has accused me of CANVASSing on this article. If you feel that I have pushed any POV in the prior post, please accept my apologies. I only posted to you because of the wikilink to this article in an article we have discussed before (JBS) and the wikilink and article fulfill the very essence of 'proof by recursion" :).  And I trust you do not accuse me of being "ignorant."  Collect (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like a suggestion as to a person who might verify that the cites in that article say what is claimed for them - I found one which was fully misused already, but I hate finagling paywalls :) and I fear other cites are also wrenched from the context in which the authors made comments, or that the comments are not there in the first place for the claims made. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This is just a case of three editors with a history who have decided that they do not like the article, despite its accurate reflection of the sources.

The other editor who has made significant contributions to the article, and considers it to be well-sourced and neutral, is User:DJensen, who is a professor of American history and an administrator on Conservapedia.

Now that Collect has canvassed for your opinion, could you please read through the article and the talk page and advise Collect whether or not you agree with him.

TFD (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * TFD - I did not CANVASS, and Will has said I did not CANVASS. You seem entirely too pre-occupied with me for some reason.  My edited articles list is basically at User:Collect/watchlisted articles and I daresay you will find its breadth substantial. And it does seem that you are focussing entirely on the edtors and not on content - might there be a cause of that? Thank you mist kindly. Collect (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No doubt the topic of the "Radical Right" is notable and there is nothing to dislike if the article remained on topic, but this article created and expanded by TFD, is a mess of contradictory claims given undue weight. When assertions that are being made are not found in references being cited, one has to wonder if the other more controversial assertions, all sourced to the same single book that is unavailable, are also present in that cited source. I brought up an issue long ago on talk but it was ignored by the article owners. Only when I recently slap an inline tag does anything actually get done. And now TFD complains here. If he and Rjensen were to take on board the real concerns rather that attack good faithed editors, some progress could be made. --Martin (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of article probation notifications
I have attempted to address your misuse of article probation notifications with you now in two separate forums. You responded only in one instance, somewhat incredibly circuitously, and rather than recognizing your error or somehow justifying your misuse of the process, you've proceeded to abuse the tool in the same disruptive ways. As both an involved editor and an administrator, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect better of (and a better explanation from) you. It's clear that article probation — in spirit and in rule — is not intended to be a bludgeon utilized by involved editors to gain a leg-up in a content dispute. Instead, per the article probation page, notifications are intended to be used immediately "before any remedy is applied" (excepting emergency instances), as a last resort prior to sanctions — not as a without-cause "heads-up"undefinedundefined employed by involved editors against collaborative editors simply on the other side of a debate. It's patently disruptive, and since you've refused to directly engage in a discussion about it, I'm asking you directly to stop. I think it would also be helpful if you responded at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation, rather than simply continuing to employ the same disruptive tactics that reasonable concerns have been raised about (including at the lengthy recent noticeboard discussion regarding your behaviour at Palin-related articles). <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk) 11:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Persons convicted of fraud
Category:Persons convicted of fraud, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Webster Tarpley
I dont believe we should ommit information because it may be seen as derrogatory by some political factions in one country. Anyway, Tarpley is a self-declared marxist since his 1978´s book on the Aldo Moro assassination, on which his "short biography" describes him as a "marxist heavily influenced by the works of of Gramsci". I added his book as reference. I hope that can settle this matter in a positive way. -201.83.37.248 (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Caterpillar Club
You are in Edit history as an editor on this article. It has been multiply tagged for improvement as an alternative to being recommended for deletion. This is a request for editorial intervention to improve this article. Please help if possible.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP
Hi Will, I want to apologize for reverting your edit to BLP yesterday, and in particular for doing it so quickly. There was a context of people changing other policies that I was fed up with, so when your edit followed on from Geni's I instinctively reverted, which I shouldn't have done. You're someone whose edits I respect, and I should have taken more time to consider and discuss. I'm sorry. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, Will...
I take exception to the admonition you left on my talk. My comments were directed exclusively at the fallacious content and not at the editors inserting it. I challenge you to indicate where I did otherwise. I have worked with these editors for more than two years on the Palin article. Sometimes opposing logic prevails, but I pride myself in viewing these matters of content disupte from an objective and logical viewpoint. If you wish to challenge my participation in a formal forum, please proceed. However, please do not make unfounded accusations on my talk. Fcreid (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to your response, I'll reiterate what I stated above. The content itself is fallacious.  I have no idea whether the original editor crafted it in his own head or cut-n-pasted it from Huffington Post or the DailyKos blogs.  I could care less.  It is the content that performs a sleight of hand.  When the paragraph is read linearly, the reader is unaware that he's been deceived in his conclusion, much like an optical illusion.  Fcreid (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

170.170.59.138
You've blocked a computer terminal for a week that is rented for minutes at a time. Whoever you blocked is long gone and probably just using another terminal. Maybe semi the article(s) instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.6.62 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)