User talk:Will Beback/archive69

International Business Times
You mentioned this news company here, Talk:Rick Perry. I suspect this is not a reliable source, and am concerned they are getting into the google news aggregator too quickly, and are being cited here too often. i opened a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and would like your thoughts on this matter, if you have the time and inclination.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Patrolled"
It seems that your marking of my talk page as "patrolled" now prevents me from editing it.24.18.132.102 (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Pink Swastika
Hi Will! The removal of the link was explained with "removed email" in an edit sum. The destination of the link is merely a self-published web page by qrd.org which is a copy of an email which purports to be a document written by another org CAFCA. The document seems to make derogatory claims about BLPs. This about Abrams: "It was said that the service which provided his access to Internet closed his account after complaints that he was posting inappropriate material to various Usenet news groups." The link fails WP:ELNO#2 and WP:ELBLP. – Lionel (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability question
Will, let me get an outside opinion. Recently in the article Fort Myers, Florida, an editor has been removing people from the notable residents section and put in this note: "Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability. The biographical article must mention how they are associated with, whether born, raised, or residing. The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited. Alphabetical by last name please.All others will be deleted without further explanation." Now, I've never heard any policy stating that without an article, a person is not notable, but I don't know everything. The people he is removing are professional athletes and Olympians who pass WP:ATHLETE. Did I miss a memo somewhere that said no article=non-notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They are verifiable as professionals, contrary to what he is claiming. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I might at some point. I don't think they should be erased from WP in the mean time. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed
An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
 * 1) Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
 * 2) Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
 * 3) To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
 * 4) If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
 * Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
 * Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
 * Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Guardians Et Custosi Tutelae
I dislike you removing changes, regarding a society I myself are in charge of. Though understand your reasons for quality control. I suppose I could make up anything. A lot of references you ask for are not published by independent source, simply because well there has been insufficient interest. For verification of source materials, I can send you a copy of anything ask to sight. It is unreasonable to expect source materials to be published as the only form of verification you accept. What about private documentation, it is unlikely I would publish my drivers license number for example, but that doesn't mean I don't have one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeandecabalis (talk • contribs) 03:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

-- Verifiability, etc -- Thanks for making that clear. I have done my best to find published links. Not easy. Yours in good advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeandecabalis (talk • contribs) 04:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche
Dear Will, regarding you post on my talk page:
 * "Keithbob, I see you've developed an interest in Lyndon LaRouche-related topics. I presume that it's simply because of my involvement in those topics. Am I correct that you do not see a problem with following editors with whom you're in a dispute to other, unrelated disputes?  Will Beback  talk  22:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)"
 * I edit with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind and as a member of the Wikipedia community I participate in community forums including 3rd Opinions, COIN, BLPN, NPOVN, RSN, Wikiquette etc. I also participate in RfC’s including the ones that occurred at Lyndon LaRouche in March 2011 and at Lyndon LaRouche movement in July 2011. Please assume good faith and avoid baseless accusations.  -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 02:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there should be much doubt, if there was any before, that me and Keithbob have similar conflicts that will hopefully be resolved once the RfC is posted. Cla68 (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to your post on my talk page:
 * "Keithbob, thanks for your response. then I take it that you do not see any problem with having more editors on any topic, regardless of who began editing that topic first. In other words, following an editor to an article is acceptable behavior.  Will Beback  talk  02:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No Will you are wrong and have misrepresented what I said. You have now twice made a baseless accusation, saying that I am "following editors". The first time I excused your ignorance, but now that I have provided diffs demonstrating that I came to the two LaRouche articles in question through RfC's, you have absolutely no excuse for continuing your disruptive behavior, unless of course, your underlying purpose is to to disrupt and intimidate by creating an untruth.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 14:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't revert war at the LaRouche movement article, especially when there is consensus on the talk page to remove the material. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop revert warring on the LaRouche movement article. Since you have been active on the article's talk page, you should be well-aware that an RfC plus subsequent discussion have established clear consensus for the removal of pejorative content from the article.  This constitutes your second warning. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

changing page name
Hi Will, I can't remember what name I used previously. Generally I use my "real" name, but in the past I used to forget to sign in when making discussion points or edits!!!! I do have a question - over the next weeks I plan to work on translating some of the German pages of the area I am living in at present, creating new pages where no English version exists. I have done a bit of work already on one page - Großer Stechlinsee (thanks for the edit). However the name of the page is not the one used in English - even the Germans generally just call it Stechlinsee - which lierally translated means Lake Stechlin. Could the title be changed to Lake Stechlin, which I feel this would be more accurate and appropriate for English Wiki,or would a new page need to be created and everything moved there?? Paul davis108 (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for changing (moving) the page, Will. I would have probably crashed Wikipedia if I had tried!!!! And no, I wasn't banned - I think my name was Paul davis, must look for the old password. Appreciate all your help. Paul davis108 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Runyon Canyon Park
Will,

Thank you for keeping an eye on Runyon Canyon for me but fortunately I do work for recreation and parks department in Los Angeles as a web developer and have been assigned to this project. The links that are added in this section have been approved and are accurate. These links are NOT promotions or advertising. We are NOT selling anything or even asking for anything. These links are merely a tool for visitors to keep up-to-date with Runyon Canyon happenings / news and to get more involved with the park and their community. This park is a staple of our community and it's a very hard task to keep this website running - wikipedia is a great source of information to educate new visitors on our park, when these links are removed it makes our already difficult job even more trying. I would greatly appreciate if you could please stop removing these links. I'm new to Wikipedia so if I've messed up any formats it would be great if you could help me to format them correctly but it's important that they stay and I'm trying my best to keep it that way. Thank you so much and have a great day sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaporito90046 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"Get over yourself"
There's no need to be rude or to make personal comments.   Will Beback    talk    23:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Recently you seem a bit upset and, well,.... pointy.... Will. The arbitration suggested you and me and the others keep away from each other, I am happy with that and I suggest you consider it also , as I don't see it working out for you on your current path - Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't realize your expertise extended to psychoanalysis. ;) Any deletions from talk pages or other pages, should have a clear explanation. I revert such edits routinely - it has nothing to do with you.   Will Beback    talk    23:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Will, you were mistaken - assume good faith with my edits and don't revert and warn me without discussion and deeper investigation. Back off - as requested at arbitration, regards. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to disengage that'd be great. Please stop making personal remarks about me. (And why are you deleting my comments here?)   Will Beback    talk    23:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to, or need to disengage - I am not engaged with you. As my comments were in the form of advice about an arbitration decision I wanted to keep them in one place and as they were well meant advice for you I felt they sat better on your talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * O2RR has a long-standing habit of deleting comments from his talk page that might lead people to form an unfavourable impression of him. Following his unsuccessful Arb candidacy last year, he told me that he would be discontinuing it, but it is now firmly reestablished.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I care less about anyones impressions of me on this, or any other website. Actually my Arb candidacy was quite successful - its just a matter of how you assess success. Off2riorob (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Off2riorob - you have some sort of complex going on man. You need to back off of people's work on this site. Who gave you administrative access? This is ridiculous and it's people like you that make this website an unfriendly environment. I'm not happy with the way I'm being treated and it's unsettling to see that you are doing it to others as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaporito90046 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are three types of editors on Wikipedia - those who think Will Beback is a great editor and those who don't. I disagree with the second and third type of editor, but I'm not very good with math. However, without a doubt, I align myself with the first group of editors.  Thank you, Will Beback, for all that you do to make this the world's greatest encyclopedia.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Separating contributors into groups creates battlefield attitudes, aligning yourself with one group simply alienates the others. Off2riorob (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely my "math" makes it clear that I was trying to be lighthearted, and my intention was only to try to cheer up an editor who was kind and welcoming to me when I first started here at Wikipedia. If you take a glance at my editing history, I think that you will conclude that I am far from a "battlefield" editor. You be the judge.   Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  18:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surely in way over my head here, but I align with both of you. You both do excellent work.  'Tis wrong to be fighting this way.  The Interior  (Talk) 17:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly there's no aggression or provocation in WB's unadorned statement: there is no need to be rude or make personal comments. Informative, and referencing the childish jibe he was talking about, the post did not invite a reply so far as I can tell, although it presented O2r with an opportunity (ignored) for a gentlemanly apology. So it seems odd that O2r bothered to reply at all, let alone with the gratuitously patronizing and needlesome "Recently you seem a bit upset and, well, pointy, Will".


 * If correct, Nomoskedasticy's observation is worth noting for the context of the deletion mentioned by WB. And kudos to Cullen for the funny! Writegeist (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Creating an article- "Acharya Habba"
Hi, I have collected information about Acharya Habba, should I go ahead with creating an article(new page) on it ?

Regards,

Sourav Mohanty (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In my experience, college fests are generally not notable enough to have their own articles. There was some prolonged discussion about this some months ago, when a lot of Indian college fest articles were tagged for deletion due to lack of notability. Important markers would be mentions in third party sources, like newspaper articles (not mere mentions) etc.  Lynch 7  18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Writings from the inner circle of Transcendental Meditation
Hi. I noticed you have a lot of interesting ideas about what TM et alia is. This is a link to articles published in "Modern Science and Vedic Science," a paper journal that was published by the TM university for at least 10 years. Many of these articles are written by the "inner core" of the TM organization talking about the precepts and goals of the TM organization from an insider's perspective. Reading these may give you insight into what the inner core thinks about itself. At least three of the articles are authored or co-authored by David Orme-Johnson, for example.

http://www.mum.edu/msvs/welcome.html

Just thought you might be interested.

Sparaig2 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My first administrative action (Richwales)
Hi. I just semi-protected Jon Jones (fighter) per a request at WP:RFPP. I'm pretty sure I did it right, but if you have a spare moment and can double-check my work, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Rich wales (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't
Mattybsoul (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Taste of Utopia.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Taste of Utopia.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)