User talk:Will Beback/archive70

Hillary, Barack, and Joe are not leaders/members of the democrat party?
we discuss the members and leadership then the activities of those people   When the Tea Party becomes one of two major contemporary political parties in the U.S.''  then the same rules will apply? you seem to be at odds with you own statements. for democrats, only the dnc chair's comments would be relevant on the article page, but for the tea-party, any local precinct captain appears to be counted as a leader and his comments inserted. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Larry McDonald
I demand to know why did you revert my posting.--46.246.168.204 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir. Is any page at wikipedia where I could post it or not?--46.246.168.204 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I fear that you did not read all my posting. Because I would appreciate your help, can you go to the page history, read it and fin an apropriate forum for me please?--46.246.168.204 (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Help Needed
Hi, my name is Michael Parks and I am a student at FIU in Miami, Florida. My current college project involves me, and those who i find to help me, redo the "Bert Oliva" page. I was hoping that you could help because i see that you have helped out with Tony Robbins, and Bert Oliva is like the 'Latin' Tony Robbins...

Well I barely get all these wikipedia rules so if you could somehow help that would be greatly appreciated! The page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelparks/Bert_Oliva

Thank you very much for all of your help! --Michaelparks (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:RfC
Commenting on a dead RfC is bad etiquette. It certainly doesn't help that the commenter is IP-jumping.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of eleven contributors, 63% is more than enough for consensus. And you still didn't address the editor is obviously an IP dupe.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Show me WP:63% is not consensus. Just because you are an admin does not make your opinion any more valid than any other editor.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Toa Nidhiki05, could you please mention the RfC so that I can respond. Wll Beback's status as an administrator is only relevant when he is acting as an administrator.  TFD (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Will, you cannot define consensus. The consensus among editors was center-right, after a very long debate where four members opposed and seven supported. The RfC is dead, and has long expired the 30-day maximum.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  01:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, Will Beback has the same right to respond to an RfC that you and I do. TFD (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Palin community probation
Hi, Will - I was wondering, do you think it's time to propose ending the community probation on the Sarah Palin pages? (I was the one who originally proposed its enactment.) I think, with her recent announcement that she's not going to be running against Obama, the risk of the insanity we've typically seen on those pages has diminished significantly. I was pretty surprised at the lack of battleground behavior over the McGinniss book. The admins originally involved with the probation (Puppy and SBJohnny) are not too involved anymore, so I'm guessing a proposal at WP:AN or WP:ANI? Kelly hi! 22:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which forum do you think I should raise it at? Would you come and comment? Kelly  hi! 23:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:AN. With respect - Kelly  hi! 23:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And that was a great comment in return, many thanks. I'm hoping to eventually bring Sarah Palin up to featured status, and I'll be depending on your input to keep things honest. Kelly  hi! 23:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the request has been archived - didn't seem to be much in the way of objections, but there weren't many comments. You think is sufficient to close it out? Kelly hi! 04:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the heads-up, I'll be happy to answer any questions that come up. Kelly  hi! 23:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, let me know if there's anything you need me to do. Kelly  hi! 23:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Alphonse Kenyi
Dear Will Beback,

I want to know why the article Alphonse Kenyi was deleted. The article is about a person, and it indicates how and why the subject (Alphonse Kenyi) is important or significant: that is, it indicates why an article about Alphonse Kenyi should be included in an encyclopedia. The person, Mr. Kenyi, is 14 years old and sentenced to death. The subject is important or significant in this way: his case is unusual and is considered by some to be cruel. The fact that his case is unusual is indicated in the article: no other children are mentioned. The fact that his case is considered by some to be cruel is indicated in the article: the person will be executed, which is considered by some to be cruel. The subject is important or significant for this reason: people want to know about this case. This is indicated in the article by the words that constitute the entire article and it's purpose.

It is my hope and expectation that this article, when it returns to Wikipedia, will be improved by others more able than myself.

Yours sincerely,

Weknowjjjjjjjjjj (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Will Beback.

The story of Alphonse Kenyi and his fellow inmates made the front-page headline of El Pais, a prominent Spanish-language newspaper and web news-source. My Spanish is not native, and therefore my grasp of the situation is weak. However, I've been in contact with the New York Times with a request to see this case in the news. They responded, saying the appropriate department had been informed. I am as yet unsuccessful in finding any matches when I search for the name Alphonse Kenyi on their website. In addition, I have contacted the White House with the request to learn about possible U.S. foreign policy regarding or information concerning this situation. It is correct that being sentenced to death is not an achievement, because it is effected by others than the person it affects. However, it is notable. Because an encyclopedia is a source of notable entries, this story belongs on Wikipedia.

Yours sincerely,

Weknowjjjjjjjjjj (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Alphonse Kenyi
Thank you, Will Beback.

Weknowjjjjjjjjjj (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Irregular Immigration
I'd argue that it is, and violates the "be polite" policy stated at the top of the talk page. There is nothing constructive either intended or achieved by Hcobb's talk page comment. His random slinging of slurs with no real aim or direction, such as "anchor baby" make that plainly clear. "Farmworker" for people working illegally? Hcobb isn't suggesting any actual change or constructive discussion, he's mudslinging, plain and simple. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I feel his post amounts to being egregiously off topic, especially since it in no way attempts to make a constructive edit suggestion, and instead is just a platform for ethnic slurs. I have seen posts suggesting that Bush be classified as a "living monkey removed for just this reason. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "any" post. I said that his post makes no attempt at constructive suggestion, and is only being used as a platform for slurs. Call it "pejorative statements" if you want, but it doesn't make it any more constructive. Others have pointed out problems with his very topic title. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

On Talking
Since every Wikipedia article has an associated talk page, the purpose of which is to discuss the article, yes, I admit I do a lot of talking. One reason, however, besides the obvious/just-mentioned, is that I've noticed reversions of various article edits I've made. So, to prevent that in the future, the logical thing to do is to talk first. Well, OK, so it happens that I've chosen some controversial articles, that involve more discussion than others. What of it? You like your chosen subjects and I like mine--no matter how much I must talk before a worthy-article-edit conclusion gets reached. V (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think?
Hi Will, to resolve disagreement about which of two names should be used for a title, what would you think of using both in the title, like Yucca brevifolia and Joshua Tree? Or Gdańsk and Danzig? Those were rhetorical, but this is not: how about Sega Genesis and Mega Drive? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U on User:Objectivist
Please see Requests for comment/Objectivist. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

list of liberal theorists
Please comment on my posting regarding Edmund Burke and other problems with this list. RetroLady64 (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

71.224.207.195
I saw that you blocked the user IP User:71.224.207.195 before for BLP defaming violations. Just a heads up but he's back at it, inserting fake refs for the purpose of defaming a politician.--Львівське (говорити) 21:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Mount Shasta and other ill-advised moves
Hello, An editor is moving a lot of mountain articles in what I consider an ill-advised venture. Others have tried to clean up as it affects Shasta. The result is that, at the moment, the main Mount Shasta article is inaccessible, as it redirects to a list which redirects back to the same list. Please help if you have time. Thanks.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  22:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Yikes" it is. About five editors were scrambling around, and finally got that particular situation solved.  However, I have some serious concerns about User:Drift chambers.  My perception is that this editor "drifts" from place to place throughout the encyclopedia, causing mild chaos everywhere through "boldness" and "ignoring all rules".  The editor has seemingly moved on to astronomy topics, where the prospects for damage are intergalactic, shall we say.  I have little experience dealing with this sort of problem, so any help you can offer would be appreciated.  I don't want to stalk the user, but someone with clout and experience ought to take a close look, in my opinion.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  21:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

see 15th entry at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_boardDrift chambers (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

AFD of article you contributed to
Please see: Articles for deletion/List of new religious movements BigJim707 (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Neutral current et al
not really any problem of misusing the previous accounts as have discontinued use of these other accounts from within the 30 day limit for acceptable alternative account directive, although likely that someone might consider using the Neutral current account although haven't made this available as yet, i.e. surrendered the user name as had just ignored this particular consideration and subsequently forget, so will now endeavour to make the account available to someone else.Otherwise the other two accounts were discontinued from somewhere else as had only then begun editing and hadn't learnt much so an administrator ceased my access to these with advice(already), (neither account has been given a blocked status and myself have never attempted to breach policy...Drift chambers (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Earl the Pearl
The material I posted regarding the history of Regnery Publishing Inc. was drawn directly from the "about us" section of the companies website. See for yourself at regnery.com. Kindly re-post the contribution at your leisure.

EarlthePearl39 (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

W. Horowitz
04:06, 17 October 2011 the edit - changing --Internal links-- to --see also--.would think internal links the prefered title as the articles are linked internally from a search from within wikipedia i.e. are all the returned locations from the search W.Horowitz prior to the articles creation, instead --see also-- would be used for other relevant subjects considered to be of additional interest Drift chambers (talk) 9:57 am, Today (UTC+1) &Drift chambers (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Objectivist and cold fusion
Is it my impression, or is this user engaging in a never ending advocacy at Cold fusion      ? It probably goes further back, but I'm too lazy to look any further. Almost all his contributions there are like that. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

the systematically use of unskilled labour in Japanese nuclear powerplants
Dear Will, thanks for the revert, this section has raised already a lot of "wind", it points to a fact that some people would like to ignore all to gather even in Japan this "use" of uninformed people is ignored for a long time even by the labour-unions there. 1947enkidu (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

International Churches of Christ
Hi Will. I see that, not long ago, you posted a warning on the talk page of User talk:Webmaster1967 for inappropriate editing at International Churches of Christ. Could you take a look at that page again and see if the current editing patterns are similar to the earlier problematic ones. I also wonder if the new editor User:JamieBrown2011 might be a puppet, but I don't have any experience with addressing such things. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality in naming political articles
Along the lines of our discussion here, I mentioned that I had written this section: John_Lewis_(U.S._politician). It serves as a model, in my mind. What do you think? Jesanj (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I replied and I was wondering if an RfC would be an appropriate mechanism to ask about renaming multiple articles. Jesanj (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

CorpTrav
Why did you delete my page? The previous editor told me the problem was my username and I changed it. There was nothing wrong with the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayLawyer (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What is "rm sps"?
And why are you removing references to Heraldica? DBD 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Arb Talk
Courtesy notice: There is a discussion at the Arbitration Committee talk page concerning evidence pages created by participants in the TM ArbCom. The outcome of the discussion may impact your user page content (sandboxes) from that case. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi Will! Normally I don't bother tagging redirects. However I generally make an exception when the redirect is an excellent candidate to become a standalone article. In the case of Lees and LifeSite, they actually were articles, and with a little sourcing can become articles again. By tagging them they show up on the "Quality" row of the Conservatism article by quality table on the main page. This provides 1 click quick access to a list of topics for future articles. – Lionel (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Bert Oliva
I see you protected Bert Oliva against recreation after Fastily speedy deleted it under criterion G4. I'm not convinced that G4 applies to the last version of the article—although I'll concede that the article could easily wind up in a second AfD. Had you looked at the text of the last version, and more critically, do you agree with the G4 criterion?

I'm asking because, who had edited that article heavily, is asking for undeletion. The thread in question is at my talk page, User talk:C.Fred. Feel free to chime in there or reply here (I'll be watching this page). Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur. I ask you to reconsider and allow the page to exist - or at least, allow us to have a collaborative effort to work on the page while a deletion discussion is always a possibility.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 17:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory article problems
Could you please take a look at the Conspiracy theory article? Under the guise of a non existence consensus several editors are removing a direct quote from Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, printed by Edinburgh University which is supported by three other reliable sources. As demonstrated by comments such as Tom Harrison I have to wonder if any of these editors are actually reading the sources referenced.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)