User talk:Will Beback/archive9

Archives

 * User talk:Will Beback/archive1 - January 2006
 * User talk:Will Beback/archive2 - February 2006
 * User talk:Will Beback/archive3 - March 2006
 * User talk:Will Beback/archive4 - April 2006
 * User talk:Will Beback/archive5 - May 2006
 * User talk:Will Beback/archive6 - June 2006
 * User talk:Will Beback/archive7 - July 2006
 * User talk:Will Beback/archive8 - August 2006
 * User talk:Will Beback/archive9 - September 2006

Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2
This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.


 * Ericsaindon2 is required to choose one username and edit only with that name.
 * Ericsaindon2 is banned from Wikipedia for one year due to a variety of disruptive activities.
 * Ericsaindon2 is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate time from any article or set of articles which he disrupts.

For the Arbitration Committee. --FloNight 06:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Abercrombie & Fitch
I thought you might want to weigh in on the "closed store" list that continues to clutter the Abercrombie article. Talk:Abercrombie_%26_Fitch Thanks, Stuph 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 Florida State Seminoles football team
Looking for some help on a really small matter. One user, PassionoftheDamon, consistantly changes the "Offensive Scheme" in the info box to "pro style" or "vertical pass" when it is in fact "Pro Set". I have provided links on the users talk page and on the discussion page verifying the accurateness of the "pro set" change that I keep making, but he refuses to acknowledge it. Even the FSU football media guide, which should be the definitive source of this info, claims that it is "pro set". Please help. AriGold 14:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Ericsaindon2
I was going through what links here, and there appears to be a problem with what one person claimed about me. User:XClyn is an imposter of me. I despise that someone would make those harsh statements, and use my name as a scapegoat in order to benefit their views, in my expense. But know, that this person was not me, and is not affiliated with me in any way shape or form. I would appreciate it if you would block the user indefinately for something else, but not as my imposter, because it makes me look bad for something I would have never done. You know my nature by now, and know how I operate, and it is clear that this is not me at all. I dont use vulgar language, and I find it pathetic that someone would become an imposter of me just to make me look bad. So, please at least know that this was not me, and I have no clue who it was that made these statements. But, I just do not want to be affiliated with a baffoon like this user in any way. Sincerely, User:Ericsaindon2

He seems to be active again
http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=a&diff=1402104&oldid=1402095

There were a few dozen new sockpuppets on en.wikt: that day. Should I make an effort to keep The Wikipedia page updated anymore, or is that pointless glorification? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration against JarlaxleArtemis
A Request for Arbitration against JarlaxleArtemis has been made. As his mentor your involvment is requested. —Psychonaut 21:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion requested for nudist criticism article
I know you're talking a Wikibreak so I understand if you are unable to help with this, but as someone who is both fair and knowledgeable about WP policy you're the first person I thought of to try to help resolve this issue. The other user involved filed a (factually incorrect) RfC, but nobody else has weighed in.

A user is removing the link to the Nudist/Naturist Hall of Shame from Criticism_of_the_clothes_free_movement. The Hall of Shame is a project which documents nudists & naturists who have been charged or convicted of child sexual abuse. The other user says the site violates WP policy for the standards for external links, apparently because the site contains some anecdotal stories submitted by readers about their own abuse and is therefore unverifiable. That's true, but the site also contains countless stories that are easily verifiable because the criminal charges and convictions are a matter of public record, and many of these have been reported in the mainstream media (and are cited as such). I'm thinking of my own "AR is a Cult" site, which provides some verifiable research such as newspaper clippings and references to books, but also contains a great deal of anecdotal, user-submitted stories, more so than the Hall of Shame. If my site is appropriate as a reference, then it certainly seems that the Hall of Shame should be too.

Also, in my mind, the link does not so much serve as a reference to the idea of child abuse occurring in the nudist movement, as it does to reference the idea that *a certain activist* has made that charge, which may be a subtle distinction, but one that's important, because there is no question in my mind that the link definitely supports the latter position even more forcefully than it supports the former. Anyway, if you return soon and have time, your input would be appreciated. Thank you, -MichaelBluejay 01:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Draft/Ramakrishna
You edited this draft version of Ramakrishna some time ago. Is there any reason to keep this around? Thanks.  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront (website)
Hi Will, can’t tell you how good it is to see you are back. Can you take a look at Stormfront.org please? I am in an edit war that should not exist with a guy named Stick to the Facts. His point seems to be that he owns the page and edits need to be approved by him. At one point I figured he was a solid Stormfront member masquerading as the opposition, but he likely really takes an anti-view. I have added in stuff negative to SF and Don Black which he has removed more then once, only to have him swing the opposite way and go overboard in a negative way. To me, it seems he has a greater interest in ownership then POV or NPOV. He got a 24 hour ban once, but not sure that did any good. Anyway, when you get a chance, can you take a look at it. Thanks

Humm, think of a left leaning Psych*****torian. Oh, and I understand that after being gone for a month, your plate is probably pretty full already, so no hurry. Brimba 03:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Back
Hooray! ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)