User talk:Will Beback/Revisions

Sockpuppet vandals

I'd personally suggest a semiprot while we sort out all these sockpuppets.--AgentCDE / Talk / 03:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is semi-protected. I was thinking of just letting the vandal get it out of his system. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

420

420 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicholas J. F. (talk • contribs).

Seriously, it was nearly a month ago, and besides is this guy trying for even less creativity than a page blanker? 420, lol. Utterly ridiculous and somewhat surreal. — MichaelLinnear 05:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg

I removed some blog refferences, added fact tages... and just noticed that at some point shashwat put them back in. :)

The blog argueing is feeling kind of old to me, does it qualify as vandalism? Sethie 06:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

David Silver, Sailor, Actor, Everyman

Hi. I thought it was him and this confirms it. Cheers. --EarthPerson 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

David E. Kelley

I rv'ed your change to David E. Kelley. I realize the term pedophile, colloquially, can mean sexual abuse of children under the age of consent but the strict definition is abuse of prepubescent children, which is more encyclopedic. Please point me to a change in policy on this issue or that the page Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases will be changed to "Roman Catholic pedophile cases".  ∴ Therefore  talk   16:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

are [[1]] and Voices of Britain the same user? DPeterson^talk 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

I see that you removed my edit. Is there a rule against linking to YouTube? Let me know, Mr Keck 14:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. --Mr Keck 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Shane Ruttle Martinez

Could you vote on this issue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shane_Ruttle_Martinez#Protection

Thanks. AnnieHall 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

The edit and those similar, are the few moments when I feel I've accomplished something at Wikipedia. I was trained to be a lateral thinker, so it is rewarding when I can actually put the training to work. It is even nicer when it is noticed. Thanks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Cho

Regarding an edit from April 2006, I had fixed that page from it being vandalized, I am not the person who vandalized it. Please confirm before accusing. Thanks. Northernstar79 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was over a year ago, however, you do not have a vandalism title on your talk page and I do now and you were incorrect. The version that I revised had changed all masculine pronouns to feminine pronouns and vice versa among other things as an act of vandalism. I believe I attempted to report it at the time, if there were some errors then they were some that I missed. I didn't use a previous version of that article. It's a moot point now but you clearly should change your approach as rules do state that you should approach other users as though they were acting in good faith, which as an administrator you did not, and as an administator you really should. Northernstar79 01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your participation. Sethie was about ready to leave the dialogue... and your participation convinced him to stay. It was feeling like too much to handle on his own.Sethie 18:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Kitty

Will, I do not appriciate your comment on my talk page, I have done nothing to Kitty - if he wants to churn out non notable article then that is his choice - if he even was able to discuss their notability with any degree of objectivity then we woldnt have this problem either. As you can see he is now blanking his talk pages in an attempt to hide his past - there is no reasoning with him at the moment and I cant believe that he is getting away with what he is getting away with - may some people are impressed that he is a Baronet, I dont know, I cant figure it out but I do know is that we are treated very different idead. As for my block log - 3 of the blocks are from Mr.Darcy, another after I rose to the bait of a sock of a permanently banned editor and the other was for a 3RR (in an incident when I didnt even breach 3RR but infact Kitty did - but guess what I got blocked and Kitty got warned - now theres a shock!). Anyway think want you will but I bare Kitty no malice - I was nenver even aware of him until he and a few more editors in his cabal being abisung AfD's and vote stacking - then I starting to look into the articles which he had created and they are the hardly notable - the rest is history.--Vintagekits 22:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Milo's incivility at LOGRTAC

Hey there. Milo has repeatedly been acting uncivil in Talk:List of groups referred to as cults despite numerous attempts by myself and others to advise him against it. He seems to respect you quite a bit, so if you agree he has been behaving a bit out of line, perhaps you'd be interested in encouraging him to chill a little. Thanks for your consideration. Ichibani 03:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to debate here your civility issues with me, if you will first do the quotation research at WP:CIV to back up your complaints. Milo 04:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstarred!

Wow, your talk page is protected? You must be in the middle of a grand ol' time...

But nevermind that now, I'm here to to award you this Slightly Alarming Star of Merit for general contributions, and thank you! Herostratus 12:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The PAW Project barnstar, awarded to Will Beback for contributions to project goals. Herostratus 12:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment re: "Right to Vanish"

I find it interesting that you said that the exertion of the right to vanish requires that the user actually vanish. I know of one problematic user who exercised his right to vanish just so he could come back in a month (supposedly; haven't caught him yet) with a new username. That seems to be at odds with what you said, but I agree with your statement. Maybe some clarification on policy application is needed, because RTV should not be used as a way to give yourself a clean slate. MSJapan 22:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible article?

Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:

• Flora and fauna of Greenland

The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sons of Confederate Veterans

Nice work on the sourcing :) Deiz talk 08:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

BJU & trivia

A bot slapped a trivia tag on the "Mentions in Popular Culture" section of the BJU article. I removed it but left a note on the talk page. I'd appreciate your thoughts either there or on my talk page. I have no problem trying to incorporate a few things while ditching most of the rest if you think that's a good idea.--John Foxe 14:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Glad to have someone to whom I can turn when in doubt about the mysteries of Wikipedia.--John Foxe 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection of University High School (Los Angeles, California)

Hi Will. I requested unprotection of the Uni High article twice at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, only to have my requests removed by a bot VoABot, which was "Moving/clearing older requests." My first request was cleared after 20 mins so I reposted and was cleared by the same bot 10 hours later.

I decided to request unprotection because discussion had ceased, despite my attempts to involve editors. When I originally posted my request, it had been a little over 24 hours since commenting had ended (from commenters other than myself) on both the Rfc and the talk page (with the exception of one recent comment on the Rfc). It's now over ten hours later and all related pages are still silent. As I said on my original request, I do recognize that this is a fairly short period of time to be asking for unprotection in when no consensus has been reached, but discussion seems to have ended, at least for now and I can't make people comment. I've had tons of experience begging for input at this school's articles and waiting/never getting it, and sparking conversation required significantly more "canvassing/spam" then I did this time around.

I'm requesting unprotection here, since you were the protecting editor and I keep getting botted out of WP:RPP. I'd also appreciate any light you could shed on why I got removed by the bot, and any advice you could provide on dragging editors kicking and screaminggetting more editors to the talk page without canvassing or spamming. Thanks, Miss Mondegreen talk  22:52, May 25 2007 (UTC)

Joie de Vivre's Post on Notable Wikipedians

I think I shall wait quite a bit longer before I try to answer any policy questions. Sometimes, you just have to have been around for a while to know exactly how things will be interpreted. I hope I did no damage. Should I just go back and cross all of my answer out? If you could respond on my talk page, I'd be grateful Bielle. Bielle 22:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Sorry to sound rude or anything, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I find it hypocritical for you to say "It's better to take a few minutes and integrate that material into the article" and then just restore it to the way it was, when most of the material stated wasn't relevant. The least you could have done was take a few minutes to integrate the important material.Hoponpop69 00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of links to nielsenhayden.com.

Please stop removing these links. I'm not sure what kind of vendetta you have against the authors of this site, but the links you are removing are to relevant and useful content, and frankly I don't know what you're talking about describing the site as an "attack site". This is one of the most well-known and highly regarded blogs in the publishing industry. JulesH 00:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that I have seen no evidence that the site in question qualifies as an attack site under any of the proposed wordings for either WP:NPA or the old WP:BADSITES, even the most expansive.Never mind, found the offending content. JavaTenor 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Bebeck: this started as your retaliation against me for adding my 2007 books to my own entry. Why are you vandalizing the entries of my husband's colleages at Tor Book? 00:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See my essay for commentary on the whole contentious "attack sites" issue. *Dan T.* 12:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that essay. We are here to make wikipedia better; not use it as a battleground. Try being creative: replace one source with another source ... or rewrite the article so the source is no longer needed ... if the source is being used on a talk page, wait a week to delete it ... use nowiki on a source. All I'm saying is unthinking kneejerk editing is not good. Apply thought. All else follows. The first rule about BADSITES is don't talk about BADSITES. Shhhhhh. Don't give them publicity. Quietly over time, find a thoughtful way to deal with individual instances. Be creative, not mindless. WAS 4.250 16:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Will, please stop acting like a dick. Really really - David Gerard 12:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Subpage

As I stated in the MfD I had no preference whether the page was deleted or not, as the information is stored elsewhere anyway. As you may or may not be aware, I voluntarily took a step back from the entire dispute and decided to spend more time doing something more constructive. However based on the actions of some of the involved parties here and elsewhere, I can see someone apart from me initiating some sort of process in the near future, and I'll be happy to present any relevant evidence there. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat

Will Sethie thinks he has been rather paitent, and he isn't seeing a change in Shashwat's behavior.

To be sure, it could be a lot worse, there is no full on edit war happening, dialogue is happening- at a snail's pace, and the article is looking better.

Yet the article is still full of problems and Shaswat seems to be hunting the internet for anything that he can use to discredit the group and adding them in. Have a look at the youtube video he wants to use as a reffence... it's... well, to put it midly it doesn't appear to qualify as a RS! :)

And his latest set of edits such as [[2]] are just blatant OR.

Sethie's request of you is - would you talk to him about his overall style and what you see happening here? First off, he seems to listen to you, and 2ndly, Sethie is getting tired of the same old thing and unless a change happens real soon, wants to take this to some form of DR. Any preventative measures you can think of would be very helpful.Sethie 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

An/I — Burntapple, sock-puppet of Grazon

He's a bad apple alright. —SlamDiego 19:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Madison Grant

I took a look at it. Some of the changes were OK, some were not. I suspect the IP editor was trying to apply some light whitewash. I used it as an opportunity to add a few things, remove a few things. --Fastfission 21:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Dennyfeelsbad

What do think, is 24 hours enough I've fixed the 35 articles he vandalised Gnangarra 09:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Murder/killing

Thanks for stepping up on the Emmett Till talk page re: the weird mini-debate about replacing all 'murder' with 'killing'. I admire your even-headedness. Ford MF 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Elysium

Of course, thanks a lot for checking. It seems to make sense now that I look at the page again. Either way sorry for not digging a little further and thanks again.

,V

Hippolyte de Bouchard

I am completely sure that the information is right. I translated the spanish featured article, and have the books I have quoted. In addition, I have provided reliable internet sources for the information that I could not check in the books I have.--Argentini an 21:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Im afraid I dont understand. What do you mean whit "previously so wrong"? It was right, but it ommited a lot of information.--Argentini an 21:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser Request

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. GrooveDog 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Linking year-only dates

Obviously I agree that year-only references shouldn't be linked (see talk:Glendale, California). I would love to have a page to reference that says "don't link years unless there's a reason" but I haven't been able to find it. In fact Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Dates seems to indicate that there's a controversy. Is there something specific in the MoS that you could suggest I point to as I remove these annoyances? Gruber76 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Eric Foner

I undid a change by a vandal user... was the previous entry wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eric_Foner&diff=next&oldid=134484166 Stellatomailing 05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC) }}Thanks. I assume that I did not give it much thought, I was undoing his other edits. A vandal with a conscience, looks like. Stellatomailing 05:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles Asistencia

You provided some input on this article in the past. Please have a look at it in its current state before evrik starts another useless edit war.

Thank you. Mdhennessey 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Could you please roll back that change. Even if it is the correct name it should have gone through the process and used a {{moveto}} tag. --evrik ^(talk) 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• could you also include Template:Alta_California_Missions and Spanish missions in California. --evrik ^(talk) 02:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Bueller? --evrik ^(talk) 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bueller? --evrik ^(talk) 20:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

How does SourceWatch provide a unique resource beyond what the Leo Strauss article (as well as several other biographies) would contain if they became a Featured articles? Based on the profiles I'm seeing, SourceWatch is not coming from a NPOV. I'm asking because you're citing WP:EL as your rationale for re-inserting the links. Regards, MoodyGroove 21:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

That's not my interpretation of WP:EL. As I look through that guideline, I'm impressed with comments like "relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability"; "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified."; "Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?"; "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail [...] or other reasons."; I'm not sure I blame the editor who removed the links. It's not a profile of Leo Strauss, it's a collection of links and a podium for left wing condemnation of Strauss. In fact, I see no evidence that SourceWatch has made an attempt to understand Strauss at all. I think you should reconsider. Respectfully, MoodyGroove 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I appreciate that, WB. Regards, MoodyGroove 22:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

St. Augustine High School Revert

Will Beback, I'm just wondering, why did you revert 68.6.197.46's edit[3]at 17:27. I didn't see anything wrong with it and I was wondering why it was reverted. Perhaps this will help me become a better editor. Thanks, Tcpekin 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that now. Tcpekin 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Command responsibility

Maybe you protecting the article was somewhat premature since discussion was and is ongoing at the Military Commission Act page and here. Would you mind unprotecting since TDC himself agreed uipon undoing his edit pending discussion. Cheers. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Advice Please

Would you please advise regarding what I should do regarding a potential disagreement. On the article for Dae Gak, one of his students is removing information. This user, Durruti36, has deleted Zen Master Dae Gak's real name and the notice: unreferenced||date=February 2007 claiming that "Dae Gak is a published author and his book is listed." He also deleted the discussion page. Those are my major objections. A minor objection is that he has added a vanity reference to becoming a teacher in that tradition. I can live with the minor issue if the major issues are resolved. I undid his changes and he attacked me for being an unregistered user. Before a flame/reverting war ignites, would you please suggest a way to handle this? Killerbeez 19:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Is there a registration process I do not know about? If there is, please tell me about it. Thank you.

Thank You

Thank you for your advice. I support you in this matter. I foolishly assumed that because he published a book, we was eligable for a Wikipedia entry. On a similar note, would you please delete The Lexington Zen Center. It was a non-notable Zen center entry once connedted to the Dae Gak entry that was deleted. But this redirect was forgotten. Thank you for your kind words. Killerbeez 23:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speediest delete in Wikipedia history. Supersonic! I will composed something for the delete comments. It might take a day or so. I want to make sure it accurately reflects his situation. Killerbeez 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Two More Questions

1) Is there a place where I can learn more about how to edit Wikipedia? I am learning through hit and miss now and it is not the most effective process. 2) Wasn't there a criteria (it might be some time ago) where an author only needed to sell something like 5,000 copies of their books to be included in Wikipedia? Has that changed or is my memory bad? Killerbeez 23:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert War

Hi again Will,

A revert war has started about the citations notice on the Dae Gak entry. What is a grown up way to handle this? Killerbeez 00:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Killerbeez 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As you might have seen when you posted Durruti36's 3RR notice, I wrote a cordial letter on his discussion page asking for discussion and a settling of our differences. I received no reply do far. But, since it indeed takes two to tango, your warning is noted. Killerbeez 13:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am planning to remove the "sourcing" tag again

Please see the talk page on Dae Gak for more information. Durruti36 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A few questions have been left for you on the Dae Gak talk page. When you get a chance, would you pop by? Thanks, Killerbeez 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with Hyo Jin Nim's article. Steve Dufour 02:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

LordPathogen

He is a problem with an axe to grind. --evrik ^(talk) 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, you keep harping on this kind of stuff but don't do much refutation of facts... As I have stated before, I'm not interested in contributing to several articles like you. I heard about this case on the news, looked her up here, found the article laden with your POV and set about adding some balance by quoting facts stipulated to by Ms. Arellano herself. And what exactly is wrong with that? LordPathogen 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we are examining behaviour, however, let's look at yours as well...

• 1st revert: [4] Removed category Fugitives. Ms. Arellano has an outstanding order for Deporation by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and they have publicly stated she is a "fugitive."

• 2nd revert: [5] Removed category Mexican Criminals. Ms. Arellano has been convicted of using a counterfeit Social Security card which is a felony in the United States.

• 3rd revert: [6] Restored deleted Mexican American link under "See Also". Ms. Arellano is a Mexican national only and does not fit the description of the category, only the looser defined project. This Admin specifically stated she does not belong to the category on the Talk page. Not sure why then a link to the Mexican American article is required since she fails the description set forth in the first line of that article, "citizens of the United States of Mexican descent." Seems misleading to readers not familiar with the Arellano article. It should be on her son's page, not hers.

• 4th revert: [7] Inserted category Mexican American Leaders. If, as per this admin Ms. Arellano does not fall under the category Mexican Americans, why then should she fall under the category Mexican American Leaders? Seems like basically trying to revert Mexican American category. LordPathogen 16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, can you please advise who I complain to about abusive behavior by Ekrik? He has gone and changed all my signatures on the Arellano talk page to read "— LordPathogen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic." The article on Single Purpose Accounts states: "Please note that any other use of this tag is highly discouraged as it can be interpreted as a personal attack that may lead to action being taken against you." Well I sure feel like it is a personal attack on me and want it removed. I also think it is an attempt by him to sway opinion rather than make cogent arguements himself. LordPathogen 16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK... I removed them... again. I still would like to know who I complain to about it. This is clearly a personal attack. LordPathogen 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• ... and now you're being cited as the reason why the article is being changed here. --evrik ^(talk) 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I quoted you accurately about the category Mexican Americans but if not please advise. And as I have noted several times to Evrik, how can you belong to the category Mexican American Leaders and not Mexican Americans? As for the Fugitive and Mexican Criminal tags, I have documentation stipulated to by Ms. Arellano herself in the form of a legal brief. Hence I put those categories back, unlike Evrik who removed them without comment and offers no sources explaining why the categories are inaccurate. He just does not like them. LordPathogen 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Immigration law

Thank you for fixing the vandalism and reverting to my edit. You are free, of course, to make any relevant, NPOV changes. The article could use some work. Bearian 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Brentwood School (Los Angeles, California)

Will Beback, please revert edits made to the Brentwood School entry. These edits were made by an authorized user at Brentwood School in Los Angeles to reflect current and correct information about the school. Bwscampus 05:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability Questions

As I was examining other Zen Master entries, I noticed that a couple of other ones might have notability problems. If it interests you, would you please examine Jakusho Kwong, and Soeng Hyang for notability. Personally, I hope that Soeng Hyang stays on Wikipedia because she is an openly lesbian Zen Master ... but I don't know if she is the first. Thanks again, Killerbeez 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will read up on it before I make any decisions. Yes, I would say that the KUSZ is a notable organization and I am happy to hear your comments on Jakusho Kwong. Thanks, Killerbeez 18:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Question

I noticed that someone just joined Wikipedia to vote against Dae Gak's deletion. Is that kosher? Killerbeez 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it really typical behavior? I feel like I have stepped through the Wikipedia looking glass sometimes. Killerbeez 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute on Alvira Arellano article

Hi, I am asking you, Rockero and Chicaneo to take a look at the aforementioned section on the talk page and offer your opinions. I think there is nothing violating NPOV in my additions. Basically, it is a recitation of the facts as stipulated to by Ms. Arellano in the legal brief filed on behalf of her son. If I'm wrong, fine, but if not, I think the tag needs to come off the article. --LordPathogen 22:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, nevermind. Evrik has just done as he wants (again) and unilaterally reverted the article back to May 9th. And no one who has the power lifts a finger to stop him. --LordPathogen 13:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'd welcome your (Will's) take on what, if any, administrative action is appropriate in the dispute between LordPathogen and Evrik at that page. It's spilled over onto my talk page. MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• The change wasn't unilateral. This is not a dispute, but vandal fighting. LordPathogen is a troll who is pushing POV and misusing the process.

Since LordPathogen started editing the article Elvira Arellano he/she has been blocked twice for violating 3RR. Additionally, one of those blocks also involved using two sockpuppets, one of which was blocked. During one of those blocks, LP sent me and one other user harassing emails and was unapologetic about it.

In the last week, LP has accused me of Suspicious editing behavior and harassment on WP:ANI – both times the complaints were turned aside. Also in the last week, LP has accused me of 3RR and another user of the same thing.

This user has spent a fair amount of time causing grief and making edits that violate WP:Point. LP is lamely trying to game the system and MastCell's warning is not only unjustified but is just giving credence to an account that is a thin mask fore POV pushing and near vandalism. I have resisted posting any notices to WP:ANI because I thought this user could be controlled. I also didn't want to escalate this further. --evrik ^(talk) 00:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

I think i did as you asked would you please check Usnn 00:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there an easier way to talk to you? like say AIM or YIM? Usnn 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallery suggestion

Hi Will. I just found your suggestion and have begun to implement it. Take a look at see if it is better now. [8] If you like it, I'll continue. -- Fyslee/talk 11:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm finished with implementation of the new format. Any suggestions before "going public"? -- Fyslee/talk 15:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Random Question

Have you ever really thought about what kind of mental disorder people like cantstandya have that makes them use sockpuppets and edit the way they do? Do you think it's an ocd thing or some kind of schizophrenia? I am honestly just curious about what makes people like that do what they do. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? Turtlescrubber 14:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hello, I noticed that you recently left a message at the talk page of user DaveyJones1968 and have come to ask for help. The user is proving to be extremely disruptive on talk pages and continues to make flagrant personal attacks, both against the subject of articles and against other Wikipedia editors. Among the what are becoming quasi-innumerable and inappropriate comments, there's this, this, this, this, and I could go on for a while (or you can check the user's brief but "flamboyant" edit history). I get the impression that the user is interested more in starting fights on talk pages and adding unsourced, controversial information to biographies rather than being a serious editor. Of course, this may be a biased assessment, hence why I'm requesting your help. Hopefully you can decide what the appropriate course of action for this user should be better than I. Thank you.UberCryxic 17:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Will, normal users are almost never (actually never) supposed to ask admins for a ban, but you (or someone else) really need or needs to ban Davey, just for a short time anyway. Among the user's more colorful commentary today, see this and this. The user is continuing to be confrontational and shows no immediate signs of rest. Sending a message with a ban would be wise at this point. Because you are personally involved with the user, it's not a good idea to ban Davey yourself (just as a matter of etiquette), but I'm sure could could request assistance from another admin. Thank you.UberCryxic 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Help from you, as an administrator

Since you've had an interest in the article Child sexual abuse, I am hoping that as an admnistrator you can intervene and direct Kinda to stop knowlingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry, which I expereince as personl attacks. He knows te accusations are false. See: [[9]] for the filing I made. Anything you can do to stop him would be appreciated. DPeterson^talk 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Talk:Chumash (tribe)

First, ya thanks, I shoulda just taken the dabnote out. Second, on the question on the talkpage about why the bit about Polynesian contact, I actually went yesterday to the page specifically because I wanted to look at the reference, and was surprised to see it removed. I haven't looked into it, but the information should definitely be in the article, especially in light of this and soön. Tomer^talk 14:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask User Kinda to stop

I see that you have been involved with User Kinda and his making personal attacks. I consider what he said at [[10]] about me to be a personal attack and a not so subtle accusation that I am a sockpuppet. I did file a formal incident report. Can you do somthing about his behavior? It is way over the top!!! thanks. SamDavidson 18:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing my user page and the Interdictor article. Ikilled007 22:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Sapienza nominated for deletion

As a serious contributor to this article, you may want to participate in saving it by citing sources. --Kevin Murray 13:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

John Wayne sock

Thanks. I'll come here for the "daily" block. I'm new enough to admin processes to wonder: is this the only tool you guys have to handle someone who changes their ID every day? Must get tedious over several thousands of articles! Thanks again. Monkeyzpop 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He's got a new one, 19 June 2007: User:RealHeroes (not to be confused with his previous one, RealHero. Monkeyzpop 07:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Children of God template

Hi, Will Beback. I saw your comment at Talk:Children of God, and I would appreciate it if you would weigh in at Template talk:Children of God#Links removed from template regarding edits by User:Sfacets. Thanks! Joie de Vivre ^T 12:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

I have deleted and oversighted a post by evrik which contained links to the email he posted previously and other personal information. Fred Bauder 17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

child sexual abuse

Could you check out this entry? User 00s and a's has been busy for hours inserting the "sex with grownups is good for kids" POV--hard to keep up and annoying to have to do so. Revert wars are likely to break out soon. Thanks. -Jmh123 17:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Briefs

I didn't restore the material, Maple Porter did. However, I am about to answer your question in some detail on the talk page. --Don't lose that number 20:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits

Hi Will. As you were kind enough to contribute to the brief discussion we had recently on AN/I about this matter, I wonder if you would consider closing this? I think it has run its course, and Vintagekits seems unlikely to add to what he has already said, which is that he will only discuss the matter off-wiki, allegedly for reasons of privacy. Thanks if you are able to help, --John 21:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to be the closing admin on my page can you please email - I am not prepared to reveal personal information to satisfy the likes of John, WATP, Squekbox and other what can be percieved by some as "anti-Irish editors" if you want to be the closing admin please email me via my user page and I can explain everything very simply.--Vintagekits 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have raised it here. --John 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Watermelon snow

And by the way, I am indebted to your user page for the mention of watermelon snow. I had never heard of the phenomenon and it is a fascinating article. Thank you. --John 21:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Boston Massacre Engraving

I am going to remove the current image, which I posted, and replace it with the original one. The reason is that I am still awaiting permission from the source website, and I do not want to run into conflict as I hope to use other images from it. I got one reply about their general policies and now am awaiting express permission for this particular image. I will put it back up once I have evidence of the permission --CommonSense101 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

NPA on LaRouche talk pages

I agree with what you said, and I was the one who put the "off-topic" warning on that page. However, as I said on the US v. LaRouche talk page, I think that Cberlet is far and away the most chronic civility offender, and I can find no evidence that you have ever chastised him for his incivility. I think that you should make an effort to be even-handed. --Marvin Diode 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Christian Bartolf

This article is a WP:AUTO and was speedily deleted only yesterday. The user is provoking a revert-war for weeks at Lübeck. He deleted deletion-requests on a page about his own inormation center.--Kresspahl 07:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is pure exaggeration. "Kresspahl" will by all means define "notable persons" of Luebeck and exclude my name. And now "Kresspahl" attacks the article on my person with the support of others. It is dirty policy. Bartolf 19 June 2007

Troll alert

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep my eye out and revert his vandalism whenever I come across it. Sullenspice 14:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Because the discussion is over. And since it's over, I'm free to remove my comments at will. --Ksy92003 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi Information Center

I think you should think about your view on "notability standards". Excuse me for removing tags: I have not been too familiar with Wikipedia's procedures, rules and regulations, because I am a newby. You find on the discussion page official web sources of Berlin. They can be added easily. Perhaps you should be more helpful as "chief admin", even if you do not recommend "those efforts", or else pass it over, "Will Beback". Chrbartolf 20 June 2007

Sorry, "Will Beback". Now hopefully the many additions and changes of the website will suffice. Chrbartolf 20 June 2007

Not even a day of peace

Please check into new user Drogheda who is trying to insert pro-Pedophile POV into child sexual abuse. Thanks.

A new task force that could use your expertise

Hi Will Beback, I'm sure you're very busy, but I admire your editing a lot and would appreicate it if you'd take a look at the below. Regardless, keep up the great work! Benzocane 20:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

blocked

it says I was blocked the other day. lol, I was out of town the whole time you had me blocked :P I mean, even if I was in town and couldn't get on to edit articles, is blocking me from editing articles really supposed to make me feel bad? TV2007 11:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What to do

What should one do when they catch wind that someone is trying to orchestrate action against another user? --South Philly 23:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)