User talk:Will Beback/archive58

Sierra Club and Coal

Hello!

Take a look at this: User talk:Eb17816 and let me know what you think. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening. Should I step aside at this point? Cullen328 (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for your wise advice. I am very glad to see that two administrators stepped forward to help out. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor is back at work. I reverted but will be careful to stick to three per day. Please watch to see if admin action is needed. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:2010 US Census.
Message added 13:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request to block a vandal

Hi, willbeback, would you please block this editor User:Willfults for removal of reliably cited mainstream view in the whore of babylon see here > [1] and pushing a fringe anti catholic POV with unreliable sources, see here>[2]. He has been doing it in many articles also. Thanks.

Hello Will_Beback. Thank you for your action. Would you please revert it to the neutral version while the discussion is going on?[3] Thank you

Proquest

I am aware that you have access to Proquest archiver. Can you access NewsBank as well? Would you mind e-mailing me sources on Al Pollard? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you probably do not have NewsBank. Please e-mail me what comes up on ProQuest. Thank you very much for your time and effort. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe there was another Al Pollard that had a pretty unremarkable football carreer. Try narrowing you search to the 40s and 50s. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Aw, shoot. Perhaps you should try 1940-1960. Maybe if you could narrow it down to "al pollard" as the exact phrase and football as one of the words. If that's still too many, I can list the pages I want. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I can request specific pages after we weed through the LA Times. Again, thanks. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply sent. Only 1940-60, please. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, send everything. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Will would you mind sending http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant/access/886882702.html?dids=886882702:886882702&FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:AI&type=historic&date=Feb+19%2C+1949&author=&pub=Hartford+Courant&desc=Coast+Football+Player+Withdraws+From+School&pqatl=google ? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

AGF

I am happy to restate this in a different way or redact it, if you find it unacceptable or personally offensive. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

MHP II

I've been trying to reach you by email (most recent sent yesterday). Is your email working? Would you be able to give me some indication of your intentions regarding MHP? Sunray (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI: I've also been trying to contact you, Will. Regards, AGK 23:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Will Beback, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Will Beback/Sandbox 3. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Kevin MacDonald

It looks like what you wrote here got inadvertently garbled. Precis (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Can it be anybody?" I tweaked the passage to provide more info about the disassociation. Precis (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you help with this?

Hi, Will. I came across an article that has a typo in the title: Spinger Verlag. As you likely know, it should be "Springer-Verlag" (correcting spelling of Springer and adding a hyphen). It's just a redirect, but should maybe be fixed. Would it entail creating a new article and deleting the old? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much for explaining about the redirects and for looking into that. TimidGuy (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Informal Warning

This is a courtesy warning issued prior to a formal warning per TM Arbitration:

Violations of WP:CFORK, in which you supported through misrepresentation and mischaracterization the creation of a forked article created on the second day of an RfC, [4] without consensus and despite editor objections, [5] [6] [7] violating WP:OWN, and the TM arbitration here. [8](olive (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

"You supported through misrepresentation and mischaracterization the creation of a forked article created on the second day of an RfC, despite editor objections". (olive (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

With out going into an elaborate collection of diffs( thread here and to discussion page end) [9] you supported and endorsed the forking off of content by saying no other solution had been offered which was untrue, and did so in the second day of an RfC. As you know RfCs are meant to build collaboration and consensus while ignoring editors who expressly did not agree with the creation of a new article, is not in line with the Arbitration demand for collaboration. You were courteous enough to offer me an informal warning when I had made an error. I'm doing the same for you.(olive (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

Please reread what I've written, and apply it as you want to.(olive (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

The warning I added here is not the same as I gave to James. I feel you misrepresented and mischaracterized discussion to support James' unilateral edits ignoring editors who specifically said they did not agree with the changes being made. Your experience with RfCs should lead you to know unilateral edits are not appropriate in a consensus building dispute resolution process and mischaracterizing other editors does not help collaboration. This is ownership of an article, not a collaborative situation and not one supported by the wording of the TM Arbitration.(olive (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC))

You make wrong, thank you --Earoni (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

C&D conversation

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Cloak&Dagger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Cloak&Dagger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In auditing my own edits for accuracy I noticed this article is being edited by the company itself. YouSendIt is the article and the IP is 12.233.206.234 which you can see here.

NetRange: 12.233.206.232 - 12.233.206.239 CIDR: 12.233.206.232/29 OriginAS: NetName: YOU-SEND63-206-232 NetHandle: NET-12-233-206-232-1 Parent: NET-12-0-0-0-1 NetType: Reassigned RegDate: 2008-08-28 Updated: 2008-08-28 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-12-233-206-232-1

OrgName: YOU SEND IT LLC OrgId: YOUSE-2 Address: 1919 S BASCOM AV City: CML StateProv: CA PostalCode: 95008 Country: US RegDate: 2008-08-28 Updated: 2008-08-28 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/YOUSE-2

OrgTechHandle: AFR35-ARIN OrgTechName: Fraser, Aaron OrgTechPhone: +1-408-410-2052 OrgTechEmail: aaron.fraser@yousendit.com OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/AFR35-ARIN Cloak&Dagger (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Gender

I'm a guy, and I'm assuming you are too. But also let me know if I'm wrong.Early morning person (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker): Yep, Will is a dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

List of closed secondary schools in California

Thanks for the change. As you might have noticed, I'm adding to the list already anticipating this move. Trackinfo (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Teardrop trailer

Thanks for the edit protect on Teardrop trailer - I had to leave abruptly yesterday, and have only just got back behind a desk. Tch - the pressures of real life... 18:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC) a_man_alone (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

X-COM Systems

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and noticed that you deleted my X-COM Systems article. The article had been up for sometime and I'm not sure why it was removed. I saw the message (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)) listed where the page used to be but I don't understand what I did wrong. Could you please explain what I need to do to correct the problem in simpler terms? Thank you, Signalhawk (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Will, Thank you for your quick response. Would it be acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines to add the X-COM Systems content to the Bird Technologies Group page instead of creating a seperate page for X-COM Systems? Signalhawk (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Will! Signalhawk (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Will, I got the photo from the website but when I uploaded it I didn't understand the proper licensing to use. I also googled "model 43 wattmeter" and saw the same image. Signalhawk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Following up on your kind suggestion

Hi, Will, a while back you suggested that I start using sources that I have been finding from libraries to do substantive edits on Wikipedia articles. I have noticed that some of those articles attract considerable attention, to the degree that when I so much as add sources as "Further reading" to some articles, immediately a new registered editor or I.P. editor will appear on the scene with many comments on the article text. I am still rather new here, becoming a "grognard" editor later this week, and I'm trying to be as transparent and nondisruptive as possible. Moreover, I welcome other interested persons looking on at articles, the better to ensure that all editors are put to their proof for new statements they add to article text. That said, I find on the basis of the sources I'm discovering that several dozen articles here on Wikipedia, including quite a few that are WP:BLP articles, will need bold and extensive edits to fit Wikipedia policies of reliable sourcing and neutral point of view. I will be very attentive to the comments you have, or that other experienced Wikipedians have, as I wade in to do more extensive edits. I hope over the coming weekend to do quite extensive updates of the source lists to which I have devoted the most time and effort, so that other Wikipedians can check and verify the sources as I do article edits. Thanks for any advice you will have occasion to share, and thanks especially for upholding Wikipedia policy on sourcing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the cites

Hi Will, thanks for the citations at Huntington Beach, California. I tried a few times to find references like that but for whatever reason I could not find them. I appreciate your help. Alanraywiki (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN

I'm afraid I'm dumbfounded by you frankly clueless comment regarding ProtectorOfWiki at the AN conversation, and have called you on it. This isn't a personal attack but dear me your reasoning is so astoundingly, well I'm sorry to use the word but it's stupid, I feel moved to comment. If it helps (it probably doesn't) I normally find your input to be helpful - perhaps why I'm so suprised to see such a bizarre, lacklustre and thoughtless comment on the thread. Pedro :  Chat  21:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Janitor

I see you doing good work cleaning up the project. Shouldn't you be an official janitor?   Will Beback  talk  09:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't know if I could survive the job interview. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Issue on Weston Price article

We are having a problem on the Weston Price article. The general consensus via Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F is that Barrett is not a reliable source regarding Weston Price but one editor insists keeping the material in. He also IMHO is a little too free with accusing people of WP:BLP and WP:BATTLE regarding this issue. Could you at least take a look at the article and give some input?--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yul Brynner

Hi. I should have left a more detailed edit summary, sorry. Just because I thought it minor does not mean it was minor. Mea culpa. I mean his affair with Dietrich may be sourced, but does Wikipedia cover every affair between celebs? We're not TMZ, after all. Some affairs may indeed be "to remember" (I hope you get the film reference), i.e. Hepburn & Tracy; Laurence Olivier & Danny Kaye; Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal; etc. but not all. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed your help with the Jan Karski article. Thanks! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I see your point re Dietrich and Brynner. No problems here. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

CU

Do you know of any CUs online at present? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I was meaning do you have any that have edited in the past few minutes on your watchlist. No problem on the help. I am always happy to help. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Robertson

Sir,

You removed my references to Pat Robertson's disgraceful use of his father's influence to evade the combat slot he would otherwise have been required to fill, which was recorded by men who served with him, including former Republican Rep. Paul Norton "Pete" McCloskey Jr.

However, you left Robertson's own fulsome, self-serving, and false bio snippets.

You ask for references. I gave references to this disgraceful matter, which included the web sites with the relevant information, and Rep. McCloskey's book.

Here they are again ,as you seem to have missed them:

http://www.schlatter.org/liquor_officer.htm

"The Taking of Hill 610 And Other Essays on Friendship" by Paul N. McCloskey, Jr. (1992; Eaglet Books, 580 Mountain Home Road, Woodside, CA 94062

"The Most Dangerous Man in America: Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition" by Robert Boston. (1996; Prometheus Books, 59 John Glenn drive, Amherst, NY 14228-2197

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962741,00.html

There are many others if you care to spend a few minutes in the web.

As a former combat Marine, I can tell you that Robertson's disgraceful actions and his LIES about his service and awards (not to mention his actions in the present in Africa) are considered despicable and a "mortal sin" by combat veterans.

This may be "negative information" but it is TRUE, and Robertson needs to be held accountable for ti.

I must insist that you re-post the deleted material.

F. J. Taylor USMC (Ret.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus45 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Pollard again

Hey Will. Im wongering, do you have access to this? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your Mis-Characterization of My Editing Behavior

Since editor behavior is not an appropriate discussion for an article talk page I am copying this thread [10] to your talk page (see text below)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I just noticed that Keithbob deleted relevant material about the DLF from this article. If we're going to write about the DLF here then we need to say so, not hide the association. I'm going to restore those deletions.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What I did was remove redundant mentioning of DLF. I left plenty of references to DLF behind and DLF's role as a foundation that provides scholarships for TM programs in schools was clear. Here is how the section stood after the last time I edited this article on Oct 5 2010. [11] The DLF is mentioned or referred to twice in the section's opening paragraph and then four more times in the 6 sub sections that follow. Please stop mis-characterizing my edits and good faith efforts to improve the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • How did I mis-characterize your edits? I said you deleted the material, which you did.   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You characterized my motivation for deleting the redundant mentions of the phrase David Lynch Foundation (DLF) as deleting "relevant material" and an attempt to "hide the association". This is an assumption of bad faith. Your exact quote from your comment above which cites my editing work was: "Keithbob deleted relevant material about the DLF from this article. If we're going to write about the DLF here then we need to say so, not hide the association". Wiki is a collaborative process. When an editor makes some housecleaning edits you may not agree with them and that is OK, you can change them. What is not appropriate however, is to make judgments or give your own personal characterizations of an editors work on an article talk page. Since this has occurred before,[12] and was brought to your attention [13] please consider this an informal warning that you may be in danger of violating the TM Arbcom decision which states "Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable". [14] If you would like to respond to this post please do so here on this page, as I have your talk page on my watch list, and I prefer to keep the whole conversation in one place. Thank you very much. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from Keithbob's User Page)Thanks for your note. It's very kind of you to say that. Will Beback talk 6:30 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

You are welcome.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User:JohnClarknew

Please can you have a look at the recent edits by John Clark at Talk:Shakespeare for My Father (essentially subverting the main article with his self-aggrandising version from July 2009), and yet another attack on me at User talk:Memphisto. Would it not be better for everybody if his ability to edit any article related to himself, Lynn Redgrave and the Redgrave family was removed? Thanks. Memphisto (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the problematic entry at Talk:Shakespeare for My Father still remains; having been reverted by John Clark even though you had explained on his talk page that Wikipedia:Content forking was not allowed. Memphisto (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User: Memphisto

Please can you have a look at the continuous hounding of me where this user has pursued my every move for weeks now? I'd appreciate it if you would ask him to cease and desist from doing so. Ask him to disengage from anything to do with me. Thank you. JohnClarknew (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for

noticing. I was just now wondering how to deal with his edits to Jack Powers (which I wrote) -- the edits are POV, but is there a source? They contradict the sources I have. And "patriot clubs" for some of the most vicious street gangs in U.S. history? Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

More problems with the Price article.

There seem to be serious problems with editor User:Ronz (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues with him actively deleting comments under the guise of WP:BLP; could you take a look at this mess, please?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like I am not the only one having their talk page filled with accusations--take a look at User talk:The Founders Intent, User_talk:Griswaldo, and User_talk:Hans_Adler. Your advice on this matter would be greatly welcomed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor input requested

In trying to get a sense of where editors stand on the TM article split merge situation It would help to have a definitve statement from each editor. This is not as I see it, to determine a change but to determine whether we can agree on this important issue and if we can't to get outside help. Input here: [15](olive (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Question about ref style

Hi, Will. I'm determined to finally learn proper ref style, as is used in the MVAH article. When making an entry in the References section, is there a convenient way of inserting a template that one then simply fills in? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just what I was looking for. TimidGuy (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) And thanks for the additional link. TimidGuy (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

List of California Schools Closed in the 1970's and 1980's

Have undeleted this redirect that you R3'ed earlier this month - it seems plausible to me, it's the legacy of a few page moves/merges from what I can tell and is the target of a few links. Happy to discuss if my action offends. - TB (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Eyeballs please

You commented on topic bans here. The wording's apparently close to consensus. It's now been updated as v3 and could do with a final check. Thanks - FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ticket#2010100410009624

Dear JHumphries and Will Beback,

I sent an email to Wikipedia with a concern about a comment made on a page about the organisation I represent, which I reproduce below. As you can see they advised me either to go to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or to contact yourselves, and I am approaching yourselves in the first instance. I am now aware from my 'talk page' that it is preferable for me not to use this user name for which I apologise but it was never my intention to regularly post messages on Wikipedia.

The email and the reply are below, I would be grateful for your help or advice in this matter.

Dear Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swinton_Circle&action=edit&section=1

Please can we bring to your attention a claim made on the above 'Talk Page' by '91.111.111.39 (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Alan Harvey, Chairman, the Swinton Circle - 21st March 2010' in particular the line "one of two disgrunted expelled members of the organisation (Messrs. Allan Robertson and Daniel Wilkinson) who were expelled for gross misconduct at the beginning of 2009"

I can confirm under oath of perjury that neither Messrs. Allan Robertson nor Daniel Wilkinson have been expelled from the Swinton Circle. Claims of "gross misconduct", which are unsubstantiated, would seem to be potentially libellous or defamatory.

Having read your policy we do not believe we are in a position to edit this page being both one of the persons named and the representative of the organisation which the article is about.

On a possibly related matter we received an email from Wikipedia stating that "Someone from the IP address 91.111.100.223 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia." A login name was specially created by us to post one message on your 'mediation pages' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-03-4/Swinton_Circle), but we have not used the login name since. Whilst we are happy to "safely ignore this message" we thought it should also be brought to your attention that someone has tried to gain access to a login we created.

Allan Robertson

Chairman of the London Swinton Circle

Firstly, please accept my apologies for the delay in this response. As I'm sure you can imagine, the Wikimedia Foundation receives thousands of emails per day and as such we occasionally experience a back-log in our email queue. I can only apologise for this oversight.

Unfortunately, as an OTRS volunteer, I am unable to change the article substantially without community consensus. However, I can advise you on how to proceed from here.

You may wish to make a post to our neutrality noticeboard, which can be found here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard>. Please ensure that you state your conflict of interest when posting as this will allow our editors to assist you in the best manner possible.

Similarly, you may wish to speak to specific, interested editors who can be found on the article's talk page here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swinton_Circle>. I would especially recommend speaking to JHumphries or Will Beback regarding the issues you have been facing.

I apologies that I cannot help you in a more direct manner. However, should you require any additional assistance or information I will endeavour to help as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Elena Salvatore

I would add that I have received two further emails in the last week for a new login password from IP address 91.109.218.128 and IP address 91.109.252.110. I am happy for this user name to be erased if it is a problem.

As per Elena Salvatore's advice I state my "conflict of interest" in this matter as per my original email.

Allan Robertson,

Chairman of the London Swinton Circle

--Swinton Circle (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Weston Price

As you have previously commented on the talk page, I was hoping you could come and take another look at this article. There is repeated removal of sourced material, for which there has been no real explanation, as well as the addition of what appears to be WP:OR. Another set of eyes would be greatly appreciated. Yobol (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, there were (are) a couple of issues (deletion of source material, OR material) but there are a couple of new editors there after I posted to WP:ORN so I'm hopeful it can be resolved now. Thanks again for the speedy reply! Yobol (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to ask for you to take a look at the Weston Price article with regards to Focal Infection Theory. The majority of the material (Wiley, Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, and Journal of the California Dental Association) states that Focal Infection Theory has seen a revival and and either indicate or directly state that the only difference between old and modern FIT is how it is used. Yobol seems to be under the impression that unless it directly mentions Price we can't use it here but his source is also being uses to reference medical statements contradicted by other sources including one by the very same publisher. A third pair of eyes on this would be welcome.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, turns out that Price's 1923 work on Focal infection was used in medical and dental textbooks and reference guides as early as 1930 and as late as 1936.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, Yobol is now removing the information about Price's work being used in textbooks and reference guides of the 1930s as well as the reworded stuff about the FIT revival in 1989[[16]]. This is really frustrating as it helps establish just how important Price's 1923 Focal infection theory work was in the 1930's and issue with the revival in the present day. If you have any ideas on how to reword this a suggestion would be welcome.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that Yobol is preparing to start an edit war over the Jarvis source, because I'm trying to discuss it and he's trying to cut off discussion. He's already tried to remove a source tag, and told me I have to go to RSN. He does not want to work toward a consensus. Jarvis is the same kind of source as Barrett, and should be getting no more weight and no more space in the article than Barrett. If Prices research was as amateurish as it is being portrayed in the article, it would have been buried so deep it would have never been seen again. That is not the case. People are also trying to associate treatments by "other" dentists to Price as a general rule. It's easy for livng people to attack the work of the dead, because they aren't there to defend it. Care should be taken. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish I hadn't come here for help. You gave automatic support to something you haven't even read. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources and activism

Yeah, marketing material always triumphs over The Guardian. The whole article in fact seems to be detached from reality. Have a look at the Coke film material available on YouTube. Notice how often the beverage industry describe their campaign workers as activists. Pay special interest to the instructions for on-line activism. It is possible that the Wikipedia article is at present guarded by WP:ACTIVISTs.

Anyway, the Wikipedia essay by Cla68 is worth reading. Some people claim that it is related to climate change. I think it in fact describes general trends on Wikipedia. At present the page is almost orphan, so I am doing my bit of marketing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

MHP mediation stalled (again)

Will - Can you please comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/Conditional probability solution‎? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You've been editing - did this get buried before you noticed it? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please at least acknowledge that you've seen this request? -- Rick Block (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)