Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:13, 14 October 2007

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007

Larry Craig

I find it ironic that you deleted my posting on Larry Craig's talk page regarding the fact that so many rabidly homophobic political figures are later found to be gay, and yet you have not removed the postings saying "The Iowa Marriage Ruling will ensure the GOP will win in 2008". You're not biased or anything, are you? NPOV my ass. Wandering Star 13:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of HarveyCarter

Please deal with user User:Daer11. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Craig, Foley

I was looking at those religious cats. Foley appears properly documented, but the Craig article does not verify anywhere that he is a Methodist, beyond the unsourced mention in the infobox. WP:BLP#Categories would call for that cat to be removed until it is properly sourced. I'm sure that won't be difficult. - Crockspot 21:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Spooner

In your haste to make a complete revert, you reverted a spelling correction. As far as the citation tags go, even if the "facts" are eventually dealt with in one or more of the references at the bottom of the page, they are not properly cited in the article. So maybe someone who has enough time to make all of these unsourced claims can find some time to go in and actually bring it up to wiki standards? Info999 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist Revisited

These topics were added to my watchlist by someone but not by me.

* Archive 5 (Talk)
* HAGGER?? (Talk)
* HAGGER???? (Talk)
* HAGGER???????????????????????? (Talk)
* Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide (Talk)
* NIGGERS (Talk)

I did not add the above non-existent pages to my watchlist and never visited anything with those names.

Will, this follows an earlier conversation when I reported to you that someone was adding racially discriminatory topics, again tied to non-existent pages, to my watchlist. More have been added. I have left it up this time so that a developer can take a look. Six items were added, including one that is racially discriminatory. I'd like to know how other people can access my watchlist. Thanks. Skywriter 17:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is the earlier conversation. Skywriter 17:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Can you give me the exact name of one or more of the entries? I suspect that they got on your watchlists when articles that were already watchlisted were moved to the new names. That has the effect of creating a redirect from the old name to the new name, and of automaticlaly adding the new name to your watchlist. However without a name to go by it's very hard to track down. I couln't find any history of their ever being an article called "Racial segregation is necessary" - are you sure that's exactly right? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither admins, nor users with access to other common tools can see your watchlist. I assume that the developers can do so, though I've never heard of it. Anyone can look up page moves. For instance, this log shows articels that have been moved to titles that start with "nigger". However I don't see anything there that matches. I wouldn't worry about this unless it happens again. If it does, don't delete the names until we can investigate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

you wrote: "This is a feature, not a bug." ahem. Actually, Playstation III was another that was added to my watchlist that I did not add. But I get it. I'll just kill them out.Skywriter 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Aiken

The easy question first. I noticed the text in articles from this past summer tour when it was being promoted. Articles with bio info took the info directly from Clay's page. A few did a little rewriting but the lazy ones lifted the text verbatim. Since I was so involved with the rewrite it was easy to see the text was identical and I'll admit to bit of smugness over seeing my words in print. Unfortunately I did not save links and trying to go back now and find them is just too time consuming. None of it related to the subject your asking about since at that time it wasn't in the article.

The hard question. All of the gay rumors and gossip have come from places like Datalounge, the NE, Perez Hilton, Page 6, magazines like OUT and gay bloggers, some dating as far back as Wildcard night on AI2. They voice their opinions and spread their gossip but none of them have verifiable proof. The day before the NE JP story hit Clay posted this bible verse on his blog. Isaiah 51:7. Most had to look it up. "Do not fear the reproach of others, and do not be dismayed when they revile you." A thread on his fan club was started and within 24 hours there were thousands of comments of support. The next day he blogged two words. "Thank you." It didn't take a rocket scientist to see how that story hurt him.

Diane Sawyer and Larry King didn't pull their questions out of thin air and they sure didn't get them from reliable verifiable third party sources. Larry used the Diane video clips to bring the subject up. I went back and checked that transcript today. In fact, Diane Sawyer had already asked him about rumors back in 2003. Jimmy Kimmel used to make fun of him until they met and now Jimmy defends him and leaves him out of his gay jokes. He told Perez the other night that Clay would not appreciate the nickname Perez uses for him. Kimmel also told Perez he was a horrible horrible man. During AI2, reporters were crawling all over Raleigh and Charlotte looking for some dirt on Clay and all they came up with was a speeding ticket. My comments here would be considered original research and would be off limits as far as the article goes. Maria202 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just furious that you had so little respect for me that you didn't let me know what you planned. I'm neither embarrassed nor ashamed, just mad as hell right now. That was a sneaky underhanded action on your part and I do not appreciate what you did. Further responses to you will be on my talk page. Maria202 02:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

jmh/Will

I've never seen such a move before either. Her comments were obviously not intended for the talk page. I do think you violated her trust, and suggesting shame and embarrassment as an explanation for her reaction is insulting to her to boot.

May I take this back to square one for a moment? An individual posted some comments on the talk page on Thursday that were insulting towards the editors of the article ("hogwash" "claymates" "whitewash"). In response you restored material that was deleted months ago, without reading the current version of the article--thus after your edit there were two mentions of the cat story, two mentions of the lawsuit, two mentions of the Ripa incident, and so on. I'm not at all surprised that your edit was reverted by Maria, as it was obviously a poor edit. Instead you could have taken a little more time to look things over and familiarize yourself with the changes and the discussions on the talk page regarding the rewrite, or you have said on talk, "I haven't been here for a long time, and I see the entry has been completely rewritten. Why is the highly debated material that used to be there gone now?" Or, after the revert by Maria, you could've said, "Oh, I see I'm a bit out of the loop. I'm sorry. That wasn't a very good edit. So what's going on?"

From where I stand, what happened instead felt like insult followed by accusation. I have admitted to overreacting, for the reasons I stated, and I apologized for it on Thursday. I don't understand why you are pushing this so hard, and at such a pace. I don't feel as if you are listening to what others are saying, and it seems to me as if you are badgering Maria for reasons I don't understand. Clearly from your points for the RfC, there is a huge gap between us in perception of this situation. My position on the topic was initially somewhere between you and Maria, but the way this is going down has pushed me hard to Maria's side. Not that it matters, because the opportunity to discuss any further was taken from me because I had to take care of my mother yesterday and couldn't be on line.

And, by the way, I was not "creating a private version," I was working on a possible compromise, but by denouncing and then co-opting it, you made that impossible. At any rate, what's done is done, but I needed to say my piece. -Jmh123 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Working together

I'm going to copy your response to the above here, as it's easier to address:

Thanks for taking the time to post your note on my talk page. Disputes are easier to resolve when everyone can talk together calmly. You made several points and I'll try to address them individually.

• I had asked Maria202 on the article talk page to support a couple of her claims. But due to the nature of a busy discussion other editors chimed in with new points and the questions got lost. So I went to her talk page to re-ask the question, indicating that the information would help the discussion. I'd presumed she'd answer on the article talk page. The discussion was relevant to the discussion of the article so I moved both of our postings there. My user talk page isn't private, and I wouldn't expect anyone who posts there to think that their message would be kept confidential. It's not like an email for example. For her to say she was furious, etc, seemed to me to be an over-reaction. But I understand that folks are emotionally invested in this topic.

It isn't a matter of confidentiality; it's a matter of the type of talking you're doing. It's my perception that her comments to you were clearly not intended to be a contribution to the debate, but a response to what she thought was a question asked of her personally. If you intended otherwise, it was no more clear to me than it was to her.

• I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Clay Aiken article. I did take the lead on deleting the JP article, but since then haven't paid much attention. I saw someone post a note on the talk page asking why there was no mention of Aiken's orientation. That surprised me since I had spent all that time with you and others negotiating the text on that topic. I checked the talk page for any discussion and found none. So I dug through the article history to find when it had been deleted and restored the material. Then I initiated a discussion asking why it had been deleted. Maria202 reverted my addition first and then joined the discussion. She pointed out that some of the material had been distributed around the article and I acknowledged that but asked her to explain the deletion of the other material. So I think I did exactly what you say I should have done.

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it either. Maria and I rewrote it, were pleased with our work, received no complaints, and I moved on. I hardly ever come to Misplaced Pages anymore. My point was that once the insults and the bad edit had occurred, your manner in asking for an explanation came off as a demand and an accusation. Some of us aren't wired for instantaneous Misplaced Pages debate mode, or for responding well when put on the defensive. I am certainly not. The deletion was made by others, neutral editors, months ago, so it isn't that easy to come up with a ready answer in terms of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I think Maria has now provided the answers you asked for, but you just don't agree with her.

• I haven't set any pace for the discussion. I haven't demanded that anyone respond. I haven't reverted my own edit to the article. I haven't threatened to act unilaterally on a deadline (unlike some other people in the discussion). I have said that there's no rush, that we can discuss and compromise. I think I've been calm and patient.

Then why the RfC already? The way it is framed is going to affect how people respond, and as you can see by my rebuttals, I have some real problems with some of your points. Even the way the issue is phrased on the RfC page is leading. Why was it necessary to do this yesterday?

• I didn't denounce your efforts on the draft version you were editing, but I did say that we should work together on it. I put your draft forward as a starting point, which I thought was a good faith effort. Please assume good faith on my part. I'm just trying to bring us back to consensus on this issue.

I don't see why you can't understand why I might want to be the one to introduce it, at a time of my own choosing. At the very least, it might've been nice if it had been introduced when I was able to participate, no?

• I understand what it's like to care for a sick parent and I know how frustrating it can be to get called away from the keyboard in the middle of a lively exchange. We've worked together on many topics over the past couple of years and I hope we can continue to work together to improve the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've worked together really well in the past, and this surprises me. I haven't known you to press a matter this way. Usually you come in, make a comment, and leave again for days, not engage in prolonged back-and-forth arguments. I know we disagreed on the actions of a couple of colleagues in the POW group, but that was between me and them. I'm really just not suited for Misplaced Pages (which seems to me to be far too vulnerable to manipulation by special interests, far too powerful because far too many people are intellectually lazy, and the worst possible way to create and disseminate "knowledge") nor do I have the time these days to do it justice. -Jmh123 21:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

starting anew

Alright, the bottom line. Why this material shouldn't be in Misplaced Pages. This is not intended for the talk page of the article. If and when it goes there, it should be because I put it there. First, as usual, there is an agenda behind this particular change happening at this particular moment. The only reason I've ever edited at Misplaced Pages is because I hate the way people are able to use it so easily to promote an agenda, and sometimes I try to stop them. In the case of Aiken, because I'm a fan, I'm often aware of these agendas and they do shape my responses to proposals. You can say I shouldn't allow that, but when people do plan to use Misplaced Pages, and succeed at doing so, is that right? I can tell you already what the next proposed edit will be, and to what entry, if this edit succeeds, and then what a particular gossip columnist will say after that. Second, BLP guidelines have changed. Aiken does keep his private life private and he does not discuss it willingly; when he does discuss it, it is to say that he wishes to keep his private life private. According to the guidelines as I understand them, we should honor that. Third, I can see the point of including the material because it does provide his response to the never-ending questions. Fourth, I can see the point of not including it because we simply don't have the resources to do justice to this subject at this time. There's no published source that deals with this issue as anything more complicated than "are you or aren't you?" Not, "why does anyone care?" In the absence of any kind of sophisticated source material (and I'm sorry, but your respected journalists have not handled this in a sophisticated manner) we're left with this bare-bones non-denial denial that the vast majority of people misunderstand. Fifth, while it is absolutely true that from the point of view of google and entertainment media, the gay/not gay question is a major factor in his story, from the point of view of Misplaced Pages's role in addressing it, whatever Misplaced Pages does will only add to the speculation, not end it. I don't think reference to this issue belongs on Anderson Cooper's page, or Jodie Foster's page, or John Travolta's page or Tom Cruise's page. In my opinion, some people want to see these things in Misplaced Pages for the same reason "Little Fatty" was in Misplaced Pages, for the same reason someone is always trying to work the gerbil story into Misplaced Pages, and the same reason some girl who did nothing but appear in a popular YouTube video was in Misplaced Pages. Even if you can google it, even if "everyone knows," I don't think these things belong in Misplaced Pages. I learned the gerbil story from Misplaced Pages, I learned of gay speculation in every one of these other cases from Misplaced Pages. I'm sure I'm not the only one for whom this is true. Like it or not, Misplaced Pages spreads gossip. I object to that. -Jmh123 21:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

my response to your response

Thanks for your response. I missed that someone threatened to delete the talk page. I'll look again. I guess both of us need to skim less. (I also missed Maria's comment that shaped your response just now.) I did find my own statement that the material had been deleted on the talk page; see the last comment under Retraction. I think I did everything I could at that time, in good faith, given that I agreed with the deletion and felt that it reflected current policy. I noted it on the talk page; I asked the folks who deleted it to comment, but they didn't. There was no objection stated, nothing to respond to, until now. 1. Heavens no, I am not accusing you of foreknowledge or conscious participation in someone's agenda. Of course not!!!! 2. Long story with the tabloids squarely in the middle. 3. I'd agree with you, except that the Aiken page has never been so quiet as it has since those deletions were made, whereas, when "the paragraph" was there, someone was always trying to add something else on the topic. Perhaps we can find a consensus that doesn't invite this? 5. I have never argued that no one cares about this, have it? I just don't think that's a reason to include it. The message board thing was completely misrepresented, by the way. ETA: I just noted that you linked Page Six on your RFC points--good grief, do you not understand what Page Six is? It is not a trustworthy or reliable source. Try googling Page Six scandal. Or look here. Please delete that link from your points unless you think validating them with tabloid gossip is a good idea. Thank you. -Jmh123 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Page Six article is a steaming pile of bullshit. The board was not closed for the reasons stated by Page Six, and it was back up before the story appeared. Fan interest in this entire topic is limited to about a dozen people on each extreme; most simply don't care and call the whole subject "beating Bob" (Bob being a dead horse), a term created in 2003. I'm astounded that you think this article is a valid source in any circumstances, seeing that it is full of lies, and in this case, I don't even need to be Clay Aiken to know that. I will ask you again to please remove that link. -Jmh123 02:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are a member, you can't get in. It is a perk of the fan club. Yes, it is still up. It was down for a day and a half several months ago. Your reference is dated June 11. -Jmh123 02:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I already answered your question above ^^^. It is a contentious topic among a very few people, and those few are discouraged from engaging in senseless and disruptive arguments with one another because it creates a poisonous atmosphere for everyone else. The board was not closed for the reasons given in Page Six, and the topic of Aiken's sexual orientation is not one that consumes the vast majority of his fans, or creates divisions among large numbers of his fans. Most don't care.

To your second question, my additional point has nothing to do with that person, and I don't get how you think that I said it did. I simply asked mixvio why he didn't object at the time that the material you now wish to return to the entry was removed. How many times and how many ways do I have to say, I didn't delete the material. No involved editor deleted the material. I thought their reasons for deleting the material were valid. They were established editors, respected editors. I stated on talk that the material had been deleted. No one objected. I assumed that this was because there were no objections. Policy had changed. I thought the change in the entry was an accurate reflection of the change in policy. It all seemed perfectly above board to me. -Jmh123 03:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, your first link went to my comment to mixvio. I tried to make that connection more explicit and ended up reverting myself because I didn't have the words right yet, and I haven't had a minute to get back to it since. ETA: Alright, I tried. In the meantime, even if I'm not stating it well, your canada.com link which I just noticed proves the point. -Jmh123 05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

"Why don't we assume there's a consensus out there somewhere and we just need to find it." That should be in every policy and guideline across the 'pedia. Pairadox 01:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Elite" Hills

I ran across this page, and have already nominated it for deletion. However, 75.43.199.111 has been adding this to various pages across Misplaced Pages. Looking at the description of Anaheim Hills boundaries on the page screams Ericsaindon2 to me. You interested in taking a look? AniMate 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You work fast. I didn't even catch the original Elite Hills article, which makes me worry. How many versions of this one are we going to have to go through before Eric gives up? AniMate 05:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

MY sympathies

I see WP:BLP has already attracted more bullies. Sorry to hear it; let me know if I can help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

FNMF

I remember back then that CU came up with a hit that he was indeed a sock puppet of another editor, but since the other editor was not one of the targets named in the CU, Asmodeus and DrL, there was no other information made available. Another RFCU seems to be justified. FeloniousMonk 03:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll definitely take a look then and offer my opinion tomorrow. You'll have the honor of making any blocks that may be warranted as he'll no doubt claim I'm too involved from our past encounter. Nevertheless I'll be around to support them and add insight. FeloniousMonk 04:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Anchor Baby

I'm asking you politely to restore the recent edits made in full as a sign of good faith. Then, lets work hand and hand to ferret out what is wrong with the edits. I would like to resolve this article's issues and move from there. But, POV pushing by another editor in the vain of selective edits is not helping matters at all. My edit was to form a balance again - to achieve NPOV in regards to the topic at hand. I am pleased with the compromise and consider it sufficient; as originally worked out. Again, restore - then lets discuss the objections - and work on a possible solution. --Northmeister 04:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Northmeister 04:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent participation in the 'Parable' which is an insult and indirect attack on myself is inappropriate at the least and highly unethical as an admin at the most. Further, your removal of well sourced material in a dispute involving yourself is also highly questionable at the least and highly unethical as a admin at the most. Your continued objections to edits I make without proper discussion, in civil two-way harmonious manner is bad manners at the least and unethical as an admin at the most. You owe me an apology for your conduct, especially your recent participation in the personal attack and insult of the 'parable' with the further comment on 'remembering his past edit history' to paraphrase. --Northmeister 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued insult on my user page is also improper conduct on behalf of an admin. My observations about you changing your ways was I guess made in haste. I see you do not wish to apologize or act in a civil and polite manner as an admin. By they way, thanks for once again pointing out my typos - I'm sure that was done innocently as well. --Northmeister 23:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The manner in which you've pointed it out considering the discussion of personal insult on the Anchor Baby talk page - instead of using the correct spelling without quotations is what I am speaking of - but whats the point. --Northmeister 23:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

Please refrain from making false accusations about me, as you did here. All of the accusations you make in that comment are false. BCST2001 07:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The comment of mine you linked was not referring to you personally, as you did not write this material. It was simply a ready example of what I feel to be a problematic approach to writing bios, that is, listing "controversies," and the types of controversies people feel are important. Your only connection is to have been the one to restore the material, thereby providing me with a ready link. I think there's been plenty of bad attitude to go around in this particular dispute. -Jmh123 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole mess may be some kind of world's record for misunderstanding one another. I interpreted your statement in the above diff, as it refers to my comment, to describe me as having a "bad attitude towards negotiating." That is, two users, one with a history, and one with a bad attitude. If I have misunderstood you, I apologize. ETA: And, rereading, I did misunderstand. Sorry. GRRRR. -Jmh123 18:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have politely requested that you cease your accusations, and am disappointed that you have not done so. I am unsure what you are trying to achieve, and unsure why you are engaging in this kind of accusation. If you disagree with my interpretation of WP:BLP, that is your business, but I do not see that I have done anything to warrant this kind of behavior on your part. I can only request again that you refrain from this behavior and focus instead on the substantive matters with which you have chosen to be involved. I trust in your good judgment about this. BCST2001 07:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For a third time I politely request that you cease making false accusations. I am sorry that you find my behavior uncivil, but I am not persuaded that there is much evidence for that accusation. I have persistently disagreed with you about the interpretation of WP:BLP, and I have striven, apparently without success, to explain my reasons. I have disagreed with you about what may be included in the entry on Clay Aiken, and have given my reasons on the talk page. I have stated to another editor my belief that, where editors are determined to violate WP:BLP, negotiation is not the best strategy. Obviously all this has upset you, but I think if you reflect on the matter, you will recognize that your conclusions about my behavior are unwarranted. I have no antipathy toward you or any other editor involved in any of these matters, but it may be that by putting my view forcefully (for instance, my view that editors with a deficient grasp of WP:BLP ought voluntarily to avoid editing BLP entries), I have got your back up. If so, I apologize and assure you it was certainly not my intention. I happen to hold the view that WP:BLP is often watered-down by editors in its application, and that this is to the detriment of Misplaced Pages and biographical subjects. That is my concern in this case. I hope and trust that you can understand this, and that you will heed my request. BCST2001 08:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your determination to ignore my polite requests forces me to state the following: I have broken no Misplaced Pages rules. I no longer wish to receive comment from you on my talk page. If you continue to edit my talk page against my wishes, I will be forced to conclude that you intend harrassing me. If you have a problem with the way I am editing, please address that in the appropriate forums. But, again, please note, I no longer wish you to edit my talk page, and I do not intend to reply to any comments you place there. Thankyou. BCST2001 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for blocking that anon IP who wrote those horrible things in the Justin Berry article. Call me a prude, but I can't believe somebody could think of such awful things to write, or what kind of pleasure they would garner from it. Cheers, Jeffpw 13:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets

It was always my impression that to be accused of sockpuppetry, one had to edit simultaneously under more than one name, like DPeterson for example. There are now tags up at FNMF's and BCST2001's pages. Since FNMF hasn't edited since June, what's the problem? I don't see a request for check-user, or a listing on Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. I dug up some of the records of the case mentioned here in talk, the dispute between FM and FNMF, and see no finding of sock puppetry there either. What am I missing this time? Thanks. -Jmh123 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I was writing a response, but things kept happening in the meantime so I'll start over. I have looked into the history a bit. Don't think there's a clear right/wrong in the old dispute but I'm sure it's complicated. Obstinacy is annoying, no matter the "side" but I don't think it's a violation. I don't see the point in tagging an inactive account, but the neutral one is certainly nicer. Who was User:Odd nature before? Don't see any tags on the page or in the history. Thanks. -Jmh123 23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering though, if the tag on FNMF is appropriate, given that it hasn't be verified officially? -Jmh123 00:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Will Beback. An editor has insisted on re-placing the tag on my user page which states that I am suspected of abusively using more than one account. I understand if you are not inclined to do me any favours, but I have one to ask nevertheless. It seems from your most recent actions that you may have decided I am neither an abusive editor nor a sockpuppeteer, even if you believe I have changed my account. If that is the conclusion you have reached, it would assist me if you would notify the editor who is re-placing the tag that you have reached this conclusion. Of course, I may be wrong and you may still think I am abusive. Or you may just be happy to do nothing, on the grounds this is my own problem. But if I am right in thinking that you no longer believe I am an abusive sockpuppeteer, it would make my life a lot easier if you indicated this to the user in question. I personally believe it is time to move on from this issue, and I think you do too. I'll leave it in your hands. Thanks. BCST2001 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Potentially Libellous material

Will,

THanks for drawing my attention to the uncited and potentially libellous material I posted to the article on . I've found a citation in a magazine with sufficient specifivity(sp) to start the discussion; without a doubt the actual court papers are the best citation we can get, and I look forward to your help in finding them. Email me at g...@d...com if you have any resources to help find them, or have anything else to say. Thanks!

- 66.92.73.52 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark Levin

I've replied on the Talk page re: your question. I don't believe the other editor is acting in good faith, and is engaged edit warring. --Eleemosynary 01:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Advertising of cities

Will, I seem to see you around in the city articles. A couple users have spent a great deal of time editting the Tourism in metropolitan Detroit article, and it's everything wikipedia shouldn't have. There's a directory (with addresses) of restaurants, hotels,... wikitravel material and peacock words abound. But I'm hesitant to intervene any further as I've had interaction with editors before without much success. Is there some sort of review I can nominate the article for? Thanks.--Loodog 01:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

help please

If you're still online, some doofus changed the title of Britney Spears's fifth studio album to Piece of Me without showing a reliable source for the information. It may be correct, but People Magazine is only reporting it as a possible title. I don't know how to revert this change, so am asking for your help. Thanks. Jeffpw 06:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Manzanar FAC

Hi Will. I don't know if you participate in judging featured article candidates, but I thought I'd let you know that Manzanar is now up for FA consideration. If you are so inclined, I'd appreciate it if you could put in your two cents (support or oppose) on the Manzanar FAC. It was nominated about a month ago, and things are going slowly. As of now, it looks like it's going to fail due to lack of interest, which is really quite sad. Hope you can help! -- Gmatsuda 07:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Will...thanks for your contributions to Manzanar, especially when we were "embroiled" in that debate over terminology. You really put us back on track and look what happened...it's now an FA. Thanks again! -- Gmatsuda 22:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Justin Berry vandalism

Much as I am opposed to Phil Sandifer's redaction of the article on BLP grounds, I think that the recent vandalistic edits might legitimately qualify for deletion from the article history under BLP. From my read, it looks like every edit after this one is either vandalism with BLP implications or a reversion of that vandalism. What do you think? --Ssbohio 20:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anchor baby -- outcome of RfC

You asked: How would summarize the input gained from the RfC?

I would say that we initially came very close to an agreement that would allow us to say that "anchor baby" is generally pejorative, but sometimes used non-pejoratively. That agreement broke down when Brimba showed up (after a wikibreak) and refused to respect the compromise, reverting it on the grounds that he didn't accept the validity of the sources quoted in support of neutral usage (and that a consensus that disregards Misplaced Pages core principles such as WP:V and WP:NOR is by definition invalid and meaningless).

Since that time, we've been bogged down in a dispute over whether acceptable sources exist to support the claim that some people are using "anchor baby" as a convenient shorthand expression, without malicious intent. Some people insist certain sources do adequately show this and must be included in the interests of WP:NPOV; other people say those same sources are not acceptable because a lack of pejorative intent in these sources is not explicitly stated and can only be guessed at (by a process of editor interpretation which would violate WP:NOR).

The key point at issue here seems to be the standard we should use in evaluating sources which appear to use "anchor baby" innocently, but which do not explicitly, literally claim that the expression is not being used in a derogatory sense. Can editors use their own judgment or "common sense" when evaluating the POV of such sources? Or are we forced to confine ourselves to the literal content of the source alone and not draw any conclusions whatsoever? I don't see that we're any closer to resolving this issue now than we were right after Brimba vetoed our first compromise three weeks ago; both sides seem to have dug their heels in, refusing to see any merit in the other viewpoint.

The flame wars over the "parable", the 3RR allegation, etc., while not directly relevant to the core issue, are in my view indicative of how polarized we've become and how badly we need binding outside intervention. While we haven't yet tried any process other than the RfC, I fear that no sort of voluntary mediation or offering of an outside expert opinion is likely to be respected by everyone and break our impasse. If you think there is a viable way to get some sort of outside help into play here that has a reasonable chance of success, I'm certainly willing to give it a chance to succeed, but I've got to tell you that I'm really skeptical right now. Richwales 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Western Canada For Us

ARGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just needed to vent.

Thanks for your help and your input. It's very much appreciated. AnnieHall 03:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Auno3 sockpuppetry case (again)

Please give your opinion - Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Auno3 (2nd). JScott06 16:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

William, this is another sad day for Misplaced Pages. For political reasons- because you disagree with me on certain topics- you have initiated another round of attacks, attempting to eliminate what mainstream America and mainstream publications have written. You may disagree with my views, but most Americans agree. For example, only one in five Americans are willing to marry across the color line. And that's for all Americans. The number of blacks willing to marry a white is some five times the percentage of whites willing settle with a black. Most Americans believe in what I have espoused, and accordingly, those who use this site tend to leave shortly due to its liberalist views on numerous topics. I, however, have chosen to chip in on their, my, and this country's behalf so that our children will learn the truth. May God Bless All.Gold Nitrate 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

William, is it "the community" who has been disrupted? Every editor (and others such as User:KillerPlasmodium, User:P.W.Lutherson) who supports my view is a sockpuppet, and everyone who supports your beliefs is "the community". You've accused me just because of political disagreements. In reality, those who support my version of neutral-POV is roughly the same in number as those who support yours. In the United States as a whole, what I have written is the mainstream and what you're contributed to those articles in question is the fringe.Gold Nitrate 12:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you

Hi and thanks. I tried to make some citations last week and couldn't figure out how to get the page numbers to appear. Where can I look up the coding? Kroyw Kroyw 00:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Jordan Discussion

Thanks for putting up those sources. It's good to have such references. I responded to them on the discussion page there. Check it out if you get a chance. Mvblair 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The John Wayne hating sockpuppet is back

User:HaroldFranklin is the newest of oh so many IDs. See the John Wayne talk page for the last drivel. Monkeyzpop 23:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pulling out

Will, if you have the patience to stay in, I commend you. When I interact with an editor spending more time tracking down arguing editor's remarks than arguing, deleting every post on his talk page imploring for a reasonable solution and good faith assumption, I stop fanning flames.--Loodog 02:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

THF-DSB ArbCom

Will, in your latest edit on the proposed decision talk page, you wrote "Could UserX, as opposed to the same editor using his real name, perform edits to benefit his co-workers and employer? Of course not." Am I reading this incorrectly, or did you mean "Of course he could."? If UserX (the hypothetical editor formerly known as THF) was to edit the AEI page so as to gild their lily, wouldn't that be a COI even if UserX's employment wasn't known? My contention is that the COI exists regardless of whether it's a COI known to other users or not. Please feel free to set me straight if I've misinterpreted. Cheers! Ossified 13:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:DennisKing,ChipBerlet.jpg

The image was scanned by my boyfriend, so I suppose for all intents and purposes you could say I scanned it myself. --MaplePorter 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have used an incorrect template on the image page: "It is disputed whether or not this image violates our non-free content criteria." It appears to me that you are asserting that it does violate non-free content criteria. --MaplePorter 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The person who scanned the image has never edited Misplaced Pages. --MaplePorter 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I said it came from a pamphlet, not EIR. --MaplePorter 21:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think there is evidence that the photo was not scanned, I will contact my boyfriend and ask him. Just out of curiousity, why all the agitation about this particular image? I followed the same procedure that was used on Image:Winterberg and LaRouche in 1985.jpg‎, and no one had a conniption over that one. --MaplePorter 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Silver spammer returns

David Silver is back as User:Simpson007 and as User:72.204.222.79. I added the same template to the User page for both as was on the User:Harvardlaw page. --EarthPerson 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

edit-war

The subject of the SEC article has never been brought up in the discussion for Primerica Financial Services. Someone added it to the article and you seem fit to keep it there, what are your reasons? My reasons against it are that the ruling is almost 10 years old and doesn't add anything to the article. Its adding criticism for the sake of adding criticism. It doesn't fit with the other criticism (recruiting practices) the article states. How is it useful? Should we add every SEC ruling to every other securities traded company listed in Misplaced Pages? Will Beback what is your deal with editing the Primerica article. You appear to have a personal bias against Primerica, you seem determined to make sure there is some type of criticism apparent within the article. When was the last time you actually tried to add something positive? If you're trying to appear neutral, you're not. If you contributed positively and negatively to the article, then maybe you wouldn't appear as bias. Maybe you should let another administrator edit/monitor the article for awhile.68.208.8.29 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

MakingLight still an attack site??

Will, I _think_ the controversial thread has been restored:

If you search for "posted 05.09.07 on entry Grep", it claims to list your real name.? Is this thread the objectionable material that you thought was deleted? Do you think we should consider MakingLight an attack site again? (please feel free to delete that link once you've read this message) --Alecmconroy 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You question my objectivity and then ask me to make a pronouncement? Are you looking for a non-objective judgment? Maybe the simplest thing would be for you to ask Making Light to remove their outing link, and then report back to us what their response is. That way you can be sure that the determination is correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me rephrase-- if I they are asked to remove it and they refuse to remove the material that is currently up there, and the arbitration closes-- would you feel justified removing the links to MakingLights? --Alecmconroy 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to see what the ArbCom decides. I will follow their decision. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Suppose that Fred's proposal is passed. I assume you and I both would agree that MakingLight meets Fred's definition, and if it's passed, Making Light, as it currently stands, will be purged under that rule?

And I actually will email the webmaster if you'd like. Is there anything else I should say you want taken down, aside from that one link I sent you earlier? --Alecmconroy 22:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

May I ask, are you a contributor to Making Light, or any of the other sites we're discussing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will_Beback (talk • contribs)

Actually, I'm not. Nor ED, or WR, or Don Murphy or any of the others we've talked about. lol just your friendly neightborhood ideologue. --Alecmconroy 22:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Help Please

I have created the article Esanda Finance Corpration Inc but every time I search for it it's Redlinked as though it does'nt exist,but it is in the Index.It is linked to Heather Mc Taggart and Esanda Finance Corporation v Peat Marwick Hungerfords.It has Internal Links to ANZ Bank and the words - subsidary,finance,investment,debentures,insurance and an External Link to www.esanda.com.What have I done wrong? Kathleen.wright5 09:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC). P.S Why have these links shown up as Redlinks when I know they exist?.

Asking you to stop violating WP:Point

"Misplaced Pages is based upon collaborative, good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a wilful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point."

Our agreement and work with WAS 4.0 established community consensus on the American School article (although it is open to all editors to contribute new material or offer objections as is the spirit of Misplaced Pages - but you stamped your approval on the agreed compromise). You have continuously failed to get the point even when other edtiors have been involved. I'm politely asking you for the last time; do not disrupt this community any further with bad faithed deletions violating the spirit of 'communal editing' and causing needless and endless edit warring when proper discussion and community consensus could have worked out your problems with articles. This has to stop. --Northmeister 14:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits

I didn't even know I was there. How did you find the number? Everyking 06:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets & Peoples Temple

Please take a look at what is it happening there with categorisation as a cult (and otherwise), and please intervene. -- Lonewolf BC 15:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the AfD rationale given

You may not be aware of this: User_talk:John254#Interesting_close_rationale_on_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FTourism_in_metropolitan_Detroit ... I think keep was the right outcome but I do not think the rationale given is a good one. I think it sets a bad precedent. I'm not sure what if anything else ought to be done but I did want you to be aware. ++Lar: t/c 09:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tancredo

Thanks for the questions; I have to scramble to prepare this interview, one of about 6 this week. If you have any questions for Duncan Hunter or Christopher Dodd, I'd like to have them. Still waiting for the heavy-hitters. --David Shankbone 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferengi

Let me guess, it's our good friend, right? How many years has this been going on? —Viriditas | Talk 22:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Gone With the Wind

Could your offer your opinion in a dispute? It's about the Tara set for the movie Gone with the Wind, built at the old Selznick International Studios, which later changed hands to RKO, Desilu, and then Paramount. I provided some excellent citations that the set was sold, dismantled, and carted to Georgia in 1959, where it was to intended to be part of a theme park. An anonymous editor keeps changing that and insisting that the set was built at M-G-M, and that it was demolished in the early 1980s. I'd appreciate if you'd review the evidence I supply, versus the evidence the anonymous editor supplies (none), and leave a note on the discussion page. — Walloon 00:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Will, thanks for your input. The Los Angeles Times also covered the deconstruction of the Tara set at Desilu. See May 17, 1959, p. G10. — Walloon 03:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of HarveyCarter

This individual has reappeared, again. If you will look at his contributions, they are either similar to the ones that have been done in the past by his sockpuppets, and in some cases nearly identical. The username has been tagged as a sockpuppet. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Duh!! The username is HaroldCartwright. Thanks! Wildhartlivie 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

SockPuppet HarveyCarter, HaroldFranklin, HaroldCartwright, got a sex change and is now User:SueBrewer - WikiDon 17:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Loyola website

Please leave the comparitive statistics in there. Statistics aren't of much use without a comparison. They were there for months before you deleted them. --Uponsolid133 06:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Loving v. Virginia do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Misplaced Pages is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Martial BACQUET 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm really sorry. Your recent edit was appearing like a vandalism, this is why I reverted it. I haven't seen you were a sysop. I'm sorry. Martial BACQUET 00:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is it. But don't worry, I'm in the good side ;) but I've seen an external link and a removal of content so I believed it was a vandalism. Have a good day. Martial BACQUET 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion

Hello Will Beback. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Eugenics. The discussion can be found under the topic Eugenics. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. --Schwalker 09:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey

WHAM! Oooo I'm totally taking you seriously. Tell me, are you the type of person who regularly tags along on other Admin's fights just to get a taste of the action bc you really can't handle it on your own? Nice job, child. You totally remind me of the guy who'd sit would let his friend fight and only help out by telling him to look out for the punch heading right for his face.Chairman Meow 21:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your civil wiki cites these examples: Belittling contributors Judgmental tone Calling for bans

All of what you have just done to me. Perhaps I may have been a little zealous, however, zealousness is it's own excuse, not taking the plank out of your own eye, isn't. Don't judge if you are guilty of that which you claim to deride.Chairman Meow 21:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions in list of cults article

Sorry, I am kind of new to Misplaced Pages. I will make sure that my edits have an edit summary and a talk page comment. Thanks for the tip. Love-in-ark 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Embarazada

Where is the copyvio from? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's OK

I'll keep it for the time being then. Consensus was that there is some encyclopedic value to it. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Redaction potentially needed at Justin Berry

In this edit, an IP editor added some fairly unsavory (and patently false) commentary about Berry. Out of an excess of caution, should this edit be deleted? --Ssbohio 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mail

I've sent you email, I'd appreciate a reply when you get a chance, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Geert Wilders

I've put a source of Pechtold's question regarding Wilders' wife, although it is a blog. So if you want me to translate another source for you, I'd be happy to. Mallerd 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Involvement

I happened to review your contributions list. If I read it correctly, you've made just 50 edits to mainspace articles since 4/30/07. In other words, you don't seem particularly involved in Misplaced Pages. Yet you are passionate about this linking policy and have made hundreds of postings about it. Why does it matter so much to you, more than actually contributing to Misplaced Pages? People who don't want to get harassed have an obvious interest in the outcome, but I don't understand your interest. Am I missing something? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You phrased it nicely, so I'll assume you're genuinely curious, and not gearing up for Ad Hominem attacks. :)

People have lots of different editing styles-- the most valuable are Wikignomes, who make prodigious amounts of minor edits to thousands of articles. I tend to focus on one article or issue at a time-- right now, my focus is towards the BADSITES issue. Look deeper into the history and you'll see I have substantial contributions a substantial number of articles.

What is my personal interest? Misplaced Pages is heading towards being THE most important content site on the entire internet. And the thing that makes the internet (and Misplaced Pages) so magical is that it's the first communications medium in human history that is truly completely uncensored. The internet has every point of view imaginable, and Misplaced Pages discusses every notable subject imaginable.

This kind of communication really is changing the world. A year or two ago, I was playing Warcraft and got to know talking with one of the people I was playing with. She was a Jewish teenager, living in Israel. She has a boyfriend, she told me, someone she met online, but she had never met him. "Did you two live too far away from each other to be able meet?", I asked.

"No," she replied. The boyfriend lived within 50 miles of her. But you see, he was Palestinian. She was Israeli. Even though they were close together geographically, their families would never have allowed them to date, or even to meet. But they secretly were very very close, using the internet, the uncensored medium.

The internet is going to change the world. Wars are going to become infinitely harder to fight. Historically, it was conceivable for Americans to bomb Russians-- who did we known in Russia? Thanks to the Internet, all peoples are going to start to come together more and more. You don't want to bomb a country when you're scared you're friend there might die. You don't want to declare war on a country if it means half your Quake Clan might be killed.

In Myanmar, where there's a massive human rights crisis, the first thing the government did was shut off the internet, because they knew it would bring world attention to the people of Myanmar, and tend to make the rest of the world reach out and want to help. Whereas, without TV or internet or phone service-- Myanmar is just a place on a map-- not faces of people we want to help.

In all this, I've spoken in terms of the Internet, but I could just as easily talk about Misplaced Pages, since we're on the cutting edge of the internet. It's a wonderful beautiful thing. An encyclopedia that covers _Everything_, that's free to anyone who we can possibly get it to. Christian children can learn about the Islamic view of Jesus and Muslim children can learn about the Christian view of Muhammad. Creationists can learn about Evolution even if their communities don't want them to, and Evolutionists can learn about Creationism even if their communities don't want them to.

But we have to resist the temptation to start censoring. It has to be the encyclopedia of EVERYTHING notable-- not just an encyclopedia of the popular or the approved. And censoring always starts so small-- surely THIS speaker is sufficiently evil that we can censor discussion of THAT person/group. No one would ever defend this person/group-- they're without redeeming value. We can get rid of them. Oh, and what about this one too? And what about this one? And soon-- amazingly soon-- we're not censoring coverage of ED trolls anymore, we're censoring coverage of Michael Moore.

So, that's my story. Misplaced Pages is a powerful force, and it's tempting to use that power to try to stop specific cases of harassment. But not only is such power easily misused, ultimately, the value of having a totally uncensored encyclopedia of every notable subject is so great that it far outweighs whatever small help censoring the encyclopedia would. Not linking to harassment will not cause that harassment to no longer exist. The simple fact is-- if someone is harassing you, stalking you, or threatening you-- you have to take it to the real courts, not to Misplaced Pages. We don't have the power to do anything about it.

And censoring those accused of harassment from our encyclopedia (if they are notable to merit mention) will sell out our reputation. We don't HAVE to be the uncensored encyclopedia of everything, after all. We could be the encyclopedia of only "acceptable" point of view, rather than NPOV, and if we're not careful, that's where we might wind up.

I don't mean to get melodramatic, but since you asked. BADSITES isn't about ED or ASM or even Michael Moore. It's about Misplaced Pages. No one here has the ability to delete Michael Moore's speech. The BADSITES proponent arent' trying to delete things from Michael Moore's site-- they're trying to delete things from Misplaced Pages. From our site.

If a vandal came here and started randomly deleting external links, we would immediate recognize that they're deleting valuable content and we should defend the encyclopedia from them. But when those very same deletions are done out of a compassion to protect the harassed, suddenly it's very hard to see that a valuable part of our encyclopedia just got deleted. But we _NEED_ the link to Michael Moore-- and just as surely as we should defend it from a vandal deletion, we should defend it from a compassionate deletion. (although, of course, we have far more respect for the deleters in the latter case).

BADSITES is a test of Misplaced Pages, the Uncensored, 💕 dedicated to covering everything notable. It is a test of whether this project, or any project so conceived and dedicated, can long endure. If we given in to the temptation to censor, and if we don't change our minds later and turn back, then in the end, Misplaced Pages will just be little more than a fancy blog host.

I want Misplaced Pages to work. I want the world to have a Misplaced Pages. I want the Wiki process to work. And if I can take a few minutes out of my day to try to help the Misplaced Pages stay free, and work.

I don't know how to help the world. What action can I do that will give a citizen of China the right to vote in a democratic election? What can I do, today, to help make a woman in Saudi Arabia be allowed drive a car? I don't know. But one think I can do to make the world a little better is try to protect Misplaced Pages. And silly as it is, I think in the end, that will help the world. --Alecmconroy 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your full reply. I'm not sure what it has to do with citizens of China. It's certainly true that we should protect Misplaced Pages and its contents. Protecting Misplaced Pages means protecting its editors, because without editors Misplaced Pages is an ampty ballooon. We don't allow personal attacks and we shouldn't allow harassment either. If you're truly interested in the well-being of this project I don't see why you'd oppose policies that prohibit linking to marginally-reliable source engaging in active harassment of WP editors. Don't you want to encourage editors to contribute to the project? Do you think they will if they face being targeted for harassment? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I want people to feel safe and free to contribute. But I can't protect them. All I can do is deface articles-- which is no protection at all, since the harassment will remain. It's just trading our credibility, objectivity, and NPOV for a handful of magic beans that won't really do anything at all to stop the true external harassment. --Alecmconroy 12:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC Adi Da Talk

Wiil, please refer to . I'm involved in a BLP dispute initiated by an advocate at . User 202.63.42.221, the advocate, now proposes: "If you think (which you obviously do , otherwise you would have removed the content you added already) the material you added to the talk page does not contravene these points listed above , I am willing to go through and strike out the text I think fits these criteria and you can then argue to keep it if you wish , again within the strict criteria of "Biographies of living persons-WP:TALK that means no "soapboxing" personal views (also)WP:SOAP". This strikeout of perfectly acceptable material and article ownership is unacceptable and appears based on pretextual use of BLP. Your non-partisan comments would be appreciated. --Dseer 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:DCGeist

"Will": Wondering what can be done with regard to DCGeist? His behavior on Misplaced Pages has been nothing short of disturbing as evidenced, for example, in his "commentary" on the Gone with the Wind (film) page. Surely Misplaced Pages has and will continute to take a stand against behavior such as his. 24.45.196.36 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, my message was in large part designed as a red flag for passersby who might be convinced by the troll's lie about the L.A. Times indicating that the Tara set was anywhere in Hollywood in 1979, and weighing in on that basis. I felt it necessary not only to flag the lie itself, but to indicate the troll's own readily accessible record for those unwilling or unable to research the substantive matters. I'm happy to remain silent on this from now on--except if the troll again makes objectively false claims. Those do need to be explicitly addressed, I believe.—DCGeist 21:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Tara Set

"Will" I resent your representation of me as a "troll". Trust me in that I have better things to do with my time. But I must say that the inclination toward name calling at Misplaced Pages is truly astonishing. Perhaps this is the way of the Internet... but I wouldn't know because adding to a site like this is something I do on an irregular basis.

Simply put, I'm not satisfied to simply go by someone else's word simply because they say something is so. And as I've been able to surmise by your writings, you share this sentiment. It's an admirable trait. Please know that I have no intention of making you "jump through hoops". I'm sure you also have better things to do. I'm only asking for follow-through on an earlier statement in which you said that you saw the double photo included with the story about the set's destruction. And it's these photos which go to the heart of the issue. If in fact I'm wrong, the photos will bear it out. And again, photographs -- per Misplaced Pages policy -- can be used as sources. Therefore, if you'll be so kind as to humor me this last time, please post the photos from the 1979 L.A. Times story. 24.45.196.36 22:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Schwartz Memorial Library at the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University has ProQuest Historical Newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, 1881-1986. It's 11 miles from Franklin Square. — Walloon 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Need an outside opinion

Will, hate to call on you again, but an outside opinion would be appreciated. Talk:Charlotte, North Carolina. I believe my fellow editor is trying to ] a statement about Charlotte's air quality improving indirectly out of sources mentioning national trends. If you have a moment, I've gone as far as I can on this one. Thanks.--Loodog 05:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Vandal"

This has been ongoing since last night with this user, I don't think he is getting the point, hence my warnings. When someone tells you to cool it and you continue to remove things from a page, then that is vandalism. - NeutralHomer 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh

Look, I don't wanna play hardball, but you're well past 3RRs here. I'll give you a few moments to self revert, or I guess I'll have to go noticeboarding. <groan> --Alecmconroy 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If I made three reverts then it was inadvertent. I believe I only made one revert. Edits that change text to new text aren't reverts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel you have editing in error, then I would happily accept your statement if coupled with a self-revert, and will gladly forget the whole matter. We all make mistakes and lose count. If you stand by your edits, however, and refuse to self-revert, we have a behavior problem on our hands, and I guess now's as good a time as any for the community to address it. --Alecmconroy 04:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know about complex reverts. --Alecmconroy 04:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

G'night

you might try editing an article occasionally. ;). Wink notwithstanding, that feels a tad like a personal attack, given the context, but no matter.

I'm off for the night. I hope when I return, I find that you've seen the error of your ways, or that others have convinced you of them, than you have self-reverted, and that the policy page is again unprotected so PM, BenB4, and its other principal authors can continue their work of improving the proposal they want to present to the community.

I'm _truly_ and sincerely hoping for that. If I get back, and you still are hammering away, editing without regard to the opinions of others, the page still protected with your disputed changes un-self-reverted, then I have to accept we can't make any progress on this issue until your behavior is in line, and that means and I have to go through the work to dig up every on-wiki behavior problem you had in the past however many years, and then I have to file some sort of form or case or something, and then one half of the project will be yelling at the other half, while I try to argue through the noise that whatever people think of BADSITES-like policies, your behavior still need to change, and you ought to be warned or blocked or banned or de-adminned or god knows what.

And let me tell you, that is a world I _really_ don't wanna wake up to. Ugh. But, if we can't convince you to change your ways, it's better to get it over with sooner rather than later.. But let's all hope some wise admin comes along in the night, looks at the 3RR, explains to you where the error in your thinking is (or explains to me where the error in mine is), and we can all go back to arguing over things that matter instead of arguing over behavior. :)

G'night. For what it's worth-- I want you to know I really don't have any harsh feelings toward you. I think you're wrong, and I think this whole BADSITES/NPA/Link2ExtHarass issue won't be resolved until we can get some behavior changed. But-- never think that means I think you're somehow a bad person. We're just two nerds who like to write having a philosophical disagreement. Its my job to change your behavior, or to stop your behavior-- but never think it's my job to dislike you. --Alecmconroy 06:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The nerve of some people

Oy. -- But|seriously|folks  07:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Have at it. -- But|seriously|folks  08:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A request for arbitration has been filed that includes yourself

Please note here. --Marvin Diode 12:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)