Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:02, 5 July 2006

Archives

• User talk:Will Beback/archive1 - January 2006
• User talk:Will Beback/archive2 - February 2006
• User talk:Will Beback/archive3 - March 2006
• User talk:Will Beback/archive4 - April 2006
• User talk:Will Beback/archive5 - May 2006
• User talk:Will Beback/archive6 - June 2006

Using {{Vprotected}}

Why don't you use {{Vprotected}} on both protected Biff Rose and Talk:Biff Rose instead of {{Protected}}, if you declare that an "abusive vandal has returned"? -- ADNghiem501 00:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As I looked at your contributions, you missed one more { on "Fill Your Heart" article . -- ADNghiem501 02:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

See #Fill Your Heart. -- ADNghiem501 04:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

I was trying to revert vandalism on your talk page, but you already did. My edit to saving this page did nothing. Thanks. -- ADNghiem501 01:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted vandalism by User:Vacuum cleaner again. Please block this user. -- ADNghiem501 03:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

civility

Please remember to remain civil, Will. It seems several users are unhappy with you. Justforasecond 03:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Fill Your Heart

This version before you protected "Fill Your Heart", may contain POV that the abusive vandal has reverted to. Please consider to check the history of this article before reverting to a NPOV version and re-adding {{Vprotected}} to that version of the page. which you've protected the article that may be vandalism and probably contain POV was revised by the abusive vandal. However, it seems that you actually didn't revert to a revision by Sojambi Pinola before you were going to protect the page. As I looked at your contributions to this article, I saw this {Vprotected}}, which a '{' is clearly missing, remains on that page and didn't display the formatting of a protected tag properly. If you supposely wanted to protect a version of the article that doesn't include an unverifiable, biased, and patently false information in the page history I've checked, consider yourself to check the revisions that you and Sojambi Pinola attempted to revert vandalism and POV by the same guy who actually did to Biff Rose before proceeding your course of protection. -- ADNghiem501 08:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for defending me

Will, thanks for defending me at Talk:Daily Illini. I was gone for a few days, so I appreciated not having a whole lot of unanswered questions/accusations to respond to when I got back.--Kchase02 T 23:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

You may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_26#Category:Cult_leaders ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

rv vandalism

I reverted vandalism to this page that consisted of a picture inserted hundreds of times. All the previous content was deleted. You can view the reverted code here, but I don't recommend viewing the page itself. It crashed my browser several times. I have given the vandal a strong warning, but since the page is protected, it's likely a sockpuppet for just this purpose.--Kchase02 T 04:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

for the logo. Jose Jamirez 23:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Presley: movies section

As you seem to have some experience with User:Northmeister, may I ask you to have a look at the Elvis Presley article and related pages, for instance, , . Northmeister has started an edit war with me concerning the movies section of this article and its sandbox. He has repeatedly deleted material which is well sourced, falsely claiming that he is only rearranging the material I am including, but it is obvious that this user has intentionally removed passages which are not in line with his all-too positive view of Elvis as a movie star, though all critics agree that the singer's films are pretty bad, as the many sources I have provided show. According to the Wikpedia guidelines, removing of well-sourced passages is not acceptable and not NPOV. See, for instance, , , , , , etc. Do you have an idea what I could do? Onefortyone 01:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Map of Orange.jpg

What is the source of Image:Map of Orange.jpg? Did you draw it yourself? I see you've marked it as public domain. -Will Beback 23:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could create images like this. I was emailed the image along with some other PD images and data when I requested information from the City some time ago.--Lordkinbote 05:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm sure you already saw it, but since I'm dropping by the talkpages of interested parties, check out Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (immigration).--Rockero 21:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy is leaving a message there. Danny 22:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

protection

I saw that you just protected a few articles, like Dreamachine and Marvin Belli. Are you going to remove the personal information from the edit summaries? Joyous! | Talk 04:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; I figured out how to do that myself. Joyous! | Talk 04:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Your method is much easier than my method. Putting checks in 150 little boxes really isn't a great deal of fun. Thanks for the instructions on the superior way. Joyous! | Talk 15:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong diff

Hi, Will, I saw your message on Alienus's talk page, and checked the diff. It's not relevant to the words you quote. The one you meant is here. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 08:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI... I support your block and said so on his page, some discussion ensued (it's at the top) and I've also raised it here Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_Alienus_by_Will_Beback_for_3_days and I sincerely hope that we get consensus this time before anyone lifts or shortens it. ++Lar: t/c 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. I can delete the message, I wrote. I only wanted things to be accurate, and was not trying to attack you. I have been trying to disprove Nueva Germania claims for years now. --Robert551 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of research, I am deleting "Robert551"'s 'cry wolf' performance art (or however unceasing vindictive outbursts may be euphemized) message. Recent NG pilgrimages by serious persons have yielded the following webpages. (Unfortunately, they will not make a lot of sense to the non-German speaker.) I know that you have a lot of other subjects to monitor and try to keep a measured opinion about, but if you are for some reason committed to interesting social experiment that was and is Nueva Germania for the moment, you may want to have a look:

http://www.taz.de/pt/2006/05/18/a0132.1/text

http://www.modocom.de/akademie/Anthropologie/NuevaGermania/NuevaGermania.htm

http://www.stephanmaus.de/wissenschaftsakademie-nueva-germania.htm

Ann Heneghan

Would someone please explain what the deal with Ann Heneghan is?

No.--SB | T 22:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Following is the newly confident "Robert511" you are advocating. Please read this page carefully, examining the text for actual motives, interests and clear-headedness: www dot buggirlmedia dot com/woodard dot html

The Elizabeth Morgan page

Will: Could you take another look at the Elizabeth Morgan article? There are some admins who feel the need to destroy the information that points to Dr. Morgan's current medical practice (which happens to be in your neck of the woods these days). The same group of Wikipedians displayed the same problematic behavior about a year ago on this same article. I am not asking you to change the article; just please add something to the talk about about if the link to her practice should or should not be in the article. What is the NPOV approach in this case? Other attempts to provide dialog on the matter have been reverted by this pack of admins who seem to have some POV to supress this info. They do not engage in dialog, they just revert, which I cannot distinguish from problematic, emotion-based behavior. -- 67.121.146.110 02:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Will: Thanks. It is very difficult to deal with the opposition I have encountered about this page over the past year. These non-Americans, even our own Misplaced Pages admins, hear the phrase "child sexual abuse" and the desire for balance seems to disappear and the only mentality seems to be about lynching the accused, who is almost invariably male. As older men, you and I realize that some women, even very well educated ones with responsible positions in society, occasionally resort to false claims of sexual abuse in order to prevail in cusotdy cases. We will never know for certain if Foretich raped his daughter, but we do know that his relationship with his daughter was destroyed, perhaps forever, based almost solely on Dr. Morgan's assertions. I think you agree that we must rely on the courts and their professionals to discover the truth and accept the outcome of the courts. I think that it is unfortunate that Antonia Morgan decided to unlawfully take matters into her own hands and flee with her grandchild and that Congress chose to intervene in this case. Neither was appropropriate in our modern society where we ultimately must allow third parties - disinterested professionals - resolve such matters. Thanks again for your leadership. -- 75.23.153.43 05:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• FYI, these posts appear to be from Amorrow, who is indefinitely banned from editing. —tregoweth (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, not that again.... --TJive 07:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, child sexual abuse is a very difficult subject. It is not for people with weak stomachs. Did you ever thing about what is involved with properly operating a culpascope? The police are around and you have to follow chain-of-custody rules with the evidence and grody stuff like that. It has nothing to do with TV or movie stars or entertainment. It but is Important and worthy of the encyclopedia. It is certainly relevant to everyday people and the role of the family in society. Ugh. Boring! Get it out of my face! -- TechsMechs 08:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on the bizarre meanderings out of nowhere, I presume we are in fact seeing his return. --TJive 09:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, "Amorrow" and "Jonah Ayers" are unrelated, though similar, vandals. I don't fully understand Amorrow, the Elizabeth Morgan/A.H. stalker; I understand Ayers, the Biff Rose stalker, all too well. It's Ayers who has been vandalizing this page. "Amorrow" may have recently been active on a number of pages, least of them this one. -Will Beback 10:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's a separate matter, but he's definitely here. Right now. --TJive 10:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Will: I am going to ask you to look into another issue. I am not going to identify myself, I am just asking you to use your own intelligence and judgement. Take a look at . Now I ask you: is this really what being an admin is all about? Doing nothing but taking actions against one supposed user? She might be an admin, but it seems that some mentorship is in order. I am not suggesting that any kind of punishment is in order, but there is no good explanation for this pattern. I am asking that her admin log start deal with something besides going after this one person. You know, just to round out her experience. Maybe she could just do some speedies or, you know, just a little bit of vareity in her admin diet. Her current behavior just sets a very bad example: no admin should be so narrowly focused on one user for so long. It is evidence that she is emotionally involved in this one issue (you can go back and review her RfA on your own). More objectivity is required from an admin. She just needs a little bit of guidance and leadership from an appropriate peer such as yourself or your designee. -- 64.175.40.71 10:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on your user page, User talk:64.175.40.71. -Will Beback 10:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL. FloNight 10:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Will: I would love to have an account for more than a few weeks at a time. I was using TechsMechs for a while, but you-know-who just did an indef block on it. The email is still valid on that account. Sorry, this is the best I can do under these difficult circumstances. -- 64.175.40.71 10:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Will: I want to review once again with you what happened:

• Somebody started to bring the article forward
• You helpfully reminded everybody to document the article
• Somebody went and carefully changed all the external links to footnotes, in accordance with Misplaced Pages's best FA-quality standard
• Some POV admins rushed in and undid all that work. They were Nunh-huh, Tregoweth and FloNight. Now, they are talkign about doing a speedy on the entire article. Makes you proud to be an American on this 4th of July. If you think about it, those admins are the kind-of like people that our forefathers killed a bunch of 230 years ago. Those do not want collaboration - they just imagine Misplaced Pages to be their empire to rule or their perormance stage to hog and own. None of those admins ever did anything to help build that important article - which is mostly about American law - and now they want to tear it down to zero. Oh well. Enjoy your freedoms and access to free quality information while it lasts! Happy Independence Day! Try not to think any thoughts that FloNight does not approve of. If you examine her contributions on the EM talk page, you will see that she prefers that collaboration occur in secret. Sweet! -- 67.121.145.7 22:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review Misplaced Pages:Banning policy. In particular, it says, "If you are banned, please respect your ban and do not edit Misplaced Pages..." and "All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user." -Will Beback 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Faith and stuff

WB -
I must admit I am also deeply puzzled by this whole series of events. And while I'm firm in my stand that copyright is sancrosect, I was at times quite moved by Primetime's apparent distress at seeing the articles he worked on deleted or rolled back. I also understand that you've lost a bit of innocence over all of this. So, urm, buck up little camper, all will be well. My nearly-constant cries of "talk nice to the vandals" are mostly aimed elsewhere. Thanks for taking the time to respond, keep up the good work.
brenneman 12:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Appreciation

You're very welcome! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

About Charles Buell Anderson and Endeavor Academy

Apparently users put the article together, one of whom was personally associated as a student there, the other who has cited three of his own web sites. It looks to be a biography in disguise covering a WP:SPAM hate campaign of one sort or another. Please review the cite listings again, I have just finished researching their owners, actual titles, etc. Thanks. Ste4k 17:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting at this point for you to go ahead and reply to three of the cited sources. Thanks. Ste4k 23:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've addressed your comments again in the discussion pages. Thanks. Ste4k 08:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've addressed your comments again. I also went ahead and moved the one specific external link from the bio page to the institution page per the discussion. Thanks. Ste4k 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Belated Thanks

Thanks for dealing with the anonymous Tom Atkins (actor) vandal. Some vandals just don't know when to stop.

Sullenspice 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Alienus arbitration

See this application. --Tony Sidaway 21:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

RE:unblock

Heh, sorry about that. You're right, I should have and I apologise but i have posted my justifications on WP:ANI. Won't happen again. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 00:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Harvardlaw

Hi, I'm posting this here because the Administrator incident page is kind of full and if I put it under the David Silver/Harvardlaw sub-heading there, it might be missed. The article with the name was Xavier College Preparatory, the edits by Harvardlaw. Avillia had posted a link about hiding edit history, but looking at it I haven't a clue what to do. Hoping you could either shed some light on it, or, given my lazy nature, take care of it. --Nobunaga24 01:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD

I see you've done the bulk of the work needed to clean up the rubbish left by Jenny Jones/JJstoker. I listed one of the articles started by this user on AfD, so I thought I'd let you know. Regards. 172 | Talk 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Breeder and fudgepacker

Hi, you've removed the common slang terms "breeder" and "fudgepacker" from List of sexual slurs. Could you explain why you think these do not belong in the list? --Tony Sidaway 10:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I explained the deletion on the talk page. -Will Beback 18:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills.

The point of it was not to show you neighborhoods within cities, although many of them are within cities of Kentucky or Ohio for example. It was to show you that a community has no distinct way to be represented. Many towns choose community, closest town, state, or community, state, or community, or community, county, state, or community(city), or community (state). There are several ways to represent the community, and it is based on a page by page basis. Now, I would understand if you put "Anaheim" if I were talking about a community of like 30 houses in Anaheim, like Peralta Hills, but we are not. It is a community larger than 14 incorporated OC cities, and has Anaheim in its name. Now, take Downtown for example. Many, for example, like Downtown Berkeley says Downtown Berkeley, California, not Downtown Berkeley, Berkeley, California. Like for Anaheim Hills. You know it is in some way associated with the City of Anaheim-or you are stupid. Now, if you read the first paragraph of the article, you will understand the relationship. If you dont read the first paragraph, than the information probably doesnt matter that much to you anyway. The title is not meant to give you all the details, and is less cluttered than community, city, state. Now, I have a proposal. To end the community controversy, if the community has an entire zip code (1 or more) only for itself, it can drop the community, city, state title and use community, state, but it must mention the city it is part of in the first 2 sentences of the article and state that it is just a community. If the community does not have its own zip code in the city it is within, than it must keep the community, city, state title. This will allow the larger communities to have more independence, yet will still require the introduction to state the city it is part of. On the other hand, it will still allow us to recognize communities that might be small within cities. --Ericsaindon2 01:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k

Hi, I've noticed you've been having some discussions with User:Ste4k regarding her edits to Charles Buell Anderson. I've been involved in a long and fruitless conversation with her on my talk page, and I was wondering what's your overall opinion of her actions and behavior. I personally think she is misinterpreting policy and generally wreaking havoc. Just wanted an outside opinion, thanks. --Nscheffey 02:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say your view appears correct. -Will Beback 03:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)