Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:32, 17 August 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

Question to administrator

Will Beback, I do not know of any other administrators and so am bringing this question to you. If the question should be directed elsewhere, please advise. At least four extremely offensive pages (or non-existent pages with racial slurs) were placed on my watch list. I know with complete certainty I did not do this. My question is: how did this happen? One repeated the word nigger five times. Another went by the title Racial segregation is necessary. There was no content to these pages. There were others. I feel racially harassed. I the offensive additions from my watch list before realizing that I should bring this to Misplaced Pages attention. It appears there is a security breach or that some administrator somewhere with the power to do this kind of thing caused this to happen. I take this very seriously and ask that you do too. Thank you. Skywriter 19:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Watchlist

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)

Each of the pages added to my watchlist were non-pages in the sense that when I clicked to go to the page, there was nothing there i.e. page not created yet and gave me usual option of creating it. One page that I was supposedly watching (that was listed on my watch page) used the word nigger five times, separated by commas but with no quote marks. I did click on that link and of course, there was no such page. Someone with higher admin access to my watch page should be able to see how and when that was done. There were, I believe, four links that I did not add to my watch page that led to these offensive non-pages. If it happens again, I will not delete it but will let you know it is there and then someone can better track it. And yes, one of the fake links was to a non-page called "Racial segregation is necessary". It is a non-page of course because it would be deleted within a few minutes of anyone creating it, I suspect. But in this case, there was no link. My concern is that someone accessed my watch page and added links, which might mean they could also make changes to pages under my name. I will now change my password, but somehow I don't think that's how they gained access. Skywriter 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Entry Vandalism

Will Beback, I need to draw attention to a person that is trying to vandalize the entry for an organization called One People's Project. You have addressed his concern on the discussion page for this entry, and yet he persists in adding the following passage at the end: "While there is no proof that those who were 'slapped around' with metal pipes were nazis, We don't think anyone is going to lose any sleep over people chanting during the anti-immigrant side's salute to the flag, Nazis getting slapped around a bit or the pain Robb Pearson & Co. feel over being called racist all the time.is one example, taken directly from the O.P.P. website, of nazi labelling being used as an excuse for violence against American's exercising their lawful rights of freedom of assembly, and free speech." The person editing this article appears to be anonymous, but has acknowledged to be a poster to a hate site that has a particular issue with One People's Project. The passage has once again been removed, but this editor may come back and try to add it again. Would you be able to intervene? Thank you. Elyrad 10:01, 1 Aug 2007 (UTC)

Louis Jolly West Revert

Will, the policy you quote was for Biographies of Living Persons. Maybe, you didn't notice but the person is question died in 1999. Apart, from that I am kind of new at this and perhaps you could advise me. I did give references to the two Senate Hearings, but not formally list them down in the References section at the bottom. Is this what you need to make the article *legit*?--Larryj53 23:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"No personal attacks"

You seem to be accusing me, on my talk page, of making a personal attack. Could you please specify the edit that you consider to be a personal attack? --MaplePorter 13:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have never posted anything like "However, Dking, your contributions to this discussion, and your edit summaries, are so truculent as to make me wonder whether you are participating in a serious manner." --MaplePorter 21:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That was my post, as I mention above, and I do not consider it a personal attack on anyone. I was noting the persistently hostile and belligerent tone of Dking's posts, which make discussing the article very difficult. --Marvin Diode 06:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Need advice from an administrator

I am editing an article which is a bio of a living person. The debate on the talk page has boiled down to use of foreign sources and two different interpretations of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. I maintain that because the article is posted to English WP the source is not verifiable and a translation is needed to use the reference. Another editor maintains that the source is valid and the article can reflect what it says and then make reference to the article. The article is in Czech and neither of us speak Czech. Thanks. Chicaneo 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

PAW issue

Today, acting without consensus, SqueakBox merged Pro and Anti-pedophile activism with Pedophilia. While I supported this change, I don't support violating guidelines. As I was the one who did the "paperwork" for proposing the merger, I closed the discussion, noting that the merger occurred without consensus . Even if you eliminate all the possible socks, there was clearly no consensus to merge. SqueakBox is now edit warring over at Lolicon over the old picture, again acting as a consensus of one. Yes, some of the pro-pedophile editors can be rude, obnoxious and pushy, they have been known to edit-war and create socks at will, but I am not happy about the behavior of some of the anti-pedophile contingent either, as they violate guidelines and insult other users. In my opinion it diminishes the credibility of the project. Thanks. -Jmh123 20:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If we ignore the banned users and the SPA newbies I absolutely think there is a consensus and Jmh herself was one of those in favour of the merge so I am surprised she has doubts. As for Lolicon a large number of editors have opposed the use of said picture, and I was attempting to try a new compromise with a new pic. I am not sure who has been insulting, perhaps Jmh would care to offer some diffs, SqueakBox 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposed - established users: User:Welland R, User:Homologeo, Coroebus, User:Dybryd. For - you, me, DPeterson, XavierVE. Just because I support something doesn't mean I think policy should be tossed aside to accomplish it. At Lolicon, you are the only individual fighting the picture since June 8. -Jmh123 21:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I certainly dont agree that merging is tossing policy aside, nor should policy be used to confine our actions when they are for the best of the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not a democracty etc. I personally prefer to make bigger not smaller articles regardless of the subject matter but especially when it is even slightly controversial, SqueakBox 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If a proposal is made for the purpose of gathering consensus, and then that consensus doesn't support the proposal, if you ignore that consensus, you are circumventing policy. -Jmh123 21:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if there ahd been a clear consensus against the move I wouldnt have done it but there wasnt. There was a at best a lack of consensus, and lack of consensus isnt an argument for the status quo, SqueakBox 21:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, we all are on the same side: making a good article within the policies and practices of Misplaced Pages. I think the merger is fine. It may not be 100% agreement, but there is a large group. Furthermore, it is consistent with policy, I think, to merge such similiar articles. Why don't we work to effect a smooth consodlidation here? Wouldn't that be best? I know Jmh123 is making a valid point and also think that we can move ahead since there are strong arguments for merger. Can we agree to work together to do that? DPeterson 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. Cheating and bullying bites, no matter who's doing it. Will, I understand the need for the bannings; frankly, I think some of the measures ArbCom is taking now should've been taken a long time ago, but this is just unacceptable. I don't want to be associated with this kind of behavior, no matter how important the cause. -Jmh123 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of support for arbcom

Will: I noticed a while back that you ran for the Arbitration Committee (arbcom), but were not elected. As a matter of historical interest, could you share with us why you think you were not judged by the community as being qualified for the position? This is a sincere question, so please don't take it as a personal attack. Thanks. --24.28.6.209 00:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the two of you seem to be in a content dispute on an article, this sure sounds unnecessary and argumentative to me. Newyorkbrad 01:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not assuming good intent, Newyorkbrad. Actually, Will is helping out on the article Hyman G. Rickover. He's asked for several new citations, and I've provided them. Relax. --24.28.6.209 01:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

you helped out? everyones a winner?

The only winners at Goguryeo-China Wars, or shall I say Military history of Goguryeo, are the CPOV editors, which the administrators failed to see. You can't justify their reasons as fair because of their obvious POV there and in other articles like template:History of Manchuria, which the same editors are trying so hard to erase the word "manchuria" off the face of wikipedia with no good reason.

Can't you see how biased they are? They get the name they want but have not improved the article in any way according to the new title. If they really wanted to improve wikipedia, wheres the information? The article has nothing but stuff about Goguryeo vs. Chinese dynasties. Its obvious the CPOV editors hated the old title and their interests are only for stuff about China and trying to get people to see how they see everything.

I'm disappointed that you and any other editors and administrators failed to help out at the problems we have regarding Goguryeo and its related articles. I requested third opinions and other requests numerous times, and only a few people came to help. User:Arcayne offered a third opinion, and it was something the CPOV editors didn't like. Arcayne later told me that he got "slapped" on his bum or something like that. Only until somebody at a higher level of administration slammed the CPOV editors at their desks would the CPOV editors stop yelling and make them listen.

I'm not asking that you help only our side or use you as a venue to attack the CPOV editors. I'm just angry that you and oter administrators cannot see the obvious bias that the CPOV editors carry. Nobodys a winner until the editors who call the Korean side as "ultranationalists", "nazi-like", "wikipedia is a giant circlejerk for Koreans", "gooks", are punished.

It makes me angry that they get only what they want and there is no compromise (which is a state of position you call "everybodys a winner").

For example, they are allowed to use primary Chinese sources (which, obviously, nobody can affirm as correct) for everything they want. How can we affirm that they are neutral sources? never. But then I cannot use my.goguryeo for the culture section in Goguryeo because its a "Korean site" and is "nationalistic". totally not fair. Good friend100 04:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Amway unreferenced section

Replied here. —AldeBaer (c) 17:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've included the link in the "controversy" section for now. I couldn't really find a better place for it. What that Dateline report essentially does is picking up existing criticism against Amway, re pyramid scheme allegations etc. So it seems not sufficient to back up the rest of the section. To make this clear: I'm not for or against that section, I just thought that while it was being contested by that IP, and due to it's poorly sourced state, it'd be better to move it to the talk page until sources can be provided. Personally, I wouldn't mind having the section in the article with the unref tag, but I'm afraid my opinion is somewhat underinformed, as I first heard about Amway yesterday. —AldeBaer (c) 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

I just wanted to say, now that I've gotten my feet wet: Thank you for supporting my RfA! Daniel Case 07:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Mason Wyler

I was interested to see that you restored this article after my deletion. Your reason was that the older reversion was "better", but it seemed to me that it still didn't assert notability, so I've deleted again. I obviously don't want to get into a delete/restore war with another admin, so if you restore again, I'll leave it there. However, I would appreciate some feedback on how you think this article asserts notability. To me it doesn't, and I'm not convinced that this guy is notable anyway. Thanks, Jimfbleak 14:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

George Maharis arrest material

Hi, Will. I'm out of my depth on anything LGBT related, and I'm hoping you can either help me figure it out or point to someone who can. Months and months ago, I deleted from the George Maharis article some material about his two arrests over thirty years ago. There were no citations for it, and all I could find at the time was an eBay listing for some old gay interest magazine with an article about one of the arrests. This was all in the context of an article that mentioned his Playgirl appearance and the controversy of his leaving Route 66, but didn't mention his Emmy nomination or the later TV series in which he starred, and barely mentioned his brief but successful music career. In short, it was unbalanced. It's better now (although I need to redo the citations and such), but today someone tried to add the arrest stuff back in, this time with citations. A bot reverted it, I'm guessing because one of the sources is deprecated. Can you take a look and see whether the addition or some portion thereof should be salvaged under BLP? Thanks! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 08:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

An appeal for a change in your behavior

I am concerned that Cberlet and Dking seem determined to promote and even impose a viewpoint at the LaRouche articles that is not consistent with main-stream opinion. While LaRouche has many critics and is considered a conspiracy theorist, etc., they have a particular line that he is an anti-Semitic fascist, despite his public campaigns against anti-Semitism and fascism. I think that this is probably apparent to you. They continually self-cite and cite obscure and dubious sources, instead of utilizing the abundant mainstream sources that would not be disputed. It appears that this behavior is intended to use Misplaced Pages to "make a case," when an encyclopedia is intended merely to inform (see WP:SOAP.) As an admin you ought to be intervening to discourage this sort of behavior, yet you seem to applaud it. Dking and Cberlet are constantly in violation of WP:CIVIL, where it warns against "Judgmental tone in edit summaries" and "Calling for bans or blocks." Cberlet specifically called for NathanDW to be banned (Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Propose Banning of_NathanDW.) As an admin you ought to discourage this. --Don't lose that number 13:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the rather sympathetic admonition against personal attacks that you left Dking in January. Can you show me an example of your telling Cberlet to be more civil, or less agressive? --Don't lose that number 06:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say that I agree with DLTN's observations. I have discussed with you before that I perceive you as harassing the pro-LaRouche editors while coddling the anti-LaRouche editors. If you could persuade Dking and Cberlet to cool it on the violations of WP:NPOV,WP:CIVIL and WP:SOAP, it would help to prevent these endless and fatiguing content disputes at the LaRouche articles. --NathanDW 15:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet has set the parameters of the mediation discussion in a highly biased way. We're supposed to discuss whether editors that contribute positive information should be banned from the article? That's an implicit violation of WP:CIVIL right there. Note that I have added virtually nothing to these articles, positive or negative -- my role from the get-go has been simply to object to the painfully obvious POV-pushing of Cberlet, and a mediation that excludes that topic doesn't seem very productive to me. --NathanDW 15:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cumberland, MD

Wouldn't moving the history section cut it off from it's references? - NeutralHomer 00:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as the history section remains intact, since there is ALOT of history to go around there, then I am happy:) - NeutralHomer 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you need the media section moved, let me know and I will be glad to move it. I am the one who made it, so I don't mind moving it around. This is not an "ownership" thing, just helping with the section I made. The rest is beyond me. - NeutralHomer 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is what I was worried about. You are getting a little delete happy. If you are going to delete entire sections (moving them not included), I am going to have to ask that you discuss it first on the talk page and wait for a response. I don't mind moving articles or changing things around, but deleting entire articles and not adding anything in it's place, that is not improving the article. - NeutralHomer 10:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen someone go so delete happy on an article in my life. The pages you are creating has no references (you are not carrying them over) and will be easily deleted. You are deleting whole sections without consensus. You are not asking the big contributor to the page, User:Potomacbase, for his input. Since, you have gone on a delete spree, I ask that you bring in someone who can be a little more biased and actually include other people in the edits and deletions, like User:Potomacbase. - NeutralHomer 10:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Information Request

User Reneeholle is repeatedly making personal attack against me, and is now making an enviorenment against me, by contacting various people on wiki on their personal talk pages, for example also if you will notice this user is highly manipulative like s/he hide's all my responces as soon as i make them for example, s/he archieved the complete talk page of Sahaj Marg, also my responce on her talk page . Kindly note, there has not been any edit from my side in last 4-5 day's, whenever i do even a minor edit, insted of talking on discussion page, this person immediatly either approaches various admins or immediatly file's a vendalism report against me for a single edits . These acts clearly demonstrate that this user is not much interested in giving any positive contribution to wikipedia, but interested in only getting me blocked, there has not been any concreate discussion from this user about edits or content of article, but only personal openion about a user, and creating an enviorenment against one user with sole intention to make sure that I am not able to contribute to wikipedia.

I have a POV, like everyone has, and i am always willing to discuss it and come to a conclusion with patience and trying to put forth my view and explaining it first on talk page, my view's may be highly different from another user, but sticking to policy is what i am comitted to, when there was no resolution on talk page, we accepted mediation process, and left the artile untouched, but if you observe, while mediation process was underway, entire page was removed, and now there is next to no info. Still i am with community and am waiting patienlly to get the outcome of mediation process. Archiving a talk page (which was undone by Sethie) itself demonstrate that this user is trying to hide all my response's so that no-one can see my POV.

I regard you as some-one who has deep understanding of wiki policy and do not get involved with issue's by becoming a part of it but you simply provide an outside prospective which is fairly balanced and neutral, that's why i regard you and value your openion very much. Kindly advice as how to tackle this situation where one user is trying all in his/her capacity to get another user blocked from editing. this is clear case of WP:NPA. I had to even put a banner on my talk page so that admins first take my POV also before getting influenced by this user. Pls advice is RfC a better option or not responding at all is better option !!

Thanks in advance.--Shashwat pandey 06:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Weather Link Removal

Hi Will, This is in regards to Palm Springs, California. Our company donates time and money for the maintenance and operation of the Palm Springs Weather website at www.palmspringsweather.com (www.psview.com). We have noticed that you recently removed this website link on July 14th and we are wondering why. The website provides detailed weather information and camera views that are available nowhere else and this information is free for all our viewers. Links to our website are also provided on the Bureau of Toursim and City of Palm Springs websites in addition to many others so why not Misplaced Pages? Thanks, --Viperlogic 22:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NC:CITY change

I agree that there is not currently consensus for Polaron and Serge's change but I don't care to get into a revert war with either other them. I attempted to compromise with their "non-consensus" version but if you wish to revert back to your Jan 3rd, 2007 edit, I certainly have no bones against it. Agne/ 00:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about Hans-Hermann Hoppe

This is a general question about the listing of academics: as a relatively new contributor, I am curious about your standards regarding the listing of academics. It seems to me that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is not a notable academic. His profile is sourced by his personal website, the UNLV website, links to other wikipedia pages, and websites that list his publications (which is common for most academics, including non-notable ones). Also, though we are supposed to believe he is influential in the "Austrian school of economics," he isn't listed on the "Austrian school of economics" page. --Bremskraft 22:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me?

I am currently involved in an edit war with an anon User:User: 70.189.74.49 on the article Thematic motifs of Lost. I have reported this editor for a 3RR violation, but nothing seems to be happening. He blanked his talk page, with the warnings, and his edit summary was "good luck with that." I and other editors have tried to engage him in discussion on the article's talk page, but the only response we seem to get is "you're wrong and you just don't see it." I really want to avoid 3 reverts myself and I want to discuss this content dispute rationally. Any suggestions? Ursasapien (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have found assistance already. Happy editing! Ursasapien (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Label

I'll try to be more patient. But is it really that big of a deal to use the undo command that way? --TrustTruth 22:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc/user for Shashwat pandey

Dear Will Beback,

Users Sethie and Reneeholle have filed an Rfc for user Shashwat pandey.

Because you have contributed to either the Sahaj Marg page, the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page, or both, we would appreciate it if you could provide your comments of this user at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Shashwat_pandey

Here are the guidelines for responding :

• Other users can endorse a view (under 1.7), by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
• Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.
• You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement (under section 1.7), and/or the subject's response (under section 2).

Thank you for your time. It is greatly appreciated! 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephens City

Permission to use it has already been issued to the ComCom and I am waiting for a reply. - NeutralHomer 00:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

...and that would the Newtown History Center in Stephens City, VA. - NeutralHomer 00:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Now is what you are adding what the Communications Committee will add or will they remove that attribution and add something else? - NeutralHomer 01:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss this on the relevant talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

October 3

It's not noted, because I don't think anyone actually thought to look this up. In the research for Virginia, I found that the charter/founding of Stephensburgh (later Stephens City) was the only charter/founding that a British Lord actively participated in from 1607 to 1776, of course after that, British Lords had no standing here.

So, at least in Virginia it was a one-time only event, making it very rare, at least by Colonial History standards and worth noting, at least in Virginia history.

Then it got me thinking....did this happen anywhere else from 1607 to 1776? Did a British Lord come to the "new world" and actively participate in the charter and founding of a US town. The Virginia Historical Society said "no", but they are still looking, hence my recent edit.

If it is found that from 1607 to 1776, 169 years, that only one time did a British Lord actively participate in the charter and founding of a US town, it would be a notable bit of history that no one really took the time to look up.

I am actively working with the Virginia Historical Society and the Newtown History Center on this one and making sure that we don't come across another town in Virginia or in what would have been the originial 13 colonies that would take away the "only one time" "title" from Stephens City.

So, if it is confirmed, then I will add it to the History section on the Virginia page and if further confirmed, on the History section of the United States page as well. That will back up the notability. Right now, I am just "crossing my T's and dotting my I's" - NeutralHomer 04:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am actually a little disappointed that you are telling me to just ignore a piece of history that no one thought to look up and that just because Stephens City has a in-town and outside town limits population of about 3,000, it is not as important as say Chicago or NYC. What disappoints me more, is your comparing this to scratching one's nose.

Misplaced Pages is not about which bit of information or history is more important or "cooler" or affected the price of eggs in China, if we did that all of us would be going against a big Wiki rule: Neutral point of view. Regardless if it is small and only affected Colonial US History from 1607 to 1776, it would be a piece of history that, as a an encyclopedia, we would have to add.

We don't decide which pieces of history get in, as long as they have references (and mine does) then they are included, no matter how small.

So, when the Virginia Historical Society gets back to me, I will add the topic in the Virginia history section and readd it on the October 3 page. As the more research comes in, my adding of the topic to other pages might grow as well. - NeutralHomer 23:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That right there is what is wrong with Misplaced Pages. Too many people deciding what they think should be on Misplaced Pages and what they think is important and threating others who try to expand Misplaced Pages with a piece of history that no one has thought to look up. No one, the Virginia Historical Society hadn't looked it up themselves. This is what really disappoints me about Misplaced Pages. Spout off about neutral points of voice and being unbias and that is exactly what you are being right here.

Do me a favor, leave the Stephens City page to me, I don't need nor want your help any longer. I will ask for help from people who actually have a knowledge of Virginia History and Colonial History and people are unbiased and people who wish to expand Misplaced Pages instead of threatening those who try or do. - NeutralHomer 23:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Manzanar

Could you drop by Talk:Manzanar, check out the discussion on terminology (it's in two sections) and add your two cents? There is quite the dispute, although it has been civil. Thanks. Gmatsuda 04:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

You may not know but currently this article (and all matters relating to all attachment articles) are before ArbCom. ArbCom is not yet finished but in the course of evidence it has transpired by checkuser that DPeterson, SamDavidson, JohnsonRon, JonesRD and MarkWood are the same user. They are reduced to one account and that may be for arbitration only although this is not clear. A decision has not yet been reached on RalphLender. There are cross allegations but the credibility of these has suffered somewhat in the light of the checkuser findings. In the circumstances it seems unlikely that edit war will break out again so am asking that this page be unprotected. (I have also asked on the unprotect page as I didn't read the bit about asking you first until I'd posted it. Sorry.) Fainites 18:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Will. Fainites 20:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Villa-Park

Checking on an unblock request. I can see that this user edited in the same general area as the banned user you refer to, but I'm having trouble seeing what makes you so sure that this is a sock of that user. Could you explain it a little more (email would be fine)? I'm not as familiar with Ericsaindon2's behavior as you are. Mangojuice 04:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know I've reviewed the request and left a note with Mangojuice. Will see if there's a reply from either of them, and things can proceed from there, I guess. This one matches what I remember very closely. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Even-handedness

I am shocked and outraged to learn that NathanDW has been indefinately blocked for restoring an external link that had been removed without explanation. He made a request for an explanation on the talk page (at Talk:Chip Berlet) and made no further effort to restore the link after he received an explanation. This is amazing. Cberlet makes more questionable BLP edits in an hour (as he did yesterday at LaRouche Youth Movement) than NathanDW makes in a year -- yet NathanDW gets permanently blocked, and Cberlet doesn't even get a warning. You are familiar with the editors involved here. You should intervene. --Marvin Diode 12:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Has Cberlet ever received any sort of warning on BLP? --Mr Keck 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nation of Aztlan

I need a bit of help/advice. Could you take a look at my latest post on Nation of Aztlan's talk page? Thanks. --Chicaneo 16:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Primerica Financial Services

Will Beback, I think a consensus needs to be made about the criticism section to Primerica Financial Services. The original criticism focused on its recruiting methods, but has now taken on complaints against its insurance business. Why is this relevant? How come Primerica seems to be the target of this type of criticism? Based upon your edits you seem to support it. Prudential and AFLAC don't have criticism sections pertaining to company complaints, yet a simple Google search will yield that type of information. Should these complaints be added to the Prudential and AFLAC articles?

In my last edit, I made an attempt to accurately state the facts in the source complaints, giving numbers as opposed to "some" and "many." The numbers provided are old data, at least lets use current data. You obviously think these statements should be in there, as every time someone removed the statements, you reverted the article. Every company is going to have complaints made against it. If we are going to leave these statements, then at least let use current data and put the data in context. But, then again, why is this relevant? As an example, the source used the Michigan statement was from 2001. This source was probably found by going to the michigan.gov site and doing a search for "Primerica." The 2001 source just happens to be the first listed, but below that is the the 2006 report. This just seems to be a random attack. As a comparison, in 2001, Prudential had 48 complaints, but this information is no where within its Misplaced Pages article. I not suggesting this type information be added to the Prudential, MetLife or AFLAC articles, my point is, I feel the criticism section should focus on the recruiting and not every small complaint lodged against the company.

I am coming to you opened minded in an effort to understand your position on the subject. I would appreciate any insight you could offer. P747AH 13:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So can we agree to remove the state agency and BBS statements? P747AH 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The original editor was an anon. editor. By the user contributions, it is obvious that the editor has something against Primerica. P747AH 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Links inside of quotes

I saw your comment about my link on "Malthusian." Is there an actual policy that covers this? It seems to me that many persons may not be aware of the meaning of the term. --Mr Keck 20:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

DefaultSort & References repair at George Paxton

Hi Mr. Beback, Do you know how to fix the References?

Somehow, when I was correcting the DEFAULTSORT for this swing band leader, the References got hidden. (I was trying to fix the DEFAULTSORT to register his last name first, for proper listing on Category pages.) Do you know how I would fix this? Dogru144 08:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and for getting back to me. Dogru144 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Polk County

I started trying to look something up about Sterling Township in Polk County. I might perhaps write about some of the local places. So as I was looking around for an WP editor already working in the area, I found you reverting spam links all over the place. It seems the main contributor to Polk County articles is also spamming links, but it's hard to tell, and I am not interesting in the forensics of it all. Since you are apparently the only one wearing a white hat in Polk County, I have a question for you, having to do with a cemetery there. If you know about the area, let me know. There really is a point to all this, as I would like to work on Sterling, and Eureka Townships. And I think an article on what is called the Sterling Barrens would be fun to write. What a neat name? Can you help me? Thanks. Nanabozho 05:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for adding the unsourced material to the LA page, just trying to learn my way around. Rich in LA 18:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy

Users Fainites, Sarner, et. al., are editing this without regard to other's thoughts and reverting wholesale. I think the article should be refrozen. RalphLender 18:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Jared Taylor

There is some reverting going on, if you could take a look, it would be appreciated. Thanks, Eeaee 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention Eeaee 10:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dgraded new list, after Deletion of old List of Columbia Records artists

User:Ohconfucius has renamed the old list.

Many editors, such as myself, spent much time and care putting names and biographical information into the old list which was in table form. With no authorization this aforenamed editor has wiped out the old table-form list. How can he just do this? He does not seem to be an editor of special authority. (I wonder if he was the one that re-created the list after re-naming the file. Please see the file history. )

Furthermore, many of the old names from the list, mainly those of the classical, jazz and Latin genres, have been wiped out of the list.

Is there any way to recover the old list? Dogru144 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

Why did you block me? --Mr Keck 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your feedback on Matt Drudge talk page

Hi Will Beback, I saw some comments you left on the Michael Savage talk and you seem like a fair-minded person. I'd be very grateful for your input on a long-suppressed proposed edit to the Matt Drudge page. I cannot see the libel in it, but some other conservative (in every way) editors are unsure. Please leave a short comment there if you have some time. Thanks. Skopp (Talk) 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Question re editing archived pages (John Wayne sockpuppet)

Since the John Wayne sockpuppet guy is back, I posted something to the thread on your User talk page which has been archived. But my post showed up only on the archived page, so I'm wondering: if one edits someone's archived page, does anyone see that if they're not actively reading their archives? For the record, here's what I posted, just in case it should have been placed in a new section on your current user talk page:

After a break, he has returned, doing the same stuff to the John Wayne and James Stewart articles, now using the name BillRodgers.

Thanks in advance for squaring me away. Monkeyzpop 19:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

note on the LaRouche rfCs

I was comparing the two RfCs and noticed that they are worded the same except for names. Is this a policy violation? Dagomar 06:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I raised the COI issue because when you dissect all the LaRouche disputes that seems to be a common issue. If this is eliminated you can pull the rug out from underneath these folks who are trying to make us their pulpit. Dagomar 03:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

With Image:Evilhomer1.jpg, that's cool but let that user know. As for Image:Homestarpedia.png, it was released for public use on HomestarWiki, so that public use would extend to Misplaced Pages as well. - NeutralHomer 21:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and don't remove images, regardless, from a user's page. It is kinda rude. Userpages are that user's domain, if you will, and normally, unless it is to revert vandalism, you ask permission first before editing a person's userpage. It is just a common courtesy.

Also, don't intentionally orphanate an image then retag it, again, rude. - NeutralHomer 21:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"they belong, along with the rest of Misplaced Pages, to the WMF" - You missed the point entirely, which I expected. As you "took the liberty", as you put it, of removing things from people's userpages, I didn't expect you to. See, most Wikipedians respect that a person's userpage is that user's page and unless they ask ahead of time (or they are reverting vandalism) they don't mess with a user's userpage. No matter.

Also, the CC 2.5, there are plenty of images released under CC 2.5 on Misplaced Pages right now, so I am not buying that excuse, which is what it is. Since the user released it to the public, it would be released for Misplaced Pages use as well. You are obviously trying to find a problem where there is none. - NeutralHomer 22:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it said it was an orphan image.

Orphan - Noun

5. (computing) Any unreferenced abstract object.

(from Wiktionary)

Since both images, Image:Homestarpedia.png more than the other, were being used, they were not orphans and the tags were incorrect. - NeutralHomer 22:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Try taking a look at the image, it is being used in an article. More than one now. You know, you really take the fun out of Misplaced Pages. - NeutralHomer 22:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, it is part of an article, so it is not in violation of WP:FU anymore, so let's try and NOT keep trying to put it there.....and did you not get my point about not messing with people's user pages? - NeutralHomer 22:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, I am asked to put the image on a page, I do, it's removed. I am ordered to remove it from other user's userpages, I won't, so you do it for me. I make a userbox, it is f***ed up. The image I used, which was released the image out to the public....released to the public....is some how turned into a fair use image.

Do I have a choice, no. Do I have any recourse, no. Does this make me want to ever bother making another userbox, upload another image, or create another article, no. Why, who knows what you will have wrong with that article.

Seems kinda odd that you have no "chased" me around from my Stephens City, Virginia article (which I still have no recieved anything on) to the Cumberland, Maryland article, to this userbox. If I need someone to follow me around, take the fun out of everything I do, and be a complete buzzkill, I will just go find my old girlfriend again. - NeutralHomer 22:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OK....how can I explain this.....OK, a user page is like a house. I don't come over to your house, rearrange the furniture, put wallpaper that I like, and paint the outside pink with orange Polka-dots. The same goes for you, you wouldn't come over to my house, set my couch out on the front lawn, feng shui my kitchen cabinets and re-tile my bathroom in lime green tile.

Same goes for each of our userpages. If I thought the picture of the mountain with watermelon snow was goofy, I wouldn't take it down and replace it with a picture of George Carlin from 1983. It is just common courtesy....you don't come into someone's house and mess things up, you don't go onto someone's userpage and delete images....unless you ask first.

Also, don't cite the civility rules to me, I have been, on more than one occasion, more than civil and polite with you and others. - NeutralHomer 23:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Released to the public = Free. I need a Vicodin and a stiff drink now, you guys have given me a mirgaine. - NeutralHomer 23:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am adding these to prove a point of how stupid the anti-racist category is

It might be more helpful to hold the discussion on that categories talk page.Hoponpop69 23:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well will you still participate in that discussion?Hoponpop69 23:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr Keck

I see that you have banned User:Mr Keck. I have reviewed his contributions, which were few. Could you tell be specifically what was so objectionable about his behavior? --Marvin Diode 14:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I fear that you have misunderstood my question. I saw the notice on his talk page that he was a suspected sockpuppet. To arrive at that determination, you ask for a checkuser, am I wrong? And you must have a behavioral basis, policy violations etc., in order to request a checkuser? So let me repeat the question: what was so objectionable about his behavior? Please tell me it wasn't just incorrect POV. --Marvin Diode 20:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be having trouble formulating my question clearly. Don't you have to run checkuser before deciding that someone is a sockpuppet? And doesn't there have to be some sort of policy violation before you can request a checkuser? --Marvin Diode 14:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be going around the mulberry bush here. You say that the policy violation is being a sockpuppet. So, how do you actually know that there is a policy violation, without first going to check-user? And I guess more to the point: what made you suspect that Mr Keck was a sockpuppet, other than the fact that he voted "wrong" in Cberlet's poll? An awful lot of users who disagreed with Cberlet have wound up banned lately. I find this pattern disturbing. --Marvin Diode 22:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I speaking a foreign language or something? What I am asking is, what made Mr Keck a suspect? Why did you decide that he was a likely sockpuppet, as opposed to any number of other editors? --Marvin Diode 14:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I managed to find Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser and I see no sign of any request by you regarding Mr Keck. Did anyone run checkuser on him? What was the evidence that Mr Keck was a sockpuppet? --Marvin Diode 14:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't doubt that it was the case. I just wondered what made him a target of suspicion, as I have asked you in as many different ways and as clearly as I can. I don't know much about checkuser, but I had the distinct impression that there had to be some sort of "probable cause" before somebody submits a checkeuser request. --Marvin Diode 20:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear at this point that you are unwilling to answer my question about what made Mr Keck a suspect. I also wonder why you did not go through the "requests for checkuser," and instead apparently used some sort of private channel. Lack of transparency in these matters creates a climate of mistrust. --Marvin Diode 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finally answering some of my questions. --Marvin Diode 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked the number of times that it took for me to get an answer. I should have thought that once would be sufficient. As to why I thought that it was important, it comes back to my concerns about even-handedness. There was a nasty content dispute that lasted over a month. When the smoke cleared, the two editors that I thought were the biggest problem, Cberlet and Dking, come away unscathed, with the RFCs on them being suppressed. Meanwhile, two of their main opponents got banned for what appear to be very minor offenses, and a third, marginal opponent, Mr Keck, also got banned. If he is a sockpuppet of a former user who committed very serious offenses, I can see why he should be banned. But just looking at the contribution history of Mr Keck alone, it seemed quite innocent to me. --Marvin Diode 20:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sunset Blvd. entry

Hi Will,

  I edited the Sunset Blvd. entry recently to remove material that I felt was inaccurate, but found that you promptly reinstated
said material.  Specifically, you refer to Sunset as running through "very rugged terrain" over "much of its course" and being
"treacherous" due to "hairpin curves and blind crests".  As a Los Angeles resident who frequently drives Sunset from the West side
to my house near downtown, I can assure you that "rugged" & "treacherous" are not accurate descriptions of the terrain; only a
small section near Beverly Hills & West thereof contains minor changes in altitude and curves; the majority of the road is
absolutely flat and straight.  Short of giving you my word, the only evidence I can offer is to direct you to Google Maps to have
a look at the route for yourself, and I would urge you to do so.  I don't have much vested interest in this article, but just want
to correct something that seemed blatantly incorrect from firsthand experience.  I'll leave it to you to remove the material if
you come to the same conclusion as me, but if you do not I would appreciate an explanation.  Thank you.

Stephens City redux

Do you know of a better way that I can add the permission? Another form, etc? I honestly don't want to have to rewrite all that if I don't have to and the way it is written is great as it is. - NeutralHomer 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond here since your talk page is hard to follow. The implest thing of all is to ask the copyrightholder or webmaster to simply add a line at the bottom of the website's page saying that the material is released under the GFDL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, don't mean for my talk page to be confuzzling. I can ask them, but my thing is I don't want to annoy the crap out of them with this permission and that permission and can you add this, this and that. That is my main worry. I will ask, of course. - NeutralHomer 01:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to send me a copy of your letter of request I can check to make sure it's complete and correct. Or you can use one of the already and approved prepared letters here. Or you can simply ask them to do what I wrote above, which is to just add the GFDL license to the original page. Or you can ask the copyright holder to come to Misplaced Pages and contribute the material himself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That last one would work. The one person from the Newtown History Center (the people who made the history section in question) made an account under the name User:Newtownhistorycenter. My only problem is, would that cause a conflict of interest issue? If not, then that would work excellently. All they would have to do is just copy/paste my last edit and call it their own, we would know why they were doing that (would be easier than typing the whole thing again) and then they could say "we added this, it is ours".

I can let them know about that and the GFDL thing as well. Take Care....NeutralHomer 02:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone may ask for proof that the account actually belongs to the Newtown History Center. That usually takes the form of an email sent from a Newtownhistorycenter.org address. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Murphy

Heh... Sounds like the guy is quite the talk of the town. I am not sure that an arrest for deviant sexual behavior is all that uncommon as to make him notable. But he will certainly be the talk of the town. Thanks for passing that along. I was aware that there was quite a mess over at the Young Republicans article, but am out of town and had not had the chance to look into it too much. Montco 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The JDL article

I think that you and I are in agreement about the FBI referring to the JDL as terrorist and where to do it. I have no problem with putting the terrorist tag on them if the FBI puts them on their official list. For the most part I do not edit until I think there is a consensus. I think there is one and I think your edit(s) adhere to it. Albion moonlight 10:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unusual editing pattern

hmmmm--Cberlet 23:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

87.74.46.129

This is the user whose contributions you are reverting, the extent of his contributions being adding the same category to articles. Are these all to be reverted? And if so, there is a backlog of these categories having been added by this user if you need assistance. Bobo. 11:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

American School (economics)

In the course of clearing OR out of this article, I've started wondering why there is an article on an "American School" at all. There doesn't seem to be any mention of a contemporary source using that term. Why can't everything be at the American System article? Gazpacho 22:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche (again)

I have filed a request for admin intervention due to the way the new page RFC on Lyndon LaRouche has been transformed into an attack on my editing and reliability as a source. See here--Cberlet 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Kenneth Wapnick Article deletion/ reinstatement review

Hi Will,
          Good to see you are still active over here . In case you might be interested, there is a discussion going on about whether or not Misplaced Pages should include an article about Kenneth Wapnick at: the Article Deletion Review board. Your input over there would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

-Scott P. 10:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

More on 87.74.46.129

On User talk:Bobo192, Will Beback said:
Thanks for your note. This editors contributins nedn't be automatically reverted, but the overwhelming majority of them have been unhelpful. He has been making categorizations that don't appear to be justified, and which appear to promote a particular viewpoint. user:Renata3 has blocked the account temporarily, but I'm sure the user will come back. Your help would be appreciated.

The block is certainly useful for the time being while we reassess the situation. I'm certainly unsure as to which, if any, of the people he added to the list of Jewish atheists (is there even such a thing?) really do fit in this category. Surely they do not as "Jewish atheists" sounds to me to be a contradiction in terms. (A nontheistic religion, on the other hand..)

I promise if and when I see the user around again, most probably in 22 hours time, I shall keep an eye on their contributions. Thank you. Bobo. 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg... See ANI report. BTW, there is such thing as Jewish atheist (because a Jew is not just a religion, it's also nationality). But he has a super-strong anti-atheist and anti-gay agenda and will scream his lungs out when anybody approaches him trying to moderate his contributions or seek explanations. Knowing him, he will be back. In a day or two, but he will be back. Renata 19:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing, again

You've been warned previously about canvassing for support for policy changes. This appears to another instance. If you'd like to alert previous participants in a discussion to a new discussion, please do so even-handedly. Selectively notifying users who support your position gievs the appearance of gaming the system. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, first, WP:CANVASSING is not prohibited. Second, what I did above is closer to a friendly notice than canvassing, or, at worst, it is campaigning, about which a "hard and fast rule does not exist". But thanks for expressing your concerns. However, future similar "warnings" on my talk page obviously will serve no purpose, and are not welcome. I hope that is clear. --Serge 22:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review the nature of a behavioral guideline:

• It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

It is a standard that you are expected to follow. Friendly wanring are tolerated "if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion". Selectively canvassing certain editors who've previously agreed with you gives the appearance of attempting to influence the discussion and is called "votestacking". See the "audience" column in the chart at WP:CANVASSING#Types of canvassing. This behavior has generated comments from other editors besides myself. Ignoring polite requests to follow guidelines is not helpful behavior and does not demonstrate good faith. You seem to be saying that you will continue to flout this guideline, and that I needn't bother mentioning it again here. In that case if there is a recurrence it will have to be addressed in another venue, such as AN/I or a user RfC. It would be better if you'd simply follow the expected behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, you're acting like an idiot. I'm not ignoring nor flouting the guideline, I'm following it. Please stop claiming that I'm not, or that I'm flouting it. What part of "The difference lies in the disruption involved. " do you not understand? The disruption you're causing now is much more than any (if any) disruption my one little post caused. What part of "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view, in order to influence a vote." do you not understand? What part of "However, the greater the number of editors contacted, ...the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings ..." do you not understand? One incident of campaigning hardly warrants a warning PER THE GUIDELINE. It would be appreciated if you took the time to understand the expected behavior before you warned people for not following it. Please stop being disruptive, especially on my talk page. --Serge 22:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice working with you

Thank you for your contributions this evening to the Rickover article. I think that the retirement section is getting a little heavy as compared to his substantial contributions, but then I guess elephant fights are always dramatic & amusing. --24.28.6.209 05:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

IP users in highest income places

Lately there has been an IP user who has added figures that cannot be verified for "Anaheim Hills," California to the Highest Income Places in the US article. This has been a chronic problem in the past, but now the user (seen here with IPs such as 75.47.185.234, 75.43.193.16, and 75.47.182.253 seems willing to engage in revert wars over it, which seems like something not worthing of entering for that user's sake.

There is strong similarity of edits by this batch of IPs to previous IP users, and finally to known sockpuppets of banned user Ericsaindon2. I am unsure as to the best procedure to deal with this. Lakester10 03:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Lyndon LaRouche and related articles, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Why did you delete Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet? --Marvin Diode 14:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Because this editor is an associate in arms with Cberlet and should excuse himself from any actions like above. That would be the ethical thing to do. Cberlet is known for editing his own articles and others on his subjects he writes about. He has been involved in numerous past disputes with Willbeback/Williamcw or whatnot and others. Their is a long history of hysteria on behalf of this group - regarding a non-entity like LaRouche which over-reaches into any topic they think LaRouche is involved with. It's problematic and concerned Wikipedians should censure this crowd for Misplaced Pages's sake. --Northmeister 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)