Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:30, 16 March 2008

Welcome

Feel free to say whatever you like here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is temporarily protected. You may use User:Will Beback/Scratchpad instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to write whatever you like. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin here

75.43.196.242 is requesting unblock. You blocked him for sockpuppetry. Could you perhaps provide evidence of such on the user talk page of that IP so that I can make a reasonable judgement as to whether to grant his request? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been a busy time, hasn't it?

I just looked at your logs when I saw your talk page protected. It's been a busy time for you lately. Allow me to extend my thanks for your steps to eliminate sockpuppets. I'm starting to think that adminship is more like being some hybrid of a building superintendent and a volunteer firefighter. --SSBohio 18:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your support of the history deletion at Justin Berry

I hope (when your workload reduces) that we can continue our dialogue on this topic. I want to allay your concern that I'm trying to discuss the content of the article on my talk page with you; I'm strictly concerned with policy and conduct. I want to understand the difference between your first decision (to revert Phil Sandifer and keep the history) and your second (to agree with Sandifer's redeletion of the history you restored). I'm happy to continue this conversation on either of our talk pages, but I don't feel that the article talk page is the right forum for a discussion of conduct & policy issues, rather than content. --SSBohio 18:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvey's back

Trying to develop a history of inconsequential edits first, the following was noted:

172.213.30.174|172.213.30.174's edit in Marlon Brando: “Only six months after his death, his third wife Tarita Teriipia published a memior in which she revealed that Cheyenne had recorded in her diary being sexually abused by her father. Tarita suggested this was why Cheyenne had developed schizophrenia and committed suicide.”

Banned editor 172.143.18.73|172.143.18.73's edit in Marlon Brando: “Only six months after his death, his third wife Tarita Teriipia published a memior in which she revealed that Cheyenne had recorded in her diary being sexually abused by her father. Tarita suggested this was why Cheyenne had developed schizophrenia and committed suicide.”

Note the spelling error which I have put in bold lettering. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Jared Taylor

Any chance of this being unprotected? There hasn't been any activity on the dispute since November, so it seems like leaving it protected is not going to accomplish much.P4k (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Osho

Hi Will, I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on Talk:Osho. Things seem to be getting a little excited there. Cheers, -- Jayen466 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Will, thanks for looking in. Things are now a little less excited and more to the point, but edits like this still seem to be more ad hominem than actually concerned with writing an article based on the available sources. -- Jayen466 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Attack on James Stewart (actor)

See: 172.143.87.209 using the same MO as Harv. See: ] Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

No, not an attack at all. Telling the truth about a person is not an attack. James Stewart was indeed a racist, and even Henry Fonda and Leonard Gershe admitted as much. Quite a few young users of the imdb have changed their view of James Stewart after learning of his backward views on race, even if they still like some of his films. (172.188.166.2 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

The text from imdb is unsourced, written by various kinds of people, and not always credible. (For example, the trivia of Frank Capra in imdb mentioned that Frank Capra is great-grandfather of Francis Capra, which is apparently wrong.) (Sorry I can't speak English well) Mr. 172.188.166.2 (and his sockpuppeters) always makes self-assertive, undefended remarks on the articles and talk pages. "Quite a few young users of the imdb have changed their view of James Stewart after learning of his backward views on race"? How do you know? 61.224.51.229 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading the posts on imdb, yahooanswers and elsewhere. (172.207.54.90 (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

See:talk and ]; same MO of a sock puppeteer, Harvey Carter. Bzuk (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC).

Already blocked. Thanks for the heads-up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jbuds?nhgn

Yeah User:JzG mentionned it before that there were more puppets before him although I didn't knew, before you alerted me, about the initial puppet master, since I've only tagged those that blanked JzG's talk page. But I will continue to monitor that user page and I think it is on watchlist still.--JForget 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Selective edits

listen dude, if you are going to keep weighing on behalf of one individuals interests irrespective of the valid significant POV issues already highlighted you really are bringing your integrity as an administrator into doubt. You wouldn't also have religious affiliations with said organization by any chance? I am requesting that you reinstate the edits you made on the talk page minus the links to personal information and other such details.There are valid points raised and you have erased them all. I also suggest that where information has been removed you insert in square brackets with a link to your page. This is necessary so that other editors are aware of exactly what's happening, who is doing what, and what their affiliations may be (to demonstrate vested interests). Please do not try and be a fascist about this. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW your accusation that I am "outing" some is a complete falsehood, anyone can type Jayen466 into Google and find the exact same information as I, this is not outing nor is compromising someones anonymity, so lets get that straight. The assertions were valid and the claims proven to be accurate, so I fail to see the validity of your objections. This individual has compromised his own anonymity, your accusation is false. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

cool head

Hi Will, sorry to bother you. I have in the past noticed that you have a cool head in contentious situations, well I am feeling frustrated while trying to collaborate with two editors on the article Gun Politics. If not too much trouble I would appreciate your opinion about that situation right now, as I am not sure if I am dealing correctly with the collaboration process there, or not, and would appreciate your advice. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I also am curious about your opinion of the status at Gun politics in the United States. Specifically, I am interested in advice on how to edit in that heated environment, where article space edits exceed talk page edits by 10:1. And/or, how to develop a sense of collaboration in that environment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Osho COI Filed

I would appreciate it if you would take note of the fact that I have, in accordance with your advice, filed a COI dispute, I have also placed a COI template on the Osho article page. There is continued resistance to the inclusion of relevant factual information which has been sourced and cited correctly; and decisions relating to what is or is not relevant to the article are being made by those whom the COI dispute relates to. Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have responded to the allegations and provided examples to try and support the COI case, I don't really have time to fish out every questionable edit.Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Pol64

Hi Will Beback (why is your talk page protected, may I ask?) Could you pop over here and assure Pol64 that I am acting correctly? He has (as of this moment) removed content from a page undergoing MfD on three occasions, and I have reverted him of each one as as far as I am aware the MfD must end and the fate of such content must be decided over concensus. Opinion is split at the moment, so it clearly does not cleanly furfil the criteria for speedy. I (as I stated in the MfD) am favouring deletion, however I want the author to do so voluntarily as a sign of good faith to help end the dispute, rather than being forced to do so over an MfD.

I'm not too fussed if this doesnt happen and if it is deleted by MfD, I have given up resolving it really (poor resolve on my part) but Pol64 believes me to be in cahoots with Viligance, and I was hoping you could help show that he needs to let the MfD run its course, hes calling for my de-sysopping at the moment.

Cheers! SGGH 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually they are now, for some reason, calling for me to be desysopped. How strange. Never mind, there is not listening going on on that talk page at the moment. I'll continue to ensure the content that is the subject of the MfD remains on the page until the MfD closes and its fate is decided, but I'll steer clear of further hassle from the users involved. Sorry to have bothered you! SGGH 00:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A few reasons. Firstly, Vigilance initially maintained that he was collecting evidence for an ArbCom or some other form of intervention against SqueakBox. While I suggested to him that he keep it on his PC, I can understand the need to keep it on wikipedia for ease of maintainance. Secondly, after investigating the battle between the two, I thought that if Vigilance voluntariy removed the content rather than it being deleted by a 3rd party it would go some way to repairing the rift between the two editors. While I personally still thought it was pretty poor conduct, I had to admit that I also felt that these reasons meant that there would be too much discussion for it to be an un-controversial speedy. I left the same message to both users explaining this, and SqueakBox moved to open an MfD, which I saw as fairer. As it turns out, a number of editors in the MfD have pointed out that each content is a direct quote from SqueakBox, and that they believe that means it is not a personal attack.

I'm not sure if I agree with all of that, but one thing I am sure of is that there was too much controversey (plus an opportunity to mend fences) for a blanket speedy to be added. I hope you see where I was coming from? SGGH 00:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see he appreciates you getting involved, even if you and I said the same thing. Wish I had never gotten involved in trying to end this dispute now! Oh well. I've got real life events now, my friend. I bid you a goodnight, and sorry to communicate with you for the first time in such circumstances. SGGH 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A Sock attack

A particularly vicious vandal known as Wikzilla has surfaced again in the form of socks: User:68.244.171.75 and User:68.245.43.252. See: and . Can you do your new admin' 'thin? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC).

Perverted-Justice page

Hello Will Beback, I was wondering if you could take a look at the Perverted-Justice page when you have a moment. There is disagreement there related to the opening sentence and the inclusion of the assertion that PJ engages in harassment. As it reads now, it appears to make the claim that PJ engages in harassment as a rule. Here is a link to the discussion: Talk:Perverted-Justice#Harrasment

That addition made by Barry Jameson was reverted back by a few people, myself included. Then Swatjester comes in and threatens me with a 3R (although he neglects to warn Barry Jameson of the same offense, even though he had far more than 3 reverts). I pointed out that all of the citations being used are garbage (some point to comments on articles, others point to Corrupted Justice or quotes by Corrupted Justice - an unreliable source by all accounts). I'm not asking for agreement from either party, but Swatjester ignored what I pointed out, left all the citations, and insulted my lucidity. I'm not asking for sympathy, I'm asking for some assitance since if I do make any more reversions or changes I'll probably be banned. FrederickTG (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Pedophia and Child Sexual Abuse" in literature / "Mirror" Misplaced Pages page seems to have been created under new name

Have you been aware of the existence of this recently-created page

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_books_featuring_pedophilia

which appears to be an attempt to pre-empt the discussion by re-creating the page under a new title, rather than addressing problems with the old title?

As an administrator, what do you think of the approach this editor is using? SocJan (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you will review the original page, you will discover that the most recent title change I made actually restored the word "pedophilia". After that, another editor, who thought the new title too long, created the current title:

"(cur) (last) 18:25, 10 February 2008 The Relativist (Talk | contribs) m (moved Talk:List of works portraying pedophilia or other problematic adult responses to young males to Talk:List of works portraying adult attraction to young males: This seems a more suitable title. I have defended it on the talk page.) (undo)"

I take it your advice is that I must start all over, disputing on the page Tony created back in October, his inclusion of Guy Davenport's fictions, which is how I was drawn into all of this in the first place?

I really don't believe that I have been out of line in attempting to resolve problems that were long-standing in Tony's original article, which includes some works that unquestionably are about pedophilia but also many where that characterization is highly OR and POV.

Please take the time to review the full Talk page of the original article.

When you have done that, please simply answer whether you believe Misplaced Pages should host multiple articles with effectively the same content. SocJan (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I see that another editor has now redirected Tony's new page to the old page.

Frankly, this is getting too deep for me. I got involved when I found works on Tony's page that I did not believe should be there. I disputed their inclusion and was supported by other editors. We deleted those where all but Tony seemed to agree that inclusion was inappropriate. Others, where consensus had not been reached, were left. But then Tony has apparently simply taken "his" page elsewhere, dodging all the work put in by the rest of us who do not always agree with him, restoring material (for example, works by Guy Davenport) that the preponderance of input said should not be there.

And you seem to approve!

Here is the situation as I see it: While many of us were struggling in good faith with a long-standing problem with terminology, one editor (who participates in something called a "pedophilia watch" project) creates a new page that restores disputed content that had been removed after extensive discussion from the old page, and fails to register the new page in the "pedophila watch" section.

I feel a bit of a fool for fiddling away for months trying to improve a Misplaced Pages page, trying to make it more accurate and fair, without realizing that everything I thought I had accomplished has been quietly removed where I was not looking.

It seems clear that people who simply know something and haven't mastered Misplaced Pages political tactics aren't really welcome. We can expect to be unfairly labeled as "pro-pedophilia" (and criticized for protesting), while others simply run around any attempts at consensus by re-creating pages willy-nilly the way they want them. Is this really how Misplaced Pages should work?! SocJan (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely confused by your latest post on my Talk page. On 5 January of this year I made an edit that revised the intro to PEDOPHILIA AND CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IN FICTION (BOYS) and listed a proposed new title for the page, which was then discussed for two weeks. I "moved" the page only after that time. Why was the change "contentious"? And speaking of your "disapproval of contentious page moves made without consensus", is it fair to say that you thus disapprove of the creation of "List of Books Featuring Pedophilia"? Absolutely no consensus supported this move to a new title, not to mention restoration on that moved page of old, contested, content that had been deleted by consensus at the old page.

Please note that the move to LIST OF BOOKS FEATURING PEDOPHILIA was made months before "pedophilia" was deleted from the title of the original article. Was that move (via duplication) not contentious and unsupported by consensus?!

I'm trying to understand your position as an administrator watching this topic. You have mistakenly perceived that I "made sure that List of works portraying adult attraction to young males excludes "pedophilia" from the title" when in fact I was very cautious about removing it in the first place, and then restored that word to the title when people objected. And now you say I mischaracterize your comments about contentious title changes when the record is clear that I did my best to seek consensus while another editor completely evaded consensus.

So I must ask: Is it your opinion that moving effectively the same content (with disputed material restored without notice to those who disputed it!) to "LIST OF BOOKS FEATURING PEDOPHILIA" was not contentious? And that it reflect some consensus? If so, who participated in that consensus? I cannot understand your comments. SocJan (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Will. I accept your recent deletions on the Talk page as a legitimate way to deal with the recent situation.

But could you clarify whether your intervention is as an editor of that page, supporting a position in the discussion, or as a neutral moderator of Misplaced Pages discussions. You have played both roles. They are not incompatible, but some indication from you of where you stand on the page's current and future evolution would seem timely.

As you know, a number of editors have been concerned that "pedophilia" has multiple meanings -- one in psychology, a different one in law enforcement, and a still vaguer one in general and casual usage in society -- and have thus argued that it was a poor choice for a word around which to build a Misplaced Pages article of that sort. It was clear that editors interested in the page could not agree on which definition to use.

Are you comfortable with the new title and introductory paragraphs? Or should we continue to seek a better solution?

The originator of the page is clearly upset, and that's highly understandable. He has made it abundantly clear that he is wedded to the word "pedophila" and to a definition of it that is extremely broad (one that he repeated in the material you deleted).

But Misplaced Pages requires its entries to acknowledge controversy and lack of unanimity where they exist, while he wants things simpler than they can be made for this subject. DEATH IN VENICE was a good test case. My position is that It can now be included, whereas it was a great stretch so long as "pedophilia" and "child sexual abuse" appeared in the article's title, since neither is clearly and unequivocally present in D in V. Do you agree? SocJan (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Water tank collage.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Water tank collage.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Diebold

Wanted to request your support with, in my option, a disruptive editor involved with the Diebold article. His edits include adding adding Black Box Voting and Hacking Democracy under the See Also section of the article. These in my opinion are not related to this entry and would be better served in the Premier Election Solutions entry. If you agree I would like to request your assistance and monitoring this article and if necessary contacting an admin. I wouldn't want anyone to think there are any efforts to protect Diebold, but at the same time WP is not a soapbox and I wont have the time in the near future to help with this. Please help if you're interested. Thanks. --Electiontechnology (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

List of African-American porn stars and List of Hispanic porn stars

Hi. I see that you deleted all the redlinks from these lists. One of the advantages of lists over categories is that "lists can include items for which there are yet no articles (red links)". I appreciate the formatting changes you made, but I'm going to restore the redlinks to the lists per the guideline. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I hadn't thought about references. I don't suppose the covers of adult videos are reliable sources, eh? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Eletion systems

I moved your paragraph about the master key to Premier Election Solutions#Security issues. It's better to keep all the voting machine-related stuff in that article, and keep the Diebold article about the parent corporation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, thats ok, I was not aware of the difference. The "Press" still refer to these machines as "Diebold" voting machines, so I have added a {{for}} at the top of the section. Fosnez (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

If you go back a few days you will see this isn't about massive deletion, it's about massive bloating. This article has been at about 53 kilobytes for six months. Editors are reverting to a 13 month old article that was drastically trimmed following a GA review. It should go back to Vassyana's last version. Thanks.Momento (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Astroturf groups cat

I nominated it for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_9#Category:Astroturf_groups DickClarkMises (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

LA Times

Hello Will, do you have a link to the LA times article you refer to? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two articles in the LA Times, one April 11, 1985, and another from July 7, 1985. None of these report that the Prem Rawat property is owned by Seva Co. (doing business as "Anacapa View Estates"). Could you please provide the date of the article you refer to? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Meir Weinstein

Could you please look at Meir Weinstein. I get the strong impression that Eternal Sleeper is removing material he doesn't like on dubious pretexts and I'd like an admin to review the situation. Black as pitch (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Weinstein

Can you please review the debate at Talk:Meir_Weinstein#my_opinion? Thanks. Black as pitch (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Osho / User:Semitransgenic

The article is now locked as a result of an edit war. Ongoing incivility: This may again be User:Semitransgenic from another location, see and the recent IP-based contributions on the talk page.

Also see -- I am currently wondering if I should pursue it. Looking at it, there might be some sockpuppetry going on on the Talk:Osho page, with various IP ranges (143.50.37.229, 62.47... and 67.183...) posting mutually supportive views, sometimes within minutes of each other past 4 a.m. European time: . Cheers, -- Jayen466 19:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

++ Vinmax ++ water tank == I see my funky collage of water tanks has been deleted from my submission, thats cool it needed work, I am such a newby at editing, I have a group of pictures of water tanks for replacement, the water tower that replaced my funky one, is a water tower and covered well under that term. How would I go about submitting several pictures of water tanks, ie a gallery. Again please excuse my ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinmax (talk • contribs) 03:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

David J. Silver

Looks like Mr. Silver, the perma-banned editor known for making self promoting, megalomaniacal edits without using the preview function, might be back. Check out the edits on the USS Simpson article and tell me that doesn't look like his pattern of edits... especially since he put his name down as a "notable" sailor! Just giving you a heads up!

Supersquid (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just got home from work, and I opened a suspected sockpuppetry case on him, hopefully I did it correctly. I was going to revert his edits, but I see you beat me to it!

Supersquid (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Gerald F. DeConto

Not sure why this article was reverted, but I made substantial edits today that cleaned up the work of the IP editor who had made the previous 20 edits. You in turn reverted all of my work. The minor explanation in your edit summary doesn't state your rationale or intention. No warning or notice was left on the previous editor's IP talk page or my own. Can you please clarify your intentions and what "banned" editor you are referring to? Thanks, --Daysleeper47 (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tx

Tx for the info. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hans Ji Maharaj

Thanks. "Sure, Will. I will take a break." is certainly not "stop editing this article" - but I guess it will do for now. Thanks for stepping in there. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Winterberg and LaRouche in 1985.jpg‎

You left this message on my talk page:

Can you explain how you came to edit Image:Winterberg and LaRouche in 1985.jpg‎? It is an obscure image used only on an article that has been protected since before you opened this account. There is an appearance of being a sock puppet for the last LaRouche editor who edited that image page, the banned user Maple Porter. Will Beback NS (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, you seem to be a bit paranoid. I came to edit that image because there was a big fat message at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche, warning that the image was about to be deleted. Don't believe me? Take a look, it's still there. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

Given the recent protection, which was based on User:Nandesuka's assessment that There has been a full-blown edit war on that article for the past several weeks, the recent disruption by User:Nik Wright2, the ongoing misuse of talk page by User:PatW, and the WP:AN discussion about User:Momento, I would argue that requesting article probation (1RR, NPA, and disruption of talk page) may be the best way forward. Would you consider making a join request for article probation? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording in my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you post at AN? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you back? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User :147.114.226.172

Please note that user::147.114.226.172 is almost certainly another sock puppet of ZoeCroydon ]. Momento (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want to thank you...

...for blocking User:EliasAlucard. He was being an utterly narrow-minded nuisance and just wouldn't shut his mouth. He definitely got what he deserved. I love you, even if you are a guy. Onur (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

If you are genuinely concerned about personal attacks, I would expect to see lots of similar messages to that you placed on my talk page placed on those of other people, such as PatW. If you have not done that, then your request to me was disingenuous. Having said that, though, what is your definition of "personal attack"? I simply suggested that people were naive. The term "brainwashed" was used by various people on "the other side" on many occasions. So that can't be a personal attack. It's not a crime to criticise people's beliefs or positions; that is not a personal attack.

In addition, WP: No personal attacks states "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack."

And I am sure you are aware of "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." That seems to occur with great regularity amongst the detractors of Prem Rawat who edit those pages.

best wishes

Armeisen (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

About user Chaldean

He keeps removing everything that is about Syriacs. He remove the page Syriac people. Just because he is assyrian/chaldean, and thinks that syriacs are assyrians. Its been proved that syriacs are arameans. The user EliasAlucard is also blocked on swedish wikipedia. What can we do about user:Chaldean ?? VegardNorman (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear sir, the user VegardNorman is not your typical wiki user. He has previously threatend by using vandelism , moved pages without concent with the rest of the Wiki community that deals with Assyrian/Syriac project, and has repeadly been warned of 3RV as well as other Misplaced Pages violations. Now in regards of the subject, we the Wiki users (lead by admin User:Garzo) of the related subject have been working really hard in clearing the subject as much as possible. We have created a page specifically explaining the naming dispute (Names of Syriac Christians), and have created disam page (Syriac (disambiguation)), so that we can stay as neutral as possible. Now, this user as well is his possible suck puppet User:The TriZ have stormed English Wiki from Swedish Wiki and are editing radically, demanding this Aramean revolution be observed here on English Wiki. I don't know what I can do with these users other then talk, but they have declared they are not willing to negotiate (see Assyrian people:Talk page). I don't know what do to with them anymore. Chaldean (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User Chaldean keeps removing everything that is about Syriacs. . ]. He removes the page Syriac people just because he is assyrian/chaldean, and thinks that syriacs are assyrians. Its been proved that syriacs are arameans. The user EliasAlucard is also blocked on swedish wikipedia. What can we do about user:Chaldean ?? And that the vandalism,, you missunderstood. I meant that people would not vandalize the article, but they will continue vandalize the article just because of the content in the text. I have noot been vandalizing. VegardNorman (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The irony of statements like this Its been proved that syriacs are arameans. is somethig else. I have not removes the page Syriac people just because he is assyrian/chaldean, but instead have made it clear that Syriacs needs to be a disarm page, since it can be a reference to either Assyrians, Syriac Orthodox,

Chaldean, if you have anything to say about me, please take it in my discussionpage. Is is also obvious that you're not that innocent that you apparently want to show you are. Lets take a look at the article Sharbel Touma and its history. Here, , you redirect to Syiac people. Same article, which it if course stood Assyrian before i changed it with a reliable source, you write in history that "reverted the edits of anonimous. he is a assyrian", how you know that he is Assyrian doesn't say. You probably even don't heard of this person. Not to mention what EliasAlucard wrote, "Look, the guy is an Assyrian. Just because some Syriacs claim they're Aramaeans, doesn't mean they are. Most Syriacs claim they're Assyrians anyway". Obviously with no reliable sources at all. This is a typical way of you to start an edit-war. And just to point it out, i'm not saying i'm infallible. The TriZ (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Triz the reason I changed it from Aramean to Syriac, is because Aramean is a page that talks about an ancient people, not today's Syriac Orthodox (like Western Syriacs is for example.) Previously, I reverted an anom's edit because I thought without any citation, it might have been possible vandel. No I don't know him, but if you are sure of him not considering himself Assyrian, then that is fine. But you can't write on English wiki that he is Aramean. Its not like Swedish Wiki. In English language, its either Syraics or Assyrians. Look I would be more then glad to work with you two, but you guys need to understand that things work different around here then on Swedish wiki. Chaldean (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

I may be persuaded that it would be better not to post anonymously, but your contention that it would be better to do so needs justification. In a polarised debate such as surrounds how to describe the operations of Mr Rawat, most of the arguments fall back on ad hominem statements. Whilst it is worthwhile to know, for instance, that one of the most actively involved editors (who also happens to be a wikipedia administrator) is (or was until very recently) a press officer for the Prem Rawat Foundation, I think it's better generally to look at what is being said rather than who is saying it. I post anonymously for that reason. (I already have a long-established user id. To set up a new one would imply operating a sock puppet, which I'd prefer not to do.) There is also an element of fear. Misplaced Pages has a lot of credibility, which I have, in my own small way, helped to build up over the years. The millionaire lifestyle of Mr Rawat is threatened by poor publicity. Therefore it would hardly be surprising if his foundation operated ruthlessly to censor anything which might deter would-be donors. If they fail in that, the next logical step would be to threaten those who operate to obtain transparency. I would rather keep safe and anonymous, protected by a firewall that allows my IP address to be the same as that of about 180,000 other people globally at the organisation where I work.

As an admin yourself, you might want to take a step back and try to see what is going on here. I am expecting now, following the Register article, that there will be increasing media interest in this story, particulary as the subject of that article continues to apply his (rather limited) marketing skills to keep a lid on the Prem Rawat and related articles and stop them covering what Rawat's followers don't want them to cover. A friend of mine is already in touch with an English quality newspaper, aiming to get a good story to follow up the Register article. (I should add that I am a seasoned activist in a number of areas, having been commissioned in the past to write for the BBC news website, for instance.) My suggestion was that jossi ought to back down, else he might find that his own friends will disown him because of the damage that will have been done to their cause by his own incompetence. Intriguingly that suggestion itself was deleted from the Prem Rawat talk page yesterday by another anon. His actions act considerably to increase the stench which the Rawat's Foundation's abuses of wikipedia have already created and are continuing to do. Newspaper readers love a good stench! 147.114.226.175 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A request

Hi Will. I wonder if you'd mind stopping by Elias Acuard's user page and protecting it. Someone keeps posting asking Elias to post on their talk page . Or if I'm wrong on this, please let me know. IronDuke 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so active in Pedophilia pages?

Just out of curiosity, why are you so active on pages related to pedophilia? A cursory review of your edit history shows tons of edits on pages related to NAMBLA, pederasty and other such topics. Based on the hair raising and despicable nature of these pages, and your access to the IPs and information of young wikipediaers, I think you should at least give us a quick explanation? --Neongreenchair (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. no offense intended if your sole reason for watching those sites is to police them and make sure they don't cross the line (I don't even know why they're on wikipedia.) --Neongreenchair (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

None needed, Will's track record on this subject speaks for itself. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Squeak ought stay out of it since his answer is the same as the question, which accomplishes nothing.

Neon, what's your point in asking? Why does anyone edit on Misplaced Pages? Without any other reasons to guess I'd think that the obviousness of "these articles are of interest" is enough.

Now, other users have been permanently banned for having edit histories on such narrow subjects, mind you, but Will won't have that problem cause he's on the "right" side.

But really, the question was pathetic. (This is me defending Will and his edit history.) Squeak's "answer" was worthless and came off as knee-jerk defense of bad actions and intent, even though there is/was none to defend!

TMOTSI... Neon: Who Cares? Will: Keep editing whatever you want to edit! Squeak: "Thanks,"

• VigilancePrime • • • 09:31 (UTC) 2 Mar '08

Job for administrator Will Beback

Moved from Talk:Prem Rawat

You thanked this user ] for participating on this article, perhaps it's time to ask them to leave, they are an obvious sockpuppet of ZoeCroydon]. Thanks.Momento (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I thank everyone for contributing, even vandals. As for this user, what evidence is there of sockpuppetry? I don't see that the identified socks have shown any interest in Prem Rawat, and the IP address is registered to National Westminster Bank, a business with 33,000 employees. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I should have asked 147.114.226.172 ] if they are a sockpuppet. I assumed that 147.114.226.172 ] might be related to 147.114.226.173],147.114.226.174] and 147.114.226.175], who have all edited on Rawat or related articles.Momento (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the IPs that've recently been used to edit PR-related articles all have been used by the same person, which is why I asked him to register an account. I just don't see how we can determine that ZoeCroydon is that person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're sure that all four IP addresses are being used by the one person and those addresses have been block or accused of vandalism by more than a dozen editors, I'd take a deep breath and block those IP addresses. If some innocent member of Nat West Bank in New York gets their anonymous edit bounced, they can register an account.Momento (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to edit without registering. There's no indication that the person editing Prem Rawat is the same as any previous user. I'm not going to block 33,000 users without any proof of a major current problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

At least stick with the facts. You are not blocking 33,000 users. You are blocking anyone posting from four IP addresses that have been block or accused of vandalism by more than a dozen editors. I'm sure if Miss Moneypenny from accounts, who has been innocently editing articles anonymously from those IPs gets bounced, she can open an account. I'm getting a feeling that you don't mind if sockpuppets post on PR articles and that is a very serious allegation for an admin.Momento (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't produced any evidence whatsoever that this person is a sock puppet of a banned user. If there's evidence of it of course I'd try to remedy the problem. But I don't see any sign that the user is ZoeCorydon - no overlap in interests or style. Am I overlooking something? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't overlooked anything. You just think it's a magical co-incidence that 4 consecutive IP addresses that have posted on Rawat related articles and have a common thread of vandalism and being blocked are unrelated.Momento (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Confused

I was adding a link to sites in the Shenandoah Valley and it was not allowed? The site I was adding is ALREADY on other Wikipeida pages for sites in the Shenandoah Valley? So I am a bit confused. How can a link be on one site related to the Shenandoah Valley, but not allowed on others? It is a free site for RESIDENTS of the Shenandoah Valley AND much the same as other links on other Shenandoah Valley pages. Can this be explained?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ValleyChatter" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValleyChatter (talk • contribs) 05:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Olympiacos CFP

Hi! Please could you help me with Olympiacos CFP and the edits of a guest? He constantly removes honours without any reason. - Sthenel (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yarrow

Hello, on the talk page you asked that edits not be made to the article itself until the changes are discussed and consensus reached on the talk page. I agree with that. Could you protect the article for approx 1 week, so as to ensure that all changes are discussed first? Thank you, --Jkp212 (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC).

Yes and could you please advise us on how to successfully apply for mediation I think we may have missed a step in the process. There is something about asking a third party that we may have missed. : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would protect the page with the potential BLP violations in place (sex offender category, etc). It's fine to work out the content dispute through mediation, etc. But it's better to err on the side of doing no harm. --Jkp212 (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no "potential BLP violation". The verifiable (New York Times, etc.) fact that he served 3 months in prison has been on the article for well over 3 years.] At this point, your unilateral censoring of this information, without informing or consulting with those of us who have worked on the article the last 3 years is the cause of the disruption. John celona (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no justification for the ridiculous current categories. That, in itself, is a major BLP violation. The entire incident should not be in the article --Jkp212 (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He was convicted of a felony child molestation and jailed. He is thus a criminal and a sex offender. Your jihad to unilaterally delete this well sourced information (which has been continiously on the article for over 3 years) because Yarrow's family doesn't like it is absurd. Misplaced Pages does not censor sourced information on public figures highly publicized criminal convictions because the subject's family doesn't want it on the article. John celona (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He was not convicted of felony child molestation. Get the facts right. And the part about his family is puzzling. Could you elaborate? ----Jkp212 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He was convicted and imprisoned for having sex with a 14 year old child who "resisted" him. Outside of the Twilight Zone that is child molestation. You have already been slapped down by 2 administrators in your unilateral attempt to censor well sourced information that has been on the article over 3 years. Please stop. John celona (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments requested

A while back you had commented on an AfD for the Nudity and children article. Recently, based mostly on the poorness of the article currently (still), we've been discussing merging it. If you wish to check it out, please do. We'd appreciate any comments, thoughts, or perspectives you may provide. Have a great day! • VigilancePrime • • • 04:06 (UTC) 3 Mar '08

Welcome back

I'm glad to see you're editing here again. You've been missed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Mdhennessey (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thought this should be brought to your attention

I don't know if you took a look at the history when blanking User:Pol64, but did and I saw this edit, disgustingly petty on the surface and even worse given the conduct of the users involved. It strikes me that it violates a policy or two or twenty, and I can't seem to see any note of it on VP's talk page. John Nevard (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that there are new messages on my talk page, this is not a stale template :) Steve Crossin (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Template

We could use this template: User_talk:Jossi/sandbox. It can be added as a template at Talk:Prem Rawat/Probation notice and added to the relevant pages as well as on active editor's pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolution near (?) on how to entitle Tony Sandel's lists

Will: Please visit Talk:List_of_works_portraying_adult_attraction_to_young_males#Requested_move. Tony has accepted a proposal for a new title that may put to rest objections dating back to late 2006, in which you have been actively involved. Your input in the next few days could be quite helpful. SocJan (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What test/experiment?

I fixed a mistake on the page, and then you reinserted it. Thankfully, someone else has reverted your edit. 160.39.221.87 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

1RR notice/Article probation

I'd suggest removing that text from each page, creating a template, and replacing them all with a transcluded version. Then you could "noinclude" and add a link on the template page to the discussion from WP:AN. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The advantage would be a link to the discussion about the probation, but if you don't see the advantage to that, no worries. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work with the Rawat-related content dispute. I just read the Rawat article, and it's much more NPOV than it was just a month ago. In fact, I think in its current state its possible to discuss removing the NPOV tag. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected article edit (Peter Yarrow)

Just thought it courteous to let you know that I'm speaking ill of one of your recent edit. I'm not necessarily asking for a response; just a friendly heads up. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

hmm..

Good edit, however it looks like someone is back....--Hu12 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg Page delete

HI Will-be-back

The new Sahaj Marg page has been deleted again thanks to the efforts of Renee of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission (California), the take-over group.

Can you tell me if this can be stopped or is this now WIKI policy to let anyone delete articles on any "bogus" grounds such as "un-readability"?

Talk-to-me left me a message and asked to get involved with the new article and I had done one edit to the spelling, grammar, syntax, and re-worded part of it for readability and NPOV. Then it was deleted without any attempt to reach concensus or "assume" good intentions as per WIKI policy.

Please leave me a message on my talk page, and let me know if you can get involved so as to protect the article should I get involved in attempting to reach a concensus on a "SAHAJ MARG" page one more time.

There is a Supreme Court of India case pending for the ownership of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission. The family of the Founder, Ram Chandra, is trying to get back their grandfather's society from Chari and the Chennai Group. So there are now two SRCM's, one in Shahjahanpur, registered in 1945 by the Founder and one in Chennai, registered in 1997 in California, by Chari as the original society's Board of Directors would not accept his "forged" nomination papers that would have made him "PRESIDENT" of the original SRCM. Chari also place a TM on "SAHAJ MARG" in the USA.

That is the reason for all the "DELETES" by this group and their "lackeys"...If an admin does not get involved, I will wait for the court case to give it's judgement before attempting anything else on WIKI that relates to "Indian religious and spiritual" groups as there seems to be a "biased cabal" in some of the admins that I have encountered in my WIKI experience. The WIKI policies are not adhered to but are perverted by this "small cabals". For political reasons? I can only surmise.

--don (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 4d-don

Peter Yarrow

Any advice you could provide on resolving this dispute would be welcome. User:John celona seems to be rejecting mediation (although I've urged him to reconsider), and bringing in additional editors' opinions has been fruitless so far, as celona, User:Jkp212 and, to a lesser extent, User:David in DC have all been unwilling to budge from the positions they've held for months. If mediation is either rejected or unsuccessful, do you think it might be worth exploring article probation? At the very least, I think we need some uninvolved admins monitoring the page (I think any use of my admin buttons on the page would be perceived as abusive, given my participation in the dispute). Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

The credit for adding balance to that article in recent weeks goes to Msalt, Jayen466, Francis Schonken. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That may be but you deserve credit for helping make sure they had the opportunity to balance that article. That was some good work. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some good work by Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) especially, however much more work needs to be done to improve balance/neutrality on that article. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

3 revert rule

User Boodlesthecat on the Neo-Nazism article made more reverts than user Reazzurro who seemingly made 3 edits in one sequence because he had problems discerning the procedure. I checked his edits.--Spitzer19 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock report on Spitzer19 filed here Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside to this it does look like a case of sockpuppetry going on here along with IP edits. I thought as a neutral it might be worth commenting. BigHairRef | Talk 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict--great minds and all that) Will, now an anon has joined Spitzer19 and the likely sockpuppet in reverting the properly sourced inclusion of David Duke in the Neo-Nazi article. This last one is pretty much vandalism, in which 3RR supposedly doesnt apply, although I'm hesitant to be bold and revert the vandalism and risk a block. Please advise. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already made a reversion of vandalism by the IP mentioned, obviously this dosen't prove anything but jsut to help I don't think it would be a breach of 3RR in this case having reivewed the page. BigHairRef | Talk 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm I think the IP (even if a SP) may possibly have a point about the cite, however where I disagree is on the basis of what appears to be sockpupetry. I'd be in favour leaving out the cite for now (per WP:BIO). BigHairRef | Talk 04:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer19 is now edit warring (really vandalizing, by deleting sourced info and replacing with his POV) over here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LATTC_logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:LATTC_logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hi. I've proposed deleting an article you've edited, about the book 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America by Jack Huberman. At present there's no sign from the article that the book is notable. I'm hoping to ...um... prod someone into providing evidence for the book's notability; can you help? Cheers, CWC 14:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You have been named as a party at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Teriipia, Tarita Marlon, My Love and Torment (2005)
2. Teriipia, Tarita Marlon, My Love and Torment (2005)