Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:44, 15 January 2010

Archives

Revision list Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009

Intervention

Hi! Could you please do something with the Template:UEFA Euro winners? There is only one editor so far who insists on his version and reverts all the other editors; he started an edit war that I was also (wrongly) involved in, but I don't want to do it anymore. I've aked a Third opinion but nobody has answered yet. I've started a discussion in the talk page but this user has not anwered. Could you help? Thanks! - Sthenel (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Today, in Macedonians (Greeks), User:Alex Makedon has started to make some dubious and unexplained edits, which I cannot revert all the time. I asked for help and the answer was that I broke the 3-revert rule, although at least the first of my four edits was not a reversion. If you look at his talk page, you'll see that this user has been accused of suckpuppetry and has been blocked several times in the past for his edits in Macedonia-related articles. What's next? - Sthenel (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing apparently. See Misplaced Pages:Ani#Dubious_edits. WP:DR was recommended. Toddst1 (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

History of the ice axe

Thanks for your feedback, Will. Glad you noticed. Jim Heaphy (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping

I sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

NRM essay/guideline

Will, thinking about your concerns – one way to help address the problems around our NRM articles might be to write an essay covering the most important dos and don'ts, and try to have it promoted to guideline status later on.

I imagine such an essay might cover things like the following:

1. Historical overview of past problems (in generic terms, i.e. without naming and shaming editors and movements; just number of arbitration cases, types of outcome etc.)
2. Review of sourcing standards, with particular emphasis on the following:
   • Encourage the use of reliably published third-party sources (scholars, press, etc.)
   • Discourage the use of movement primary sources, except as referenced by third-party sources
   • Discourage the use of movement and countermovement websites as sources
   • Copyright issues concerning press articles hosted on movement and countermovement websites (convenience links)
3. Review of due weight issues: prominent topics in self-published sources (movement and countermovement) may not be prominent in third-party sources
4. Potential abuse of Misplaced Pages for movement and countermovement advocacy
5. Advice for editors on COI issues
6. Religious tolerance; religious discrimination, real and imagined

If successful, we could add a link to the Guideline to the talk pages of problematic NRM articles; it would provide some better ground rules and might help editors of NRM topics orient themselves, especially SPAs who are contributing naively without much understanding of site principles.

Would you be interested in collaborating on something like this? Durova has in the past expressed an interest in finding ways to address problems in this area as well; perhaps she might have some ideas too (I'll drop her a note, and John Carter as well).

The biggest counterargument against the idea that I can see is WP:CREEP. (And that writing it might be a lot of work.) Thoughts? --JN466 14:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea so far. One thing that might work as well, beyond guidelines, would be to create an MoS for NRMs (I love acronyms, don't you?) Judaism has done that, and having something like that available might be helpful here as well. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Draft here if you're interested: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Religion/New_religious_movements_work_group/Manual_of_Style Cheers, --JN466 03:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

ME discussion

Hi, Will. I really appreciated your sincere and clearly articulated post yesterday or the day before in the discussion characterizing the larger issue. And I think you can see from Olive's post that she did, too -- even agreeing to delete the study. I think part of what we appreciated was the sense in your post that we're working together to try to resolve this. I want to follow up on your comments and see if we can come up with a solution to the larger issue you raised. (I'm trying very hard to limit myself to working on Misplaced Pages other than very early in the morning because I have deadlines, so I haven't checked to see if there's been further discussion regarding that since I was on earlier today. If nothing transpires, then I'll start a thread tomorrow or Monday.) Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Will. I really enjoyed your apt analogies. TimidGuy (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OUTING discussion

Will, could you stop using the name he's getting all up in arms about in the very same discussion?--Chaser (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi is the first editor to have mentioned "X" on Misplaced Pages, writing an entire article about the personality. He fought to have the article kept when it was nominated for deletion, twice. I really think he's being extremely hypocritical to file complaints about other editors for connecting him to that personality when he's admitted it himself in the past. There are 3 million articles on Misplaced Pages, yet he keeps coming back to those with which he has an apparent COI. Folks have tried more discrete ways of discussing the problem but he rebuffs them all. I think this problem is entirely of his own creation and he's blocking any resolution. It's not helping Misplaced Pages.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with any of what you say, but given that there is an oversight request outstanding or about to be made (and even though I expect it to be denied), it seems that the course of least drama would be simply not to use "X" in the ANI thread. That's why I'm asking.--Chaser (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ranchos of California

Thanks for you support from wiki day 1. Emargie (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not uninvolved

There are, like, a thousand admins. You don't need to do this. You are intimately involved in the subject matter, having actively quashed every mention of Bamabenek on WP for the past 3 years. Clearly, this article should not be unprotected, but you ought to let someone uninvolved handle this request to avoid the appearance of improproiety. Have you considered voluntarily placing yourself on article probation from certain topics? Please stop by my talk page if you would like to receive further mentorship. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summary notes

Hi Will, Nice copy edits on the MSAE article. I notice in your edits summaries you sometimes put the letters "ce". Just for future reference, what does this stand for? Thanks, -- — Kbob • Talk • 23:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, good, thanks for the glossary link. Good to know we have a universal standard for edit summary abrevs.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to watch

Jeffmaylortx (talk · contribs) whose edits seem to involved Jewish subjects and anything he sees as to the left. Southern Poverty Law Center and Franz Boas are good examples. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

as well .. a user you communicated w/before, but who has now made two more egregious blp edits ... User:69.201.166.168.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There's always something to do around here.   Will Beback  talk  10:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Too funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have a thing about adding 'Jewish' to biographies. I'm wondering about an ANI report. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Gerald L. K. Smith

Hi, the entry at Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves#December_16.2C_2009 seems malformed - proposal for no change. Does it need some attention? PamD (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Article work

We don't always see eye to eye on things, but still, I wanted to thank you for all of the good work you've done on the TM related articles. I've noticed and very much appreciate, your efforts. (olive (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

RE: Mary Bono Mack

Were there 435 members on the House Judiciary Committee? 70.181.171.159 (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

James Ralph

Hi Will, and good holidays to you. I'll get to the references soon on the Jim Bevel page. Have you heard from James Ralph regarding the concerns you had? Tofu turkey and Silk Egg Nog to you and yours, Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm not surprised. Will do references soon, but not today, many miles to go and gifts to buy before I sleep. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I just had a long answer to this, and when I tried to post it 'edit conflict' came up and it was totally lost. Any way to retrieve something like that? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I did the back arrow, but it wasn't there, just before writing the above. I'll continue it on the Bevel talk page tomorrow, can you maybe archive the present page (I've never done that, there are many computer tricks I haven't learned as yet) before that, it's getting a bit long. Thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Posted on the Bevel talk page. This, by the way, is the first anniversary of Bevel's death, although he was not buried for ten days. Well, the holiday season arrives further into our presence daily, and again, good wishes for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And happy Fesitvus. Did you read my comment on the Bevel talk page? The paper in question would be the source of some of the most important information on the page, and is a summary of many years of research enlarging upon an already reliable source, the article in the Garrow book. Only when you have a few minutes, Christmas approaches. Thanks again, Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just courtesy

I believe it would have been a common courtesy that I would have expected from any neutral administrator to have notified the other editors on this article of this nomination. Or perhaps, hopefully, I'm missing the notification. (olive (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Ok thanks. I guess we're even. :o) Its unfortunate that only one editor was aware of this move. I think there have been in the past discussion as to whether TM or TM movement was the "mother article", and other editors might have wanted input. Still, not your fault. (olive (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Misplaced Pages:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 22:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

On City of Bogo, Cebu & City of Carcar, Cebu

I had difficulties moving those original articles to their shortest names as it was supposed to be (i.e. Bogo City & Carcar City). I also noticed that the Bogo talk page wasn't moved as well, whereas that talk page should've been moved too? Is there a way where the missing talk page would be integrated to the new Bogo article? Reyrefran (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed on Haagen Dazs

Hi, Lentower and I have some kind of irreconcilable differences here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:H%C3%A4agen-Dazs#local_management_mistake_not_encyclopedic . I suspect the issue boils down to the extent to which the controversy is a non-routine news event. From my perspective, I appear to absolutely right. However, I realize that I am new to Misplaced Pages and so room for misunderstanding is there. At this point, the dispute there seems to have got stuck and I don't see us moving towards consensus. Also, the discussion on whether to have the section is now many times larger than the section itself - and it's going nowhere. As a result, I suspect both Lentower and I are merely wasting our time there in a fruitless dispute. Do you think you could weigh in again on the issue again? Wwmargera (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Hello Will, you might like to look in on this page and learn how the subject's immaculately conceived birth was described by his mother and confirmed by the subject himself. It is kind of humorous, but I think the article really needs a RS kick in the butt. You will notice Andries hovering in the background, wringing his hands, but he is banned from the article and can't do anything. I don't have the time myself right now to really do it justice. Rumiton (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, given the recurrent sourcing problems in the Sathya Sai Baba article, we could compose a prominent, coloured WP:Editnotice for it, similar to this one, that quotes a few relevant lines from WP sourcing policy, eg:

"Misplaced Pages's Reliable Sources guideline demands that articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary-source material for themselves.
Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources, such as the websites of the Sai Baba movement or its critics.

I can't do it myself, as I don't have the required admin rights. But if you agree it might be useful, would you be so kind as to implement something along these lines?

Happy Christmas to you, Will. --JN466 18:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Event page wikilink

There are no rules regarding how notable a topic needs to be to be listed on the date pages, only that it have its own article in Misplaced Pages, which this event does. Are you saying that you are willing and able to go through all 365 days and remove all event anniversaries that, in your opinion, aren't notable enough? Cla68 (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the main reason that there aren't more events listed, is not because of the question of notability, but because most people don't bother to do it. I always list the dates of the articles I write, even the on the more minor battles. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone bring up notability for listing event dates. So, tell me why again, if something is notable enough to be listed on Misplaced Pages, why it isn't notable enough to be listed in the event date page? Again, as an admin responsible for site maintenance, are you willing and able to go through every single day and make sure that there aren't any topics listed which don't meet your definition of notability? If so, better get busy. Cla68 (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You know that's a ridiculous argument to make. And it may be that we need to make more specifric guidelines, but having an article isn't (so far as I'm concerned) enough reason for it to be on an event page. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is up for deletion, yet Cla68 has been wikilinking it to at least a half dozen articles, in addition to the date wikilinking. Most of those dates were removed by myself and other editors. I think it's more prudent to wait until the AfD is decided. I agree about the date delinking even if this article survives AfD. If we had a date to link to every event in every article, we'd have 50,000 entries for every day on the calendar. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up proposal on Sathya Sai Baba article

Hi Will,

• I appreciate the clean up effort started by Rumiton. The article will definitely benefit from clean up proposal. The clean up has already started. There was a section called "Political Row" - which was not notable enough and hence was removed as part of the clean up effort. I have been involved in this article since Jan 2009. I will like to address a few things here.

• I saw the links posted in the talk page regarding the sourcing. The first section which uses the Primary sources mainly is the Biography and Beliefs and Practices of devotees section. This discussion about the usage of primary source in this article was already discussed in the reliable source board here - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Reliable_Internet_Sources_for_Information_on_Sathya_Sai_Baba.

Please see GRBerry response: One other use to which official, but not devotional, sites can be used is to cite quotations from official documents that are posted on the site. An example of this in the UCC article is the section "Statements of doctrine and beliefs" contains a quotation from the organization's "Constitution and Bylaws", which is cited to that very document as hosted by the organization. To the extent that it is appropriate to cite such a primary source, the official site is the best possible host of an official document.

This is a religious article. There is a basic difference between religious article and other BLP articles in wikipedia. As I mentioned in the above discussion for instance please look at other religious articles like the "United_Church_of_Christ" - http://en.wikipedia.org/United_Church_of_Christ. This has used references to all their official websites. Even may other religious topics use their official website links.

• The reason is that if we go with the Misplaced Pages rule that the article can use only third-party, published sources like newspapers then we won't be able to have even a Biography section in this article nor any other sections such as their beliefs etc as you will not find these information in a newspaper or third party sources. As per the RS discussion and resolution the 5 official websites could be allowed to be used in the article appropriately in a neutral way.

• www.sathyasai.org The original site for the Sathya Sai Organisation (1999-).
• www.srisathyasai.org.in The International Sai Organisation.
• www.sssbpt.org The Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust (recently renamed the Sri Sathya Sai Sadhana Trust Publications Division).
• www.radiosai.org Radio Sai Global Harmony.
• www.saicast.org Sai Global Harmony and the International Sai Organisation (for Streaming Videos).

I agree that we can get rid of other devotional websites sources which are not official such as www.saibaba.ws, www.saibabofindia.com, and sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com.

Another issue in the article which needs to be corrected other than sourcing is the style of writing in the Biography section. I will work with the other editors and see how this section could be re-written to be more encyclopedic and neutral in tone with out advocating any point of view.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Super Powers?

Will, just curious, how is it that you appeared on my new article Nancy Lonsdorf within an hour of its creation? Do you have super powers like ESPN for example?-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

ESPN has super powers? Woonpton (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK Will, good to know about the ESPN. I knew it was either that or your doctor prescribed transcendental medication.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Description of David Irving as a Holocaust denier

Hi Will,

I see you've been involved in a discussion on Talk:Jeremy Hammond recently. I'd appreciate it if you could give your view here: Talk:Jeremy Hammond#Description of David Irving as a Holocaust denier.

Thanks. Jayjg 05:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

dyk problem

Hi, in your dyk submission (here), I can not find the sourced hook in the article. Can you help me out? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bevan Morris

On December 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bevan Morris, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

New TM Editor

We have a new active editor on the TM talk page today. Just came out of nowhere and has made several comments. No info on the user page, TM article only. Sock puppet? --BwB (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what your comment about Olive and Timid had to do with this new editor. I just wanted to bring this new editor to your attention as an administrator. As you rightly say, we will see how things develop. Thanks for your attention on this. --BwB (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

TheSmokingGun.com

Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!--otherlleft 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Maharishi University of Management stabbing

On January 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maharishi University of Management stabbing, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Will Beback! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 19 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Martin Litton (pianist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mark Ellmore

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mark Ellmore. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mark Ellmore (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo request

Sure. Next time I'm around there and the weather is reasonably clear, I'll get a photo of the Clarion Hotel.--ragesoss (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

You're discussion on the Canada study is very confusing. You began by asking to have the study shortened and moved which was done. You indicated Luke's edit was too long so I shortened it as much as I possibly could while still retaining the most basic information about the study. In between you have shifted the discussion to deal with whether the study is WP compliant, and now you are including all of the studies. You seem to be attempting to create a framework into which you can quickly slot in any study. I don't support that kind of editing.The Canada study is not particularly important to me but attempts to create a framework for all studies is, and is a concern. I don't know what your agenda is or why you have conflated al of these different issues but perhaps you could clarify.(olive (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Its not that I wouldn't say. I was involved in another discussion with you. You aggressively asserted I was saying the study was secondary source when I had said no such thing. As well your intent to focus on the single point of whether the study is a primary source is as far as I can see a way to support a superficial reading of the guideline, and I don 't feel that is a hole I want to be dragged down. I would simp

Will you misunderstand me. I have never said they are not primary information. WP:VERIFIABILITY "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made:..." We aren't making any claims. And if we were, we can't ignore that WP: Verifiability specifically says peer reviewed sources are good sources, and it is the policy. There is no simple fix for determining what is compliant. If we were using the studies to make a claim in an article like, as I said. the ME cures cancer then we would want multiple studies sourced to very good secondary publications. We are simply citing studies as ME effect studies without claiming anything. We do have to say where the studies came from, but they are not underpinning "claims" in the content of the article, a different matter. I am more of an inclusionist on the matter and would say if its very short, why not. That was your first position too as I remember.(olive (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

I think we are at cross purposes here. I know what primary sources are, and I am familiar with the policies. I have never said peer reviewed studies are either primary or secondary sources. However, I have a published, scientist friend who asserts that the actual data and paper are the primary sources while the publication in a journal becomes the secondary source. I haven't specified where I stand. WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR both say peer reviewed journals are reliable sources. Both are two "of three core content policies", and as such must be taken as dominant policies. WP:Verifiability says,"Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Misplaced Pages article has already been published by a reliable source, and both Verifiability and NOR clearly say that peer reviewed studies are reliable sources. As an aside: WP:MEDRS says, "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles.", another place we have to be careful of. One wonders how reliable Randi or a popular press newspaper article is as a source for comment on medical related research.

Pigeon holing anything is in my mind a somewhat futile business, and in the case of medicine possibly a dangerous business, one of the very reason WP:MEDRS was created. The issues in such articles is the safety of the reader so a single study may not be the most authoritative source for something like cures for cancer, in which case, sources that cite multiple studies for example, are probably better. We can call these studies anything, even lollipops, but we have to discriminate rather than pigeon hole to use them . I am suggesting that if the studies are used as information about themselves, for example, the Maharishi Effect is only a meaningful topic if we lay out the ME studies, then single, peer-reviewed studies are not only acceptable, but are necessary. If we want to use a study to support a claim made in an article of some kind, especially a medical article where the information may affect a reader's health, and in claims made in an article beyond the boundaries of the study, then multiple studies and published comments in reliable sources are the best kind of sourcing per WP:MEDRS.

In adding studies on the Maharishi Effect the issue is not what we call the studies, but how we use them. They are descriptors of the study, and are not so-called sources used to make claims. The real concern is "weight" and if, we are using the best studies we have to describe the ME. (This looked a lot shorter before I saved it.) (16:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Prem Rawat changes his colours (again)

Just to let you know that the probationary articles on Elan Vital, Divine Light Mission, and Prem Rawat (inter alia) are in need of amending:

Elan Vital in the UK has changed its name, and the reference on that page now links to http://www.hdsk.org.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revera (talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summary Comment

Hi Will, In response to your cmt on my User Page: The phrase "Tag team POV editing" was made in an Edit Summary. It was not a formal accusation or assertion, just a simple comment about a one-two punch edit by you and another editor that decimated my original entry which was a balanced quote and turned it into an out of context, one sided piece of text. That was probably not your intention but that is how it was perceived by me and so I described my feeling. As you know I also wrote in my Edit Summary that if my summary was not clear to "please start a talk page thread" so we could discuss it. On a related topic you have become, in my opinion quite overbearing and controlling in your editing style in regard to the TM and related articles in the past weeks and you are very quick to criticize, change and on occasion delete content. I am not accusing you of doing anything outside Wiki guidelines I'm just saying that the intensity and voracity with which you are editing has created an intimidating atmosphere on the articles and its not comfortable nor is it conducive to progress and harmony. This is just my subjective feeling and evaluation and something I am saying to you in what I hope is a gentle and constructive manner, not to start a debate. Today in particular, when I tried to be friendly and humorous with you on the talk page you reacted with a administrative reprimand and you perceived mal-intent in my playful comments, when there was none there. So, just to summarize. I am not accusing you of conspiratorial editing and in a friendly way I am suggesting to you that you slow down and lighten up a little bit and take a day off when you can. Relax, go for a hike. It will be good for you and all of us. Best Wishes, Peace!-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kbob, in the past three days you've made 51 edits to MUM, 33 edits to TM, 26 edits to MSV, 21 edits to MVC, 19 edits to Greer, 17 edits to TMM, 11 edits to talk:MUM, 10 edits to MVAH, and 10 to DLF, plus other related edits. And yet you're saying that I've been editing the TM topic too much recently. You deleted a properly sourced assertion, without using the talk page to explain it, yet you're accusing me of deleting material. You've made accusations against me and another editor of colluding and other malfeasance, and yet you say that I am creating an "intimidating atmosphere". And now you're telling me to go take a hike. I suggest again that you follow your own advice.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Settle down now Will. It was a friendly suggestion to take a day off and enjoy the outdoors. I took my own advice yesterday and I literally went for a hike, as I suggested for you. Just a friendly suggestion to take a break. I'm sorry you have taken it so defensively. All the best, -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

888chan

How is a short-lived chan (who is surpassed in Alexa ranking my many other chans that ARENT listed) almost entirely devoted to raids and restoring project chanology relevant enough to merit it's own section on imageboard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.161.15 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Service award update

Hello, Will Beback! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system. Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Articles and Independence/Other Issues

Will, I hope it's OK to add this new section. Please feel free to delete.

I just wanted to share a very preliminary beginning of the references in the TM-Sidhi program article, and their independence (esp. re: WP:FRINGE), along with other issues, like reliance on newspaper and other print articles for promotoing a non-mainstream, non-established fringe ideas. This is about half of them so far in the TM-Sidhi entry. I have not added all the magazine and newspaper entries. I'll add them all if this looks like a direction worth heading in.

Here's the summary table so far.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Will, as per previous agreed recommendation, I have compiled a list on the WP:FRINGE non-compliant references used in the TM-Sidhi entry and included it in the Talk page ]. It seems best to do this on an entry-by-entry basis, rather than to compile one huge list.

Also, as per previous discussion and agreement, I remember you commenting that if these sub-standard entries were presented to some WP editorial process, the FRINGE references would likely not be tolerated. What was that process? How could that be helpful? Could it hinder in any way?

My serious concern is that this entry and other entries have been subject not only to biased protectionism, territorialism and edit warring for a long time, but the inclusion of so many non-compliant FRINGE refs. also makes me wonder as to the reliability of the editors who put them there.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In recent post on this page and on Kala's talk page we have references like "to biased protectionism, territorialism and edit warring for a long time", and "TM true believers". Any idea who she is referring to here? As a Wiki administrator, how would you classify these types of comments? And who are "TM true believers" anyway? Are they a class of Wiki editors? --BwB (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD Renato M.E. Sabbatini

I'm asking everyone to take another look at based on recent changes to the article. Upsala (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)