User talk:Will Beback/archive11

Archives

Richard Warman

There are a number of users that seem to be editing the Richard Warman wiki and constantly reverting the article. Information that I keep adding with sources keeps getting removed with no explanation at all. It seems there is either one guy with multiple sockpuppets or a group of people in concert. - Imstillhere 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now listen here you commie

Fight Dem Back article must be closed down because they are a out side group that is not a real registered group. So realy they are not real or even a proper group. They are bias. FightDemBack (who is linked with Fight Dem Back) is bias and his or her comments are based on lies. The Australia First Party is not a neo-nazi party. A example of this is their support for democracy. Neo-nazis do not support democracy or trade unions. PYL isn't a a neo-nazi group. FiightDemBack is politicaly driven and must be band. --PETER THE GREAT 04:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well comrade. Look at this way. Fight Dem Back is very mush controlled by bias communists. They must be stop from posting crap and lies on Fight Dem Back. Plus Wikipedia has become a dictatorship of the idiots. The Wikipedia dictatorship must be ended and democracy re-started. Pleas restor the deletion thing on FDB article. --PETER THE GREAT 07:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkins and Grazia11

Hey, Will Beback. I am not as familiar with Wikipedia rules as you are. Grazia is being quite rude and challenging my integrity in editing the article without any evidence for doing so (like a happy Hawkins lap dog). Doesn't this violate a Wikipedia policy, if I recall correctly? I asked him to stick to the issues, but in lieu of factual evidence, he can only resort to attacking me and my integrity. Do you mind helping on this one? Thanks, --ArtAsLife 01:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attempts to NPOV some of the (mis)information that Grazia11 keeps adding to the article. The article is in a terrible state thanks to this WP:SPA, who doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. -- Fyslee 08:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belles-lettres

I just went back over my last 500 edits, and I failed to find one that wasn't labled minor. Am I missing something? I am curious why you felt the need to leave me that note. --evrik 04:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're right, and now i understand your point. I have minor listed a a preference. When I was a newby, it was suggested to me that I do that. It wasn't until today that someone has pointed out the discussion you posted on my talk page. --evrik 05:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI ... the church question ... I was baptized at. :-) --evrik ^(talk) 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The church in question ... This has been aggravating. Some people are factually wrong and I believe they will refuse to acknowledge this and let the move happen. --evrik ^(talk) 15:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk_Disemvoweling

That "back from the dead... hagiographer" remark has been followed by "shill", and now "freak", together with a threat to "seek internal action", all directed against me. From the records I've seen so far, this sort of behavior has been allowed to go on for over four months. As its present target, may I ask how much longer? -- SAJordan 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Old RfA

Hi. To me, it looks like you've done a fine job as a janitor. I don't see any particular areas that need improvement or problems. Regards, Merovingian ※ Talk 14:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cork

Frankly, I'm surprised at your vote, unless you're opposed simply because I made the move request. I hope that is not the case. It is true that last week's survey established that there was no consensus to move the article on the material cork to Cork. But if you consider the comments made by the opposing votes in that survey, there did appear to be considerable consensus to make the move I'm now requesting. I was just trying to facilitate what consensus seemed to want. I'm surprised there is so little support for this, including from you. I mean, if the ambiguity with the ubiquitious and universally notable material/plant cork is not sufficient to warrant moving this small city that happens to share the name, then when is it ever warranted? --Serge 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Cork (city) is a poor choice. I made that the default since that seemed to be the most popular choice cited in the last survey. My own vote indicates my personal preference for Cork, County Cork, just like yours does, and for the same reasons. As far as the "if it ain't broke ..." argument, what is broken currently by this article name is WP:D and WP:NC:CITY#Ireland, not to mention that anyone doing research on the material cork is sent inexplicably to the article about a small city in Ireland. That's a broken encyclopedia. --Serge 21:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was moved. It's at Cork (city) now, and the dab page is at Cork. --Serge 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional narratives

Thanks, Will Beback.

I'm moving the material into separate articles because one of the editors working on several of the main Native Californian articles persists in rearranging, garbling, and inserting bogus information into it.

I figured that using the Template and including it in the individual articles served the function of a Category pretty well. If you have suggestions for one or more additional Category, though, I'd be glad to start adding that. RhymeNotStutter 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Channel Islands

A while ago I found out which county each island's in through the USGS Geographic Names Database. It's really non-intuitive which island lies in which county. San Nicolas Island is in Ventura County, and San Clemente, far off the northern San Diego County coast, is part of Los Angeles County. That's about as weird as the census stats that show three or four people live on a few of the islands (I'm guessing they're National Park rangers and maybe some old ranching families). I posted links to each entry on Talk:Channel Islands of California. Hope this helps. szyslak (t, c, e) 04:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question - I hope!

Hi, Will! I need a quick bit of advice re Talk:Mickey Mouse Club. Someone posted airdate data (no source cited, of course) and gave it an offensive header. Is it appropriate to change or remove that header, or should I just live with it, and mildly ask the person at the IP to cite a source? Thanks in advance. Karen | Talk | contribs 04:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Will! I see you also restored a sig I missed when I reverted the blanking. Oops! I appreciate the help. Karen | Talk | contribs 09:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diebold and DES article edits

Hi - There appears to be a problem with some changes you made to recent edits of mine. I authored a short paragraph last night about the HBO documentary I was watching, and placed it in the main Diebold article underneath a group of other paragraphs specifically discussing Diebold electronic voting machines. You moved it to the DES article with a note to the effect that it belonged there.

The first problem is that it is not appearing in the DES article you moved it to, so it's completely gone. Also, the section that you attempted to move it to doesn't seem like the best choice, but whatever - I would simply like something I wrote that was very important and topical to appear somewhere rather than nowhere. Can you please fix this, either by reverting the change to the main Diebold article, or fixing the relocate? Thanks. Rblaster 18:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Indian reservations

Will: I'm quite happy to be contributing what I can. I generally stick to geographical matters, statistical data, etc. In matters also discussed above, I contributed some relevant items to most of the individual Channel Islands of California articles. Backspace 00:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

protect again?

Hello, I reckon the Omura page needs protecting again immediately - see just now history, etc.Richardmalter 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DISD

why did you take that school off of schools in SD?

RfC at Sahaja Yoga

Sfacets has started an RfC at Talk:Sahaja Yoga about whether or not the University of Virginia website is a valid source. I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to participate. --NovaSTL 03:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning citing web sites that require payment

Hi Will, I have a question, that maybe you can answer. Can you direct me to anything concerning citing web sites that require payment or require you to register before you can view the contents? It would seem that such a site would not normally meet WP:RS; but I can not find anything that would either affirm such a view, or that states the opposite. It is probably right in front of me, but I am not seeing anything, or maybe it is something that has not been worked out yet. If you’re unsure, don’t worry about it. Thanks, Brimba 08:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the timely answer. I was in fact thinking of the policy concerning external links, and that is where the confusion came from. I was faced with being in the position of someone citing a source that I was certain would not substantiate what the person was claiming, and not wanting to register and hand over my CC info, there was no way to easily confirm my suspicion. Fortunately it has been invalidated for other reasons. Many thanks, Brimba 05:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood District

On August 24th, you deleted the Hollywood District page. However, it appears for some reason the Talk page was not deleted. Was it also intended to be deleted?--SirNuke 18:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will, there's a double-redirect now: Talk:Hollywood District → Talk:Hollywood, Portland, Oregon → Talk:Hollywood District. Was this intentional? -- SAJordan 00:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources - forums as sources about themselves etc.

hi will, feel free to follow the links in my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Citing_forums_in_articles_about_themselves - i think this may be similar to your concern regarding "reliable sources". Boud 22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User conduct rfc

Hi Will. I invite you to comment on User:Fix Bayonets! user conduct rfc, which I started today. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!. Thanks for any input you have. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dysgenics‎

A discussion related to one you had on Talk:Eugenics, [1] is occurring at Talk:Dysgenics. I'd be grateful if you could take a look. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page Hawkins

I'm not sure what you were intending to do, but it looks like you deleted some comments from the Talk:David R. Hawkins. Was that intentional? Do you need help restoring the deletions? -Will Beback 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi Will, just found out on your page that you are an admin in wiki. definitely i was not intending to delete parts of the discussion. my intention was to remove it from the archive (page 1) to the actual page 2. as i can see, all my entries (new and desplacements) are now gone. yes, please restore the lost parts. and let me know how one does correctly displace parts of the archive to the main page. have no idea what has happened. i could see my changes yesterday right after action though. rgds --Grazia11

Tks Will for restoring the lost parts. rgds --Grazia11 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ericsaindon2

Can't the size of this ban log be used as a case for permanent banishment? Wouldn't another user be banned permanently if they used sockpuppetry to this degree? Just curious... —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claire McCaskill Senate Box

Another user has restored the "Senate Box" which you had removed to the Claire McCaskill article. --TommyBoy 08:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood District

I notice that Serge has unilaterally moved Hollywood, Portland, Oregon to Hollywood District. Again. I guess it's good to have a hobby. Phiwum 19:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Governor Romney's seal

Hi Beback. Yes, I claim to have taken this picture. A family member was the Republican minority leader and I was invited to an event. I did not take the picture intending to photograph the seal, but the governor. This is the best I have but it clearly shows the passage that the Governor added. Your tone sounds unhappy and unfriendly. The image of a politicain, and how that is managed, carefully, consciously, or not, (in this case consciously) is a part of the individual's story. Especially if seeking he presidency. CApitol3 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image history shows blue goose to be a work of the U.S. government. I cropped the Romney photo to focus more on the seal, what I had of it. It is not a news photo. I find the the size you have reduced the images to be useless. Romney has an exploratory committee, Please assume good faith, that 'feels absent from my perspective. And please revert the image size. Thanks. CApitol3 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why 100 pixel?

Hi again. I have to say the reduction in size is now less than postage stamp. What wiki policy do you cite for this? If I made Mitt;s pic in the info box 100 px some might find it vandalism. Please revert so that the images serve to illustrate my discussion. Thanks. CApitol3 23:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will, the subject under discussion is a discussion page, not the article. I believe your take on this is either subjective, a high level of personal taste, or an outside chance your edits are political (I prefer to think not). As a compromise I have picked a size between my intial settng, and your reduction. the hardly affects the page depth. CApitol3 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I removed the last comment because it was already taken care of. All of the senator's pages are clearly marked that they will not take office until 2007. I hope this clears everything up.

Ridgecrest

I'm a bit confused how your edit, re-inserting unsourced comments about the types of students who attend Mesquite High, has to do with "removing gossip". Could you comment, and consider rv'ing your edit? Thanks, --ScottMainwaring 05:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Beback

What's this guy? (contribs) (not blocked). An imposter of yours? And your last name isn't Beback so I don't think Beback is even a real name. Oh and I suggest the services of Werdnabot for your talk page. Anomo 06:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disemvoweling again

Will, can I prevail upon you to review Marky48's latest edit to Disemvoweling in light of the recent discussions on the Talk page? I was under the impression that you found the source to be valid in this case, as long as the wording was "as early as" and did not claim to be definitely the first such use. As SAJordan pointed out at the time, the claim was only that the term and technique were used on that blog on that day, for which a link to that blog on that day should be a primary source. And of course it contributes to the article by showing an example of the forum moderation technique. Mark's objections seems to be that a blog should never be cited under any circumstances, particularly this one because of the history of this article and his belief about the motives or other editors. Will you please weigh in on whether the deleted text and citation are valid under Wikipedia guidelines? Goodness knows I don't want to fight yet another battle, but it would be good to have an admin's opinion on the substance of the content dispute, quite aside from the bickering over personalities and who-said-what. Thanks! (By the way, the IP editor on Mickey Mouse Club is apparently still being uncivil, but not on pages I watch other than his Talk, so I'm saying nothing further to him for now.) Karen | Talk | contribs 19:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Will. I think the context of his deletion brings motive into question: (in chronological order)
- 18:26, 10 November 2006 User talk:^demon (→Arbitration for Iran-Iraq War - Revenge of the editor)
- 18:30, 10 November 2006 Disemvoweling (Not a valid source: two sci-fi bloggers)
"Revenge of the editor", indeed. Yet he accuses others of bias and ulterior motives. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:36, 11 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Indeed I have no biases that I translate into articles, or ulterior motives except I won't stand by for a public lynching by partsians. This type dialogue is not helpful. It's a gang bang and bullying. Moreover, carrying this grudge over to an separate unrelated arbitration is a personal attack. Marky48 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Yeah, I often do if I can tell it's an established article, but sometimes it's hard to tell (or I'm just going so fast through Special:Uncategorizedpages, I accidentally skip something). Sorry, which one did I miss? --Elonka 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons in bio boxes

My views on this matter are expressed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Flag icons.

Thanks.

trezjr 02:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Webb

Why are you being selective about him and not other members-elect of the forthcoming US Congress (e.g., Jon Tester)? Is there actually a protocol here, or is it a free-for-all? Fishhead64 07:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops

The ut, because of decryption and typing delays, Embassy personnel failed to deliver the message at the specified time.

Cutting & pasting can be a hazard... As far as sources, I'm relying on about 25yr of reading in this area, not any one source at hand. User:trekphiler 10:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops revisited

This what it was supposed to look like:

"The last part arrived not long before the attack but, because of decryption and typing delays, and because Tokyo had neglected to inform them of the crucial necessity to deliver it on time, Embassy personnel failed to deliver the message at the specified time. The last part, breaking off negotiations ("Obviously it "

Obviously it got an extra bit pasted in error (or I got a bit too pasted ;)).... User:trekphiler 10:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment regarding David Duke

Why are you warning me alone about this edit conflict? Not only have I discussed changes to the page and defended my edits, I am the only one who has seriously discussed those changes on the talk page (DocFisherKing gave his typical spiel about my "vandalism"). Apparently another user reverts to an old edit, accusing me of vandalism, but I revert back and justify my reversion on the talk page, and I'm the bad guy in this scenario?! Quite honestly, that's ridiculous.

--Ryodox 10:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Ryodox has admitted to vandalism and sock puppetry... DocFisherKing

user HQCentral

I notice your comments on User talk:HQCentral. We have just discovered that that user was a sock puppet of notorious plagiarist Primetime, who was banned by Jimbo. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime As a banned user all of his edits may be removed, and as a serial plagiarist all of his edits should be scrutinized. If you have a chance to review his article and talk page contributions on articles where you've worked with him it'd be a help. HQCentral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cheers, -Will Beback 02:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sure explains his refusal to cite sources with any precision! - Jmabel | Talk 04:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks of accounts in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime

You appear to have missed Don Wiki Carlos-Jeméz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Morning! I noticed you're about and wondered what you think of this ([2]) diff to a page on my watch list? --Dweller 08:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if it was a bit spammy with the web address, although it wasn't a clear spam job (or I'd have reverted!) So I was in two minds and thought I'd consult someone more experienced! --Dweller 09:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for advice. --Dweller 09:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TM article

Hi, Will. Would be great if you could keep an eye on the TM article right now. A user has come in and is putting in opinion and unsupported statements. I went to his Talk page and begged him to discuss rather than just plowing through and changing things. Thanks. TimidGuy 02:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Will, for checking in. I was pleased when I returned this morning and saw that Tanaats had stopped and that he had opened a discussion on the Talk page. At first I assumed he was a Sock Puppet intent on vandalzing, but he apparently is indeed a new and naive user.TimidGuy 11:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about assuming good faith. This was a lesson to me. Thanks again. TimidGuy 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quixtar Discussion

Will you are correct sir, I am getting a bit over the edge. I will leave it that I have made my point and I think your ruling about the link is correct. I would like to see something that says the reps of those companies are endorsing a company that they have a financial interest in but I leave that decision to an admin. Thank you. Independent patriot 21:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You may be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Exucmember_reported_by_User:Smeelgova_.28Result:.29. Yours, Smeelgova 08:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Arroyo Seco Junior High School

A few days ago you warned Wschampions04 (talk · contribs) that you'd start combing through the Arroyo Seco Junior High School article and removing the non-encyclopedic information and work to get it into an actual article. I've taken some of the first steps towards that [3] (this is a dif of the 4 edits I made after your tagging of it). Do you have any thoughts on those edits? Later this afternoon I'm going to probably take a whack at the buildings section which needs to be condensed (the list of what clases are in each building really needs to go). How's that look? Metros232 17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive numbering at Talk:A Course in Miracles

Hi Will, there was an archive at Talk:A Course in Miracles that had only 2 topics in it, so I combined it with another that only had 10. Only now I've messed up the numbering and I can't move two archives to article names already used for a redirect page without an admin's help. When you get a chance, I would appriciate your help here. Also, the early makers of the Talk:A Course in Miracles archives, besides using two different styles, did not consistently distinguish between "in" and "In" and so I've made a dupicate of Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 2 at Talk:A Course In Miracles/Archive 2 by mistake. That's what I get for touching archives. I'd appricate your help, although it is a small thing. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 06:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill White article

Heya Will, You recently reverted a mass of edits on the Bill White article, which Bill White himself put in there. While you were right to revert them, looking over them, and over the current version, frankly they are equally source / unsourced. And actually Bill's own version does seem to be less biased (amazing, I know). Now I am not a fan of this man, in fact he'd probaly identify me as "one of the anti-racists out to get me". However, I think his edits should be salvaged.

When I get some time I am going to rewrite the article to include Bill's contributions. Parts of it will be well sourced, parts will be poorly sourced, and parts will be unsourced, but no worse than the current version.

When I put up the hybrid version, I'd appreciate if you would leave it up for discussion awhile, edit it if you like, but not revert it.

Thanks, Sadena 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Bolton

I've no idea what agenda you have over the Kerry Bolton article (no, I don't like far-right politics either). But we've been hosting an article that's been in complete violation of WP:NPOV and in particular WP:BLP and potentially libelous. These are serious policies, and we have received a complaint (completely justifiably, IMO). As you know, I've cut out a tonne of material, just to be on the safe-side. Sure, much of it can go back once properly sourced and re-written. But there is no rush. Wikipedia's overwhelming priority has to be to ensure that no further imbalances are allowed there. You attitude on the talk page, and in immediately inserting a bunch of external links, is not what I would expect from a Wikipedia admin. Please do not insert any further material into this article without a full discussion on the talk page.--Doc^g 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Augustine High School

So what am I supposed to do about vandalism - if I just revert it, it will come back. The762x51 02:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Oops, you are absolutely correct. Don't know what I was thinking there. Antandrus (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for the Support

I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Will Beback, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, M a rtinp23 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Problem Solved

Pictures changed, problem solved VitaleBaby 22:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Does this read like an advertisement to you?==

Hi WIll Beback,

In the version below, I extended the table showing the list of organization successions by adding two columns to the right: the first column entitled "customer registrations" and the second column "cumulative customer registrations" as shown in the URL below:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&oldid=89157364

User:Smeelgova redacted by edit, even though it was sourced, and put up an "advertising warning." Putting things in a table is one way of communicating, but if Smeelgova can do it, is there anything "advertising oriented" about my doing it?

Thanks for your opinion and I will ask a few other administrators. Sm1969 06:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That section is also duplicate information from other parts of the article. Not to mention that it is information better left to a Corporate Website about the issue, and makes the table take up way too much space and look simply bulky. Smeelgova 07:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Possible favor

Hi, Will. A user inadvertently deleted two weeks from the TM Talk page. As an Admin, do you have an easy way to put it back that would only take a minute or two? If so, it would help us. It's here [4] Thanks! TimidGuy 17:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Will, for fixing it. You're a hero. TimidGuy 18:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic slur

Yes, I know, that "Rusky" in its exact form was inducted three months ago. But slightly modified forms "Russki/Russky", which I treat to be actually the same, were there since 2003. Anyways, never mind, that my note was only the reason for removing it instead of tagging it with {{fact}}. As simple as that, nothing more. Cmapm 21:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexica Movement

I see you're also keeping an eye on this article... By the way, read this. Although I doubt it, they could be total fakes. Any opinion on this? The user in question is socking to avoid breaking 3RR, so if he continues after your compromise I'll get him blocked for a bit. I don't know anything about this group, but I'm worried that we might be sailing very close to the wind by letting this material in without at least one serious newspaper article about it. Are you from the region? It must have been talked about somewhere. yandman 08:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Sierras [sic] move

Thanks, I simply couldn't figure out how to do it with the disamb. page and often just give up on these complex ones. It's fairly well-studied due to some UC High Sierra research labs, but I was loathe to work on "High Sierras". KP Botany 16:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on the move, as I want to write an article on the Alpine Ecosystem of the High Sierra. I think it should just be a part of the main article, and a link to a more in-depth article. However, until I get around to it, as I'm working hard on the Phaeophyta and various SuggestBot stuff, it might be okay. Still, I think it is easier to just leave it as is for now, and the impending merge will be my impetus to get moving on a decent article. KP Botany 19:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Janitorial work

Will, thank you for the kind words about my clean-up work! I'm still not certain that adminship is the thing for me. Speaking selfishly, the main thing I would get from that that would be useful for the sort of work I do would be the ability to edit protected templates. The second most useful part would probably be the ability to view deleted revisions during forensic editing and analysis of damaged articles. I don't really want to get involved in deleting things and I am afraid of letting my temper get the best of me with regards to blocking people. That being said, I guess that the use of those tools is really predicated on being able to point to the right policy, so maybe that wouldn't be a huge issue.

On the negative side, I'd only get more involved in politics and dealing with disputes, which could be good for Wikipedia, but it's doubtful it would be good for my enjoyment as a Wikipedian ;) I'm also pretty leery of the whole RfA gauntlet and the open-ended philosophical questions that are often posed about Wikipedia policy.

I suppose if I were to hear from a few more editors that I've worked with in the past that the want me to stand for adminship, I'd be willing to accept a nomination. Once again, I appreciate your acknowledgement! Mike Dillon 16:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Stakes Poker Article

You're actually claiming my post of "High Stakes Poker" article was a bad one? It's more informing than the one which is old news, for "second season" and from pokernews.com. I don't get this, how can they have a link for a worse article when the article I linked it to is actually a better one?

EDIT: You actually took off my Bob Stupak article too. Once again let me ask; why? Do you have something against me or what is your problem?

Thanks.

You're Wrong

You'd be incorrect in saying that I deleted that comment without responding to it. Check your sources before you go messing with my talk page. WaldoJ was the creator of that comment and I left him a response. This is between myself and him, you are not involved. VitaleBaby 01:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willie, you must not be looking very hard if you can't see that my comment is one of only like 4 on Waldo's talk page. You are not going to call me rude when I responded several days ago. Since you don't believe me, probably because you haven't looked, I'm leaving you with a copy of thext that had been one of Waldo's messages for several days. It goes as such and is under the heading entitled "Response"

---And what is the purpose in being so rude in your comments? I do not appreciate it. Either act civil or don't leave me a message at all. I don't need to be insulted as if I don't know the name of the party to which I belong. If you'll go through the pages of senators and representatives, you'll see a variation on the pages of Democrats. Sometimes under 'party affiliation' it lists 'Democratic', other times 'Democrat'. Both are perfectly acceptible, and if you would like to conform the pages to one or the other, then that I suggest you take up that project. Republicans don't have that problem because a meber of the party is still called a Republican. However, a member of the Democratic Party is called a Democrat, not a Democratic, so therefore both are correct factually. As for gramatics, very few things on this site are neat and orderly. If you don't like how it sounds, go through the pages of all the senators, governors, and representatives, and make them match, instead of criticizing me. A small little issue like this did not require and insult of my knowledge of the English language.VitaleBaby 23:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)---[reply]

Notice the date: 2 days ago! If you feel that I changed this to manipulate you, well, then take a look at Waldo's page and you can verify that this is true. Until you have some sort of a clue of talking about, don't criticize me. VitaleBaby 02:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm going to keep deleting messages after I've responded to them. As for the Mazie Hirono page, that brings up a question of mine. If an image is included on the site of a state/local gov't, how exactly are you supposed to site it anyway? And another question. Do you look through my edit history daily or something? Because you always seem to be on my case about every little thing. VitaleBaby 05:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be incorrect of you to say that I do not respond to comments. Yes, I always delete them after the issues is taken care of, but I still always leave a response to the poster first. Please stop restoring my talk page as if I ignore everyone. VitaleBaby 07:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Do you know of any easy way to quickly delete a bunch of external links in different articles. The only think I can think of is find someone with a Bot to do it.

The reason that I ask is that I found a link for www.amiannoying.com in the Sandy Koufax article. After checking the link and deciding that it was pretty worthless, I deleted it. Then I checked to see if there were more links to the same website. There are almost 50 of them (see [5]). ^Blank ^Verse 17:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You found the same apparently good faith edit that I found (Chuck Taylor (salesman)), although the amiannoying.com website doesn't look like something that I'd use as a reference. If you can't find the same statistics elsewhere, I wouldn't trust them. [Why isn't there an {{untrustworthy}} template?] [The Chuck Taylor article sure looked like it could do with a good copyedit, but I didn't have the time or motivation last night.]

I guess that I'll just delete a half-dozen amiannoying.com links at a time in between more productive edits until all the worst links are gone. ^Blank ^Verse 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [PS: Good luck with the ArbComm elections.][reply]

More external links fun! I just removed most (but not all) of the links for a photographer who's only edits have been external links to her photos (for sale). While doing that, I also discovered a link at Olvera Street to virtualguidebooks.com. One very claustrophobic 360 photo that didn't give you a good idea of what Olvera Street was like. It turns out that website currently has 46 links on the Wikipedia. [6]

I'm getting tired of seeing both amateur and professional photographers using the Wikipedia to promote their websites. Most of the time the amateur photos are pretty crappy, and the professional photos are usually more artistic than informative. My personal opinion is that there should be any links to photos unless they also have more information on the article's topic. If nothing else, there should be an amendment to the External links policy that says if the photographer isn't willing to donate some photos to the Wikipedia, then they shouldn't get any links.

A different problem: Jeohnny (talk · contribs) has added demographic information to a number of LA City community articles, as well as for Terminal Island. I want to assume good faith, but there are several factors that leave me questioning the data. The data either doesn't give a date, or says "as of 2006", when the last US Census population estimate was for 2005. For the couple of articles that I checked, the percentages didn't add up. And for Terminal Island, I don't know how they could have come up with any numbers. The island is split between two different ZIP codes. Furthermore, as far as I know, the only 'residents' on the island are at the Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Island. That article says just under 1,200 prisoners, but the demographic data added says around 1,500 people. A US Census factfinder website search couldn't find anything for Terminal Island.

I've left a message on Jeohnny's talk page asking for the source of their demographic data, but haven't heard back from them. ^Blank ^Verse 11:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that your 'Reseda' vandal is back? See this edit to San Fernando Gardens, Los Angeles, California. ~~Shoot~~ Revert on sight if it's unreferenced demographics data? ^Blank ^Verse 07:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured out where User:Jeohnny was getting their data—from http://www.laalmanac.com (see [7]). Contrary to what User:Jeohnny wrote, the data is from the 2000 General Census (and not "as of 2006"). [Amazing the things you can find using Google!]

Since the LA Almanac website got the data from census tracks and lists the census tracks they used, I would consider it a legitimate resource. It might even be worth creating an mini-infobox (designed specifically to NOT look like a city infobox} to use for creating a Demographics section for each of the LA City communities.

Interesting. I just checked http://www.ocalmanac.com/, and it looks like they've copied the Wikipedia's Did You Know? ["The Mercedes-Benz Advanced Design studio in Irvine was established in 1990 as Daimler-Benz' first studio outside Germany."]. I went there to see if they had a demographics breakdown for Anaheim Hills, but Anaheim Hills barely rates a mention on the website (the biggest mention is about an Ahaheim Hills developer bribing an Anaheim city council member). ^Blank ^Verse 08:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomm

Just noticed that you are running. Great news! Guettarda 19:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Peterwats/DePeRe

Haha - I don't think he/she could have made it more obvious if they tried! Thanks for letting me know :) M a rtinp23 13:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts

Someone over at a section of the election candidates statements talk page has linked you with another account. I wanted to ask you an official question about this, but as I can't find anything definitive linking the accounts, I wanted to check here first, in case this is wrong or sensitive in any way. Carcharoth 15:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd be willing to start an abuse report/investigation into this user; would you be able to help me?? Thanks, --SunStar Net 23:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the long-term abuse page; what I was implying was actually trying to take action against this user, in the real-world, similar to our WP:ABUSE procedure. Thanks for the message! --SunStar Net 00:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sent you an email. Hope this helps. --SunStar Net 00:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References not appearing in Footnotes section

Hi, Will. We're continuing to bumble along in the TM article. It had greatly exceeded the guideline for Article size, so we moved two sections to new articles. (No one initially objected to my moving the TM-Sidhi section, but then Sethie disagreed after it was done. But now I think we're in agreement.)

I don't know how to make the references show up at the bottom of the page in the new article on the TM-Sidhi program. Your help would be greatly appreciated, as always. Thanks so much.TimidGuy 12:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! I see now how it's done. TimidGuy 19:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Qs

Sorry about that, thanks for catching them. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Counts

Thank you! Jd2718 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagarism

I don't know whether that guy CantStandYa was doing plagarism to hurt Wikipedia or because he's a bad writer, but is there some easy method to turn copyrighted text into one's own words, at least paraphrased? Some sort of step-by-step method that doesn't take hours upon hours of thinking and rewriting. Maybe a bot that would help with that sort of thing? Anomo 06:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was Primetime. It was the one you told me about in your arbcom question place. Anyway I'm mostly interested in this "is there some easy method to turn copyrighted text into one's own words, at least paraphrased? Some sort of step-by-step method that doesn't take hours upon hours of thinking and rewriting. Maybe a bot that would help with that sort of thing?"' Anomo 07:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wats

His latest: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Federalhamster Drett 13:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Link?

Hi,

I live in San Diego and thought that having sdroads.com as an external link on the San Diego page would be useful for local commuters. There are other websites in the External Links on the page that have advertisings and promote their own products (http://sandiego.commuterclub.org/). What was the reasoning for removing the non-commercial sdroads.com but not other commercial websites?

Thanks

Thanks but I'm too busy

I'm flattered by the suggestion that I should apply for adminship, but I'm simply too busy with lawyer stuff (particularly depositions) to carry out the responsibilities of an admin properly. Also, such responsibilities would distract me from my primary interests in Wikipedia—adding photos of interesting things and adding high-quality researched text on topics I'm interested in. See for example my recent contributions to the history section of Kaiser Permanente. --Coolcaesar 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Daily Illini Article

Mr. Beback,

There's been a bit of a back and forth on the Daily Illini article about a false piece of information. One user has updated the "controversies" section of the article to add how the paper's Nov. 29 editorial incorrectly identified Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) as a Republican, which is accurate. But the user has insisted on inserting the fact that the Chancellor sent out an e-mail that same day to all faculty members that called the newspaper "a disgrace" and asked the journalism school to start a new paper. The user first linked to a Web site that list all e-mails sent out via Massmail, a method commonly used by the University administration to readch faculty, staff and students. While there was a Massmail that was sent out on Nov. 29, the e-mail was about W-2 tax forms. When thi was pointed out, the user then said the e-mail was FOIA'd by a local journalist and that the article would appear in the Champaign News Gazette, a local newspaper. Anybody who knows anything about the nature of FOIAs and the amount of time it typically takes institutions as big as the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign would question this, since that means the reporter filed the FOIA request that day and then had it processed by the University on the same day, as well as receiving the requested material on the same calendar day. According ot Illinois statute, the university could have up to 14 days and at least 7 days to respond to any requests, and the university certainly takes up that offer. Further, I have contacted the university's Dean of the College of Communications, Ron Yates (who I have had as an instructor and know personally) to see if I could get a confirmation on the existence of the letter, and he knew nothing about it. There is no "journalism school" at the university, per se; there is a journalism department within the College of Communications. If the chancellor really did request the journalism program to start a new paper, I believe it is safe to say that he would know of it. If you could address this problem as soon as possible, it would be appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagrant829 (talk • contribs)

I got the same not, Will. I removed the sentence, left a note at Talk:Daily_Illini#November_controversy_and_alleged_email and handed out some 3rr warnings.--Kchase T 19:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editor at the same IP address once again reverted the edit today. Something must be done, and I will be happy to assist. Vagrant829 08:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]