User talk:Will Beback/archive27

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://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:ValleyChatter" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValleyChatter (talk • contribs) 05:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[[1]] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Cro0016's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

hmm..

Good edit[2], however it looks like someone is back....--Hu12 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hooligan firms

Hi. I would like your advice regarding the above. If you take a look, the consensus seems to be firmly Keep. Yet a look at the very recent history shows that the nominator closed the discussion early as Delete, but unfortunately does not have the tools to actually delete the article. I have reverted his Bold (by his own admission) edit, but wonder if I am correct, as I have never come across this behaviour before. Do we wait for an admin with the power to delete to come along and close it? Would appreciate an answer before your Wikibreak. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biff Rose

Hi Will. Same old junk happening. Can we nip it in the bud? Sojambi Pinola (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outta here

If things ever change for the better here, you may see me editing Wikipedia again at some point in the future (though I seriously doubt it as there are much more productive uses for my time and energy). In any event, take care and keep well. Mdhennessey (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ishqbina

Will, I'm currently reviewing an unblock request at the above talk page, which belongs to an editor whom you blocked for sock puppetry. Just to reiterate my comments there, could be be more specific as to evidence regarding that account being a sock puppet? Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer. Regards, AGK § 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lewrockwell.com deletion

Note that, according to this note on my talk page, Lewrockwell.com has been nominated for deletion. The note says that I am the creator of that page, but I started it as a redirect; 'twas you who added the first content. I thought you might like to know.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany for Deletion

Because you have contributed to articles on this topic, you may wish to weigh in here. Renee (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal and Chelsea footballing rivalry

Hello! Could you please check the edit history and the talk page of this article? A user or administrator, I haven't checked what he is, doesn't allow any statistics in this article while there are several derby articles in wikipedia which include past matches and a lot of statistics pages about hundreds of football clubs. Why this article should be an exception? - Sthenel (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor baby again

Hi. Just FYI, a new editor is jumping onto the Anchor baby article. Since you were part of last summer's discussion about this article, I wanted to be sure you were aware, in case you might have dropped it from your watch list but wanted to say something now. Richwales (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and "{{Cleanup}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed , (e.g.Hobosexual). See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 11:50 30 March 2008 (GMT).

Liberty Dollar

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Liberty Dollar, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 86.143.80.191 (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]