User talk:Will Beback/archive55

Changes I'd like to make to Template:Infobox mountain

I've got a whole list of changes I'd like to make to the template on the discussion page. Since you are an active editing mountain articles, your thoughts would be appreciated. –droll [chat] 09:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Chita1234's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--♥Chita1234♥ 22:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

Will .... Let me make a suggestion. Rather than immediately look at my work as if in violation of arbitration, had you assumed good faith and perhaps even asked me what I was doing you might have seen the following:

I moved two statements that did not seem to be properly sourced... In fact, I've never used the "verify" template, and for that reason didn't even think of using it , and instead used the approach of moving the content to the talk page where I made sure it could and would be seen - my edit summary says I moved it to talk and the talk page clearly points to the moved content- and would receive a lot of attention, much more attention than if it had been left in the article. When a source was found for the first statement, although not the original sources, I re added the content as soon as I could.
I didn't see the Patel content in the source....I obviously missed it, since I just rechecked and do see it, but I assumed that the person who had added it would verify the content if it existed and it would be re added, or someone else would find a source and we could re add the content.
If a "verify source" template had to be added, then whether that content is reliably sourced is in question. I felt I was temporarily moving non reliably sourced content, making sure everyone saw it until a source could be found, and had already indicated willingness to readd content once sourced ....To me this is collaboration....
I assume the arbitration was referring to wholesale removal of reliably sourced content... not good faith attempts to find and or verify reliable sources.
I am traveling right now so my time online is erratic and very limited, so researching for now is difficult. Thus, I have had to rely on others to recheck the sources in question.
Please assume good faith, so we can manage these articles in a collegial atmosphere. (olive (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Borderline?

Your generosity is overwhelming. If that's borderline, then Operation Barbarossa was a couple of German privates who got lost when they misread their map and compass bearings. Fladrif (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm thinking of a forum which can actually take binding action. Fladrif (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what happened

I was confused by why you added that long list of citations to the Talk page. So I skimmed past the list and got to your final point. What happened was that in skimming past the list I also skimmed past the three points you enumerated, so I missed the fact that you were saying there was duplicate material; hence, didn't address it in my comment and didn't immediately fix the problem. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you at Mel Gibson talk

Hi, you added back a reference here that I am questioning regarding youtube.com being added back. I looked and there is a copyright notice at the botton of the page. I am just posting here to bring this to your attention, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Screwed Up

In issuing "editing test" warnings via TWINKLE, I accidently issued a vandalism warning. I caught my mistake almost immediately and quickly deleted it. Per our agreement, I screwed up. This was NOT intentional and a screw-up on my part. I apologize for the error. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I need to be more careful on the warnings since, on the drop down menu, "vandalism" and "editing tests" side by side. I will do my best to take care to not let that mistake happen again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Bevel

Hi, saw your note on the Bevel talk page. I took out the data about the Making of Man Clinic and SEED, couldn't find a citation. Couldn't locate a source confirming Bevel's co-initation of the Million Man March, although I know he did that and have interviews with Bevel on how he did it. Just haven't published any of those. Not much left under that section with that taken out, so I guess that whole section could go for now. What do you think about removing that section, even though Bevel is listed on the Million Man March article as speaking just before Farrakhan. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says he retired

Dreadstar says he retired [1] — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~You could see that trainwreck coming for months. Years, actually. Fladrif (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

And now, Dread has changed his mind

Well, I guess I'll have to un-retire, since Will so kindly redacted the item that so vexed me. Thank you Will, guess I should have pointed that out earler. The rest of it doesn't bother me. Thanks again.

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For understanding the core of the flame, and putting it right out. Dreadstar ☥ 21:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And hey, Will, I'm sorry for being too harsh about this whole thing. Tough times lately and you didn't deserve the pointy end of my frustration. My apologies. Dreadstar ☥ 21:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi talk page, Please Assume Good Faith

Regarding your June 9 post below on the MMY talk page [2] which I did not see until today. Please assume good faith and avoid making derogatory remarks implying that I have made "edits based solely on our [my] own theories". The sentences in question have citations and if additional information is needed you may ask for it and I will try to provide it, as I have done when you recently requested quotes from the same source as the one cited below. Thanks for your attention to this matter and I look forward to working together in a harmonious as the days go by.

You seem to be the only one who believes that. In 1939, he became a disciple of Swami Brahmananda Sarawati, who was based in the Indian Himalayas, and decided to be a monk. 'The first sight of his personality was enough to make me surrender at his feet,' the Maharishi wrote in his 1986 book "Thirty Years Around the World: The Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment."[78]

"Right from the beginning the whole purpose was to breathe in his breath," the Maharishi wrote in his "Thirty Years Around the World: Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment," published in 1986.[79] I hope we won't be making any more edits based solely on our own theories. Will Beback talk 6:26 pm, 9 June 2010, Wednesday (1 month, 6 days ago) (UTC−4) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have your page on my watch list so we can keep the conversation here-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kbob, thanks for your note. However I think you may have misinterpreted my remarks from last month. When I wrote "You seem to be the only one who believes that", I was referring to the authorship of the book, not the fact that MMy was a disciple of Guru Dev, which is widely known. Will Beback talk 7:08 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Thanks for your reply and explanation. As I mentioned above the part of your post that was most disturbing was the comment about "making any more edits based solely on our own theories". In any case, it's water under the bridge now. Just wanted to clear the air. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Email

You have one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll Like This One

When I went to self-revert, instead of hitting the "undo" button, I accidently marked myself for vandalism. Since it was me doing the revert, I am letting it stand because it is just too fun to revert and "undo" the right way. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primus Telecommunications

The IP is Primus Telecommunications [3]

Primus is a TM-affiliated company. [4][5]Fladrif (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Primus Canada IP address, not the Primus office in FF Iowa. --BwB (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? It's the same company. Fladrif (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP's

Agree 100% with your comment on my talk page. --BwB (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:194.7.44.220

Would you mind blocking him immediately, please? diff TEK (talk • e-mail) 23:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Materialscientist took care of him, but not before a few personal attacks... TEK (talk • e-mail)

Mistakes

(copied from Keithbob's User Page) You've been making a lot of errors in the past month: you uploaded a photo incorrectly claiming ownership, you claimed material had been plagiarized when it wasn't, you've used improper sources or misinterpreted them, you've expressed bad faith towards other editors, and so on. The recent Arbcom case was closed with remedies that covered these issues. Consider this an informal warning to adhere more closely to that decision. If problems persist then the next step would be a formal warning by an uninvolved admin. Will Beback talk 9:58 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

I stand by my edits and my editing behavior. As a fellow participant in the TM ArbCom your hands are not clean and your perspective is strongly biased. You are also an active editor on the TM articles and have no right or authority to issue any "warnings" to me. Any such further posts by you on my user page, will be considered to be intentional intimidation and harassment.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 9:08 pm, Today (UTC−4) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Will BB's reply copied by Keithbob from his User Page to here for continuity) But you haven't stood by your edits. When I asked you about your claim of owning the copyright of a picture that looked promotional, you refused to answer. When I asked you why you'd called a bunch of text plagiarism, you refused to say which source you thought they'd been copied from. You've used poor sources that promote a pro-TM POV in the same way that you did a year ago. If you'd like to stand by your edits then do so. But please don't keep making bad edits like this. Will Beback talk 10:02 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Zzzzzzzz....-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something that may interest you

Just thought you should see this edit where you are mentioned by a "bot", of which I have blocked. — ξ ^xplicit 05:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does ELs mean?

You used the term on a page I was editing. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Due_TY! DocOfSoc (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GRIN! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bell News

Another controversy/ Scandal in Bell. Do you want to change the title? [6] Namaste... DocOfSoc (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy

As I said, please do not attempt to invade my privacy. What is the policy you are referring to? I never seen that one before. I am erasing your paragraph in my talk page to keep it clean from issues that are not useful to detect any pattern in my current editing style. This is why I reply here. Thank you. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]