User talk:Will Beback/archive21

Larry Craig

I find it ironic that you deleted my posting on Larry Craig's talk page regarding the fact that so many rabidly homophobic political figures are later found to be gay, and yet you have not removed the postings saying "The Iowa Marriage Ruling will ensure the GOP will win in 2008". You're not biased or anything, are you? NPOV my ass. Wandering Star 13:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of HarveyCarter

Please deal with user User:Daer11. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Craig, Foley

I was looking at those religious cats. Foley appears properly documented, but the Craig article does not verify anywhere that he is a Methodist, beyond the unsourced mention in the infobox. WP:BLP#Categories would call for that cat to be removed until it is properly sourced. I'm sure that won't be difficult. - Crockspot 21:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Spooner

In your haste to make a complete revert, you reverted a spelling correction. As far as the citation tags go, even if the "facts" are eventually dealt with in one or more of the references at the bottom of the page, they are not properly cited in the article. So maybe someone who has enough time to make all of these unsourced claims can find some time to go in and actually bring it up to wiki standards? Info999 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist Revisited

These topics were added to my watchlist by someone but not by me.

* Archive 5 (Talk)
* HAGGER?? (Talk)
* HAGGER???? (Talk)
* HAGGER???????????????????????? (Talk)
* Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide (Talk)
* NIGGERS (Talk)

I did not add the above non-existent pages to my watchlist and never visited anything with those names.

Will, this follows an earlier conversation when I reported to you that someone was adding racially discriminatory topics, again tied to non-existent pages, to my watchlist. More have been added. I have left it up this time so that a developer can take a look. Six items were added, including one that is racially discriminatory. I'd like to know how other people can access my watchlist. Thanks. Skywriter 17:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is the earlier conversation. Skywriter 17:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Can you give me the exact name of one or more of the entries? I suspect that they got on your watchlists when articles that were already watchlisted were moved to the new names. That has the effect of creating a redirect from the old name to the new name, and of automaticlaly adding the new name to your watchlist. However without a name to go by it's very hard to track down. I couln't find any history of their ever being an article called "Racial segregation is necessary" - are you sure that's exactly right? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither admins, nor users with access to other common tools can see your watchlist. I assume that the developers can do so, though I've never heard of it. Anyone can look up page moves. For instance, this log shows articels that have been moved to titles that start with "nigger". However I don't see anything there that matches. I wouldn't worry about this unless it happens again. If it does, don't delete the names until we can investigate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

you wrote: "This is a feature, not a bug." ahem. Actually, Playstation III was another that was added to my watchlist that I did not add. But I get it. I'll just kill them out.Skywriter 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Aiken

The easy question first. I noticed the text in articles from this past summer tour when it was being promoted. Articles with bio info took the info directly from Clay's page. A few did a little rewriting but the lazy ones lifted the text verbatim. Since I was so involved with the rewrite it was easy to see the text was identical and I'll admit to bit of smugness over seeing my words in print. Unfortunately I did not save links and trying to go back now and find them is just too time consuming. None of it related to the subject your asking about since at that time it wasn't in the article.

The hard question. All of the gay rumors and gossip have come from places like Datalounge, the NE, Perez Hilton, Page 6, magazines like OUT and gay bloggers, some dating as far back as Wildcard night on AI2. They voice their opinions and spread their gossip but none of them have verifiable proof. The day before the NE JP story hit Clay posted this bible verse on his blog. Isaiah 51:7. Most had to look it up. "Do not fear the reproach of others, and do not be dismayed when they revile you." A thread on his fan club was started and within 24 hours there were thousands of comments of support. The next day he blogged two words. "Thank you." It didn't take a rocket scientist to see how that story hurt him.

Diane Sawyer and Larry King didn't pull their questions out of thin air and they sure didn't get them from reliable verifiable third party sources. Larry used the Diane video clips to bring the subject up. I went back and checked that transcript today. In fact, Diane Sawyer had already asked him about rumors back in 2003. Jimmy Kimmel used to make fun of him until they met and now Jimmy defends him and leaves him out of his gay jokes. He told Perez the other night that Clay would not appreciate the nickname Perez uses for him. Kimmel also told Perez he was a horrible horrible man. During AI2, reporters were crawling all over Raleigh and Charlotte looking for some dirt on Clay and all they came up with was a speeding ticket. My comments here would be considered original research and would be off limits as far as the article goes. Maria202 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just furious that you had so little respect for me that you didn't let me know what you planned. I'm neither embarrassed nor ashamed, just mad as hell right now. That was a sneaky underhanded action on your part and I do not appreciate what you did. Further responses to you will be on my talk page. Maria202 02:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

jmh/Will

I've never seen such a move before either. Her comments were obviously not intended for the talk page. I do think you violated her trust, and suggesting shame and embarrassment as an explanation for her reaction is insulting to her to boot.

May I take this back to square one for a moment? An individual posted some comments on the talk page on Thursday that were insulting towards the editors of the article ("hogwash" "claymates" "whitewash"). In response you restored material that was deleted months ago, without reading the current version of the article--thus after your edit there were two mentions of the cat story, two mentions of the lawsuit, two mentions of the Ripa incident, and so on. I'm not at all surprised that your edit was reverted by Maria, as it was obviously a poor edit. Instead you could have taken a little more time to look things over and familiarize yourself with the changes and the discussions on the talk page regarding the rewrite, or you have said on talk, "I haven't been here for a long time, and I see the entry has been completely rewritten. Why is the highly debated material that used to be there gone now?" Or, after the revert by Maria, you could've said, "Oh, I see I'm a bit out of the loop. I'm sorry. That wasn't a very good edit. So what's going on?"

From where I stand, what happened instead felt like insult followed by accusation. I have admitted to overreacting, for the reasons I stated, and I apologized for it on Thursday. I don't understand why you are pushing this so hard, and at such a pace. I don't feel as if you are listening to what others are saying, and it seems to me as if you are badgering Maria for reasons I don't understand. Clearly from your points for the RfC, there is a huge gap between us in perception of this situation. My position on the topic was initially somewhere between you and Maria, but the way this is going down has pushed me hard to Maria's side. Not that it matters, because the opportunity to discuss any further was taken from me because I had to take care of my mother yesterday and couldn't be on line.

And, by the way, I was not "creating a private version," I was working on a possible compromise, but by denouncing and then co-opting it, you made that impossible. At any rate, what's done is done, but I needed to say my piece. -Jmh123 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Working together

I'm going to copy your response to the above here, as it's easier to address:

Thanks for taking the time to post your note on my talk page. Disputes are easier to resolve when everyone can talk together calmly. You made several points and I'll try to address them individually.

• I had asked Maria202 on the article talk page to support a couple of her claims. But due to the nature of a busy discussion other editors chimed in with new points and the questions got lost. So I went to her talk page to re-ask the question, indicating that the information would help the discussion. I'd presumed she'd answer on the article talk page. The discussion was relevant to the discussion of the article so I moved both of our postings there. My user talk page isn't private, and I wouldn't expect anyone who posts there to think that their message would be kept confidential. It's not like an email for example. For her to say she was furious, etc, seemed to me to be an over-reaction. But I understand that folks are emotionally invested in this topic.

It isn't a matter of confidentiality; it's a matter of the type of talking you're doing. It's my perception that her comments to you were clearly not intended to be a contribution to the debate, but a response to what she thought was a question asked of her personally. If you intended otherwise, it was no more clear to me than it was to her.

• I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Clay Aiken article. I did take the lead on deleting the JP article, but since then haven't paid much attention. I saw someone post a note on the talk page asking why there was no mention of Aiken's orientation. That surprised me since I had spent all that time with you and others negotiating the text on that topic. I checked the talk page for any discussion and found none. So I dug through the article history to find when it had been deleted and restored the material. Then I initiated a discussion asking why it had been deleted. Maria202 reverted my addition first and then joined the discussion. She pointed out that some of the material had been distributed around the article and I acknowledged that but asked her to explain the deletion of the other material. So I think I did exactly what you say I should have done.

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it either. Maria and I rewrote it, were pleased with our work, received no complaints, and I moved on. I hardly ever come to Wikipedia anymore. My point was that once the insults and the bad edit had occurred, your manner in asking for an explanation came off as a demand and an accusation. Some of us aren't wired for instantaneous Wikipedia debate mode, or for responding well when put on the defensive. I am certainly not. The deletion was made by others, neutral editors, months ago, so it isn't that easy to come up with a ready answer in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think Maria has now provided the answers you asked for, but you just don't agree with her.

• I haven't set any pace for the discussion. I haven't demanded that anyone respond. I haven't reverted my own edit to the article. I haven't threatened to act unilaterally on a deadline (unlike some other people in the discussion). I have said that there's no rush, that we can discuss and compromise. I think I've been calm and patient.

Then why the RfC already? The way it is framed is going to affect how people respond, and as you can see by my rebuttals, I have some real problems with some of your points. Even the way the issue is phrased on the RfC page is leading. Why was it necessary to do this yesterday?

• I didn't denounce your efforts on the draft version you were editing, but I did say that we should work together on it. I put your draft forward as a starting point, which I thought was a good faith effort. Please assume good faith on my part. I'm just trying to bring us back to consensus on this issue.

I don't see why you can't understand why I might want to be the one to introduce it, at a time of my own choosing. At the very least, it might've been nice if it had been introduced when I was able to participate, no?

• I understand what it's like to care for a sick parent and I know how frustrating it can be to get called away from the keyboard in the middle of a lively exchange. We've worked together on many topics over the past couple of years and I hope we can continue to work together to improve the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've worked together really well in the past, and this surprises me. I haven't known you to press a matter this way. Usually you come in, make a comment, and leave again for days, not engage in prolonged back-and-forth arguments. I know we disagreed on the actions of a couple of colleagues in the POW group, but that was between me and them. I'm really just not suited for Wikipedia (which seems to me to be far too vulnerable to manipulation by special interests, far too powerful because far too many people are intellectually lazy, and the worst possible way to create and disseminate "knowledge") nor do I have the time these days to do it justice. -Jmh123 21:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

starting anew

Alright, the bottom line. Why this material shouldn't be in Wikipedia. This is not intended for the talk page of the article. If and when it goes there, it should be because I put it there. First, as usual, there is an agenda behind this particular change happening at this particular moment. The only reason I've ever edited at Wikipedia is because I hate the way people are able to use it so easily to promote an agenda, and sometimes I try to stop them. In the case of Aiken, because I'm a fan, I'm often aware of these agendas and they do shape my responses to proposals. You can say I shouldn't allow that, but when people do plan to use Wikipedia, and succeed at doing so, is that right? I can tell you already what the next proposed edit will be, and to what entry, if this edit succeeds, and then what a particular gossip columnist will say after that. Second, BLP guidelines have changed. Aiken does keep his private life private and he does not discuss it willingly; when he does discuss it, it is to say that he wishes to keep his private life private. According to the guidelines as I understand them, we should honor that. Third, I can see the point of including the material because it does provide his response to the never-ending questions. Fourth, I can see the point of not including it because we simply don't have the resources to do justice to this subject at this time. There's no published source that deals with this issue as anything more complicated than "are you or aren't you?" Not, "why does anyone care?" In the absence of any kind of sophisticated source material (and I'm sorry, but your respected journalists have not handled this in a sophisticated manner) we're left with this bare-bones non-denial denial that the vast majority of people misunderstand. Fifth, while it is absolutely true that from the point of view of google and entertainment media, the gay/not gay question is a major factor in his story, from the point of view of Wikipedia's role in addressing it, whatever Wikipedia does will only add to the speculation, not end it. I don't think reference to this issue belongs on Anderson Cooper's page, or Jodie Foster's page, or John Travolta's page or Tom Cruise's page. In my opinion, some people want to see these things in Wikipedia for the same reason "Little Fatty" was in Wikipedia, for the same reason someone is always trying to work the gerbil story into Wikipedia, and the same reason some girl who did nothing but appear in a popular YouTube video was in Wikipedia. Even if you can google it, even if "everyone knows," I don't think these things belong in Wikipedia. I learned the gerbil story from Wikipedia, I learned of gay speculation in every one of these other cases from Wikipedia. I'm sure I'm not the only one for whom this is true. Like it or not, Wikipedia spreads gossip. I object to that. -Jmh123 21:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

my response to your response

Thanks for your response. I missed that someone threatened to delete the talk page. I'll look again. I guess both of us need to skim less. (I also missed Maria's comment that shaped your response just now.) I did find my own statement that the material had been deleted on the talk page; see the last comment under Retraction. I think I did everything I could at that time, in good faith, given that I agreed with the deletion and felt that it reflected current policy. I noted it on the talk page; I asked the folks who deleted it to comment, but they didn't. There was no objection stated, nothing to respond to, until now. 1. Heavens no, I am not accusing you of foreknowledge or conscious participation in someone's agenda. Of course not!!!! 2. Long story with the tabloids squarely in the middle. 3. I'd agree with you, except that the Aiken page has never been so quiet as it has since those deletions were made, whereas, when "the paragraph" was there, someone was always trying to add something else on the topic. Perhaps we can find a consensus that doesn't invite this? 5. I have never argued that no one cares about this, have it? I just don't think that's a reason to include it. The message board thing was completely misrepresented, by the way. ETA: I just noted that you linked Page Six on your RFC points--good grief, do you not understand what Page Six is? It is not a trustworthy or reliable source. Try googling Page Six scandal. Or look here.[1] Please delete that link from your points unless you think validating them with tabloid gossip is a good idea. Thank you. -Jmh123 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Page Six article is a steaming pile of bullshit. The board was not closed for the reasons stated by Page Six, and it was back up before the story appeared. Fan interest in this entire topic is limited to about a dozen people on each extreme; most simply don't care and call the whole subject "beating Bob" (Bob being a dead horse), a term created in 2003. I'm astounded that you think this article is a valid source in any circumstances, seeing that it is full of lies, and in this case, I don't even need to be Clay Aiken to know that. I will ask you again to please remove that link. -Jmh123 02:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are a member, you can't get in. It is a perk of the fan club. Yes, it is still up. It was down for a day and a half several months ago. Your reference is dated June 11. -Jmh123 02:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I already answered your question above ^^^. It is a contentious topic among a very few people, and those few are discouraged from engaging in senseless and disruptive arguments with one another because it creates a poisonous atmosphere for everyone else. The board was not closed for the reasons given in Page Six, and the topic of Aiken's sexual orientation is not one that consumes the vast majority of his fans, or creates divisions among large numbers of his fans. Most don't care.

To your second question, my additional point has nothing to do with that person, and I don't get how you think that I said it did. I simply asked mixvio why he didn't object at the time that the material you now wish to return to the entry was removed. How many times and how many ways do I have to say, I didn't delete the material. No involved editor deleted the material. I thought their reasons for deleting the material were valid. They were established editors, respected editors. I stated on talk that the material had been deleted. No one objected. I assumed that this was because there were no objections. Policy had changed. I thought the change in the entry was an accurate reflection of the change in policy. It all seemed perfectly above board to me. -Jmh123 03:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, your first link went to my comment to mixvio. I tried to make that connection more explicit and ended up reverting myself because I didn't have the words right yet, and I haven't had a minute to get back to it since. ETA: Alright, I tried. In the meantime, even if I'm not stating it well, your canada.com link which I just noticed proves the point. -Jmh123 05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

"Why don't we assume there's a consensus out there somewhere and we just need to find it." That should be in every policy and guideline across the 'pedia. Pairadox 01:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Elite" Hills

I ran across this page, and have already nominated it for deletion. However, 75.43.199.111 has been adding this to various pages across Wikipedia. Looking at the description of Anaheim Hills boundaries on the page screams Ericsaindon2 to me. You interested in taking a look? AniMate 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You work fast. I didn't even catch the original Elite Hills article, which makes me worry. How many versions of this one are we going to have to go through before Eric gives up? AniMate 05:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

MY sympathies

I see WP:BLP has already attracted more bullies. Sorry to hear it; let me know if I can help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

FNMF

I remember back then that CU came up with a hit that he was indeed a sock puppet of another editor, but since the other editor was not one of the targets named in the CU, Asmodeus and DrL, there was no other information made available. Another RFCU seems to be justified. FeloniousMonk 03:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll definitely take a look then and offer my opinion tomorrow. You'll have the honor of making any blocks that may be warranted as he'll no doubt claim I'm too involved from our past encounter. Nevertheless I'll be around to support them and add insight. FeloniousMonk 04:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Anchor Baby

I'm asking you politely to restore the recent edits made in full as a sign of good faith. Then, lets work hand and hand to ferret out what is wrong with the edits. I would like to resolve this article's issues and move from there. But, POV pushing by another editor in the vain of selective edits is not helping matters at all. My edit was to form a balance again - to achieve NPOV in regards to the topic at hand. I am pleased with the compromise and consider it sufficient; as originally worked out. Again, restore - then lets discuss the objections - and work on a possible solution. --Northmeister 04:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Northmeister 04:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent participation in the 'Parable' which is an insult and indirect attack on myself is inappropriate at the least and highly unethical as an admin at the most. Further, your removal of well sourced material in a dispute involving yourself is also highly questionable at the least and highly unethical as a admin at the most. Your continued objections to edits I make without proper discussion, in civil two-way harmonious manner is bad manners at the least and unethical as an admin at the most. You owe me an apology for your conduct, especially your recent participation in the personal attack and insult of the 'parable' with the further comment on 'remembering his past edit history' to paraphrase. --Northmeister 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued insult on my user page is also improper conduct on behalf of an admin. My observations about you changing your ways was I guess made in haste. I see you do not wish to apologize or act in a civil and polite manner as an admin. By they way, thanks for once again pointing out my typos - I'm sure that was done innocently as well. --Northmeister 23:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The manner in which you've pointed it out considering the discussion of personal insult on the Anchor Baby talk page - instead of using the correct spelling without quotations is what I am speaking of - but whats the point. --Northmeister 23:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

Please refrain from making false accusations about me, as you did here. All of the accusations you make in that comment are false. BCST2001 07:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The comment of mine you linked was not referring to you personally, as you did not write this material. It was simply a ready example of what I feel to be a problematic approach to writing bios, that is, listing "controversies," and the types of controversies people feel are important. Your only connection is to have been the one to restore the material, thereby providing me with a ready link. I think there's been plenty of bad attitude to go around in this particular dispute. -Jmh123 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole mess may be some kind of world's record for misunderstanding one another. I interpreted your statement in the above diff, as it refers to my comment, to describe me as having a "bad attitude towards negotiating." That is, two users, one with a history, and one with a bad attitude. If I have misunderstood you, I apologize. ETA: And, rereading, I did misunderstand. Sorry. GRRRR. -Jmh123 18:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have politely requested that you cease your accusations, and am disappointed that you have not done so. I am unsure what you are trying to achieve, and unsure why you are engaging in this kind of accusation. If you disagree with my interpretation of WP:BLP, that is your business, but I do not see that I have done anything to warrant this kind of behavior on your part. I can only request again that you refrain from this behavior and focus instead on the substantive matters with which you have chosen to be involved. I trust in your good judgment about this. BCST2001 07:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For a third time I politely request that you cease making false accusations. I am sorry that you find my behavior uncivil, but I am not persuaded that there is much evidence for that accusation. I have persistently disagreed with you about the interpretation of WP:BLP, and I have striven, apparently without success, to explain my reasons. I have disagreed with you about what may be included in the entry on Clay Aiken, and have given my reasons on the talk page. I have stated to another editor my belief that, where editors are determined to violate WP:BLP, negotiation is not the best strategy. Obviously all this has upset you, but I think if you reflect on the matter, you will recognize that your conclusions about my behavior are unwarranted. I have no antipathy toward you or any other editor involved in any of these matters, but it may be that by putting my view forcefully (for instance, my view that editors with a deficient grasp of WP:BLP ought voluntarily to avoid editing BLP entries), I have got your back up. If so, I apologize and assure you it was certainly not my intention. I happen to hold the view that WP:BLP is often watered-down by editors in its application, and that this is to the detriment of Wikipedia and biographical subjects. That is my concern in this case. I hope and trust that you can understand this, and that you will heed my request. BCST2001 08:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your determination to ignore my polite requests forces me to state the following: I have broken no Wikipedia rules. I no longer wish to receive comment from you on my talk page. If you continue to edit my talk page against my wishes, I will be forced to conclude that you intend harrassing me. If you have a problem with the way I am editing, please address that in the appropriate forums. But, again, please note, I no longer wish you to edit my talk page, and I do not intend to reply to any comments you place there. Thankyou. BCST2001 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for blocking that anon IP who wrote those horrible things in the Justin Berry article. Call me a prude, but I can't believe somebody could think of such awful things to write, or what kind of pleasure they would garner from it. Cheers, Jeffpw 13:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets

It was always my impression that to be accused of sockpuppetry, one had to edit simultaneously under more than one name, like DPeterson for example. There are now tags up at FNMF's and BCST2001's pages. Since FNMF hasn't edited since June, what's the problem? I don't see a request for check-user, or a listing on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I dug up some of the records of the case mentioned here in talk, the dispute between FM and FNMF, and see no finding of sock puppetry there either. What am I missing this time? Thanks. -Jmh123 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I was writing a response, but things kept happening in the meantime so I'll start over. I have looked into the history a bit. Don't think there's a clear right/wrong in the old dispute but I'm sure it's complicated. Obstinacy is annoying, no matter the "side" but I don't think it's a violation. I don't see the point in tagging an inactive account, but the neutral one is certainly nicer. Who was User:Odd nature before? Don't see any tags on the page or in the history. Thanks. -Jmh123 23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering though, if the tag on FNMF is appropriate, given that it hasn't be verified officially? -Jmh123 00:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Will Beback. An editor has insisted on re-placing the tag on my user page which states that I am suspected of abusively using more than one account. I understand if you are not inclined to do me any favours, but I have one to ask nevertheless. It seems from your most recent actions that you may have decided I am neither an abusive editor nor a sockpuppeteer, even if you believe I have changed my account. If that is the conclusion you have reached, it would assist me if you would notify the editor who is re-placing the tag that you have reached this conclusion. Of course, I may be wrong and you may still think I am abusive. Or you may just be happy to do nothing, on the grounds this is my own problem. But if I am right in thinking that you no longer believe I am an abusive sockpuppeteer, it would make my life a lot easier if you indicated this to the user in question. I personally believe it is time to move on from this issue, and I think you do too. I'll leave it in your hands. Thanks. BCST2001 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Potentially Libellous material

Will,

THanks for drawing my attention to the uncited and potentially libellous material I posted to the article on [Dan Savage]. I've found a citation in a magazine with sufficient specifivity(sp) to start the discussion; without a doubt the actual court papers are the best citation we can get, and I look forward to your help in finding them. Email me at g...@d...com if you have any resources to help find them, or have anything else to say. Thanks!

- 66.92.73.52 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark Levin

I've replied on the Talk page re: your question. I don't believe the other editor is acting in good faith, and is engaged edit warring. --Eleemosynary 01:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Advertising of cities

Will, I seem to see you around in the city articles. A couple users have spent a great deal of time editting the Tourism in metropolitan Detroit article, and it's everything wikipedia shouldn't have. There's a directory (with addresses) of restaurants, hotels,... wikitravel material and peacock words abound. But I'm hesitant to intervene any further as I've had interaction with editors before without much success. Is there some sort of review I can nominate the article for? Thanks.--Loodog 01:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

help please

If you're still online, some doofus changed the title of Britney Spears's fifth studio album to Piece of Me without showing a reliable source for the information. It may be correct, but People Magazine is only reporting it as a possible title. I don't know how to revert this change, so am asking for your help. Thanks. Jeffpw 06:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Manzanar FAC

Hi Will. I don't know if you participate in judging featured article candidates, but I thought I'd let you know that Manzanar is now up for FA consideration. If you are so inclined, I'd appreciate it if you could put in your two cents (support or oppose) on the Manzanar FAC. It was nominated about a month ago, and things are going slowly. As of now, it looks like it's going to fail due to lack of interest, which is really quite sad. Hope you can help! -- Gmatsuda 07:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Will...thanks for your contributions to Manzanar, especially when we were "embroiled" in that debate over terminology. You really put us back on track and look what happened...it's now an FA. Thanks again! -- Gmatsuda 22:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Justin Berry vandalism

Much as I am opposed to Phil Sandifer's redaction of the article on BLP grounds, I think that the recent vandalistic edits might legitimately qualify for deletion from the article history under BLP. From my read, it looks like every edit after this one is either vandalism with BLP implications or a reversion of that vandalism. What do you think? --Ssbohio 20:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anchor baby -- outcome of RfC

You asked: How would [I] summarize the input gained from the RfC?

I would say that we initially came very close to an agreement that would allow us to say that "anchor baby" is generally pejorative, but sometimes used non-pejoratively. That agreement broke down when Brimba showed up (after a wikibreak) and refused to respect the compromise, reverting it on the grounds that he didn't accept the validity of the sources quoted in support of neutral usage (and that a consensus that disregards Wikipedia core principles such as WP:V and WP:NOR is by definition invalid and meaningless).

Since that time, we've been bogged down in a dispute over whether acceptable sources exist to support the claim that some people are using "anchor baby" as a convenient shorthand expression, without malicious intent. Some people insist certain sources do adequately show this and must be included in the interests of WP:NPOV; other people say those same sources are not acceptable because a lack of pejorative intent in these sources is not explicitly stated and can only be guessed at (by a process of editor interpretation which would violate WP:NOR).

The key point at issue here seems to be the standard we should use in evaluating sources which appear to use "anchor baby" innocently, but which do not explicitly, literally claim that the expression is not being used in a derogatory sense. Can editors use their own judgment or "common sense" when evaluating the POV of such sources? Or are we forced to confine ourselves to the literal content of the source alone and not draw any conclusions whatsoever? I don't see that we're any closer to resolving this issue now than we were right after Brimba vetoed our first compromise three weeks ago; both sides seem to have dug their heels in, refusing to see any merit in the other viewpoint.

The flame wars over the "parable", the 3RR allegation, etc., while not directly relevant to the core issue, are in my view indicative of how polarized we've become and how badly we need binding outside intervention. While we haven't yet tried any process other than the RfC, I fear that no sort of voluntary mediation or offering of an outside expert opinion is likely to be respected by everyone and break our impasse. If you think there is a viable way to get some sort of outside help into play here that has a reasonable chance of success, I'm certainly willing to give it a chance to succeed, but I've got to tell you that I'm really skeptical right now. Richwales 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Western Canada For Us

ARGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just needed to vent.

Thanks for your help and your input. It's very much appreciated. AnnieHall 03:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Auno3 sockpuppetry case (again)

Please give your opinion - Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Auno3 (2nd). JScott06 16:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

William, this is another sad day for Wikipedia. For political reasons- because you disagree with me on certain topics- you have initiated another round of attacks, attempting to eliminate what mainstream America and mainstream publications have written. You may disagree with my views, but most Americans agree. For example, only one in five Americans are willing to marry across the color line. And that's for all Americans. The number of blacks willing to marry a white is some five times the percentage of whites willing settle with a black. Most Americans believe in what I have espoused, and accordingly, those who use this site tend to leave shortly due to its liberalist views on numerous topics. I, however, have chosen to chip in on their, my, and this country's behalf so that our children will learn the truth. May God Bless All.Gold Nitrate 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

William, is it "the community" who has been disrupted? Every editor (and others such as User:KillerPlasmodium, User:P.W.Lutherson) who supports my view is a sockpuppet, and everyone who supports your beliefs is "the community". You've accused me just because of political disagreements. In reality, those who support my version of neutral-POV is roughly the same in number as those who support yours. In the United States as a whole, what I have written is the mainstream and what you're contributed to those articles in question is the fringe.Gold Nitrate 12:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you

Hi and thanks. I tried to make some citations last week and couldn't figure out how to get the page numbers to appear. Where can I look up the coding? Kroyw Kroyw 00:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Jordan Discussion

Thanks for putting up those sources. It's good to have such references. I responded to them on the discussion page there. Check it out if you get a chance. Mvblair 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The John Wayne hating sockpuppet is back

User:HaroldFranklin is the newest of oh so many IDs. See the John Wayne talk page for the last drivel. Monkeyzpop 23:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pulling out

Will, if you have the patience to stay in, I commend you. When I interact with an editor spending more time tracking down arguing editor's remarks than arguing, deleting every post on his talk page imploring for a reasonable solution and good faith assumption, I stop fanning flames.--Loodog 02:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

THF-DSB ArbCom

Will, in your latest edit on the proposed decision talk page, you wrote "Could UserX, as opposed to the same editor using his real name, perform edits to benefit his co-workers and employer? Of course not." Am I reading this incorrectly, or did you mean "Of course he could."? If UserX (the hypothetical editor formerly known as THF) was to edit the AEI page so as to gild their lily, wouldn't that be a COI even if UserX's employment wasn't known? My contention is that the COI exists regardless of whether it's a COI known to other users or not. Please feel free to set me straight if I've misinterpreted. Cheers! Ossified 13:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:DennisKing,ChipBerlet.jpg

The image was scanned by my boyfriend, so I suppose for all intents and purposes you could say I scanned it myself. --MaplePorter 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have used an incorrect template on the image page: "It is disputed whether or not this image violates our non-free content criteria." It appears to me that you are asserting that it does violate non-free content criteria. --MaplePorter 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The person who scanned the image has never edited Wikipedia. --MaplePorter 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I said it came from a pamphlet, not EIR. --MaplePorter 21:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think there is evidence that the photo was not scanned, I will contact my boyfriend and ask him. Just out of curiousity, why all the agitation about this particular image? I followed the same procedure that was used on Image:Winterberg and LaRouche in 1985.jpg‎, and no one had a conniption over that one. --MaplePorter 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Silver spammer returns

David Silver is back as User:Simpson007 and as User:72.204.222.79. I added the same template to the User page for both as was on the User:Harvardlaw page. --EarthPerson 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

edit-war

The subject of the SEC article has never been brought up in the discussion for Primerica Financial Services. Someone added it to the article and you seem fit to keep it there, what are your reasons? My reasons against it are that the ruling is almost 10 years old and doesn't add anything to the article. Its adding criticism for the sake of adding criticism. It doesn't fit with the other criticism (recruiting practices) the article states. How is it useful? Should we add every SEC ruling to every other securities traded company listed in Wikipedia? Will Beback what is your deal with editing the Primerica article. You appear to have a personal bias against Primerica, you seem determined to make sure there is some type of criticism apparent within the article. When was the last time you actually tried to add something positive? If you're trying to appear neutral, you're not. If you contributed positively and negatively to the article, then maybe you wouldn't appear as bias. Maybe you should let another administrator edit/monitor the article for awhile.68.208.8.29 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

MakingLight still an attack site??

Will, I _think_ the controversial thread has been restored:

If you search for "posted 05.09.07 on entry Grep", it claims to list your real name.? Is this thread the objectionable material that you thought was deleted? Do you think we should consider MakingLight an attack site again? (please feel free to delete that link once you've read this message) --Alecmconroy 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You question my objectivity and then ask me to make a pronouncement? Are you looking for a non-objective judgment? Maybe the simplest thing would be for you to ask Making Light to remove their outing link, and then report back to us what their response is. That way you can be sure that the determination is correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me rephrase-- if I they are asked to remove it and they refuse to remove the material that is currently up there, and the arbitration closes-- would you feel justified removing the links to MakingLights? --Alecmconroy 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to see what the ArbCom decides. I will follow their decision. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Suppose that Fred's proposal is passed. I assume you and I both would agree that MakingLight meets Fred's definition, and if it's passed, Making Light, as it currently stands, will be purged under that rule?

And I actually will email the webmaster if you'd like. Is there anything else I should say you want taken down, aside from that one link I sent you earlier? --Alecmconroy 22:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

May I ask, are you a contributor to Making Light, or any of the other sites we're discussing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will_Beback (talk • contribs)

Actually, I'm not. Nor ED, or WR, or Don Murphy or any of the others we've talked about. lol just your friendly neightborhood ideologue. --Alecmconroy 22:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Help Please

I have created the article Esanda Finance Corpration Inc but every time I search for it it's Redlinked as though it does'nt exist,but it is in the Index.It is linked to Heather Mc Taggart and Esanda Finance Corporation v Peat Marwick Hungerfords.It has Internal Links to ANZ Bank and the words - subsidary,finance,investment,debentures,insurance and an External Link to www.esanda.com.What have I done wrong? Kathleen.wright5 09:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC). P.S Why have these links shown up as Redlinks when I know they exist?.

Asking you to stop violating WP:Point

"Wikipedia is based upon collaborative, good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a wilful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point."

Our agreement and work with WAS 4.0 established community consensus on the American School article (although it is open to all editors to contribute new material or offer objections as is the spirit of Wikipedia - but you stamped your approval on the agreed compromise). You have continuously failed to get the point even when other edtiors have been involved. I'm politely asking you for the last time; do not disrupt this community any further with bad faithed deletions violating the spirit of 'communal editing' and causing needless and endless edit warring when proper discussion and community consensus could have worked out your problems with articles. This has to stop. --Northmeister 14:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits

I didn't even know I was there. How did you find the number? Everyking 06:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets & Peoples Temple

Please take a look at what is it happening there with categorisation as a cult (and otherwise), and please intervene. -- Lonewolf BC 15:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the AfD rationale given

You may not be aware of this: User_talk:John254#Interesting_close_rationale_on_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FTourism_in_metropolitan_Detroit ... I think keep was the right outcome but I do not think the rationale given is a good one. I think it sets a bad precedent. I'm not sure what if anything else ought to be done but I did want you to be aware. ++Lar: t/c 09:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tancredo

Thanks for the questions; I have to scramble to prepare this interview, one of about 6 this week. If you have any questions for Duncan Hunter or Christopher Dodd, I'd like to have them. Still waiting for the heavy-hitters. --David Shankbone 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferengi

Let me guess, it's our good friend, right? How many years has this been going on? —Viriditas | Talk 22:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Gone With the Wind

Could your offer your opinion in a dispute? It's about the Tara set for the movie Gone with the Wind, built at the old Selznick International Studios, which later changed hands to RKO, Desilu, and then Paramount. I provided some excellent citations that the set was sold, dismantled, and carted to Georgia in 1959, where it was to intended to be part of a theme park. An anonymous editor keeps changing that and insisting that the set was built at M-G-M, and that it was demolished in the early 1980s. I'd appreciate if you'd review the evidence I supply, versus the evidence the anonymous editor supplies (none), and leave a note on the discussion page. — Walloon 00:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Will, thanks for your input. The Los Angeles Times also covered the deconstruction of the Tara set at Desilu. See May 17, 1959, p. G10. — Walloon 03:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of HarveyCarter

This individual has reappeared, again. If you will look at his contributions, they are either similar to the ones that have been done in the past by his sockpuppets, and in some cases nearly identical. The username has been tagged as a sockpuppet. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Duh!! The username is HaroldCartwright. Thanks! Wildhartlivie 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

SockPuppet HarveyCarter, HaroldFranklin, HaroldCartwright, got a sex change and is now User:SueBrewer - WikiDon 17:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)