User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


DoctorWog sock[edit]

Shran (talk · contribs) has returned as DoctorWog (talk · contribs). Same old, same old. --Viriditas | Talk 00:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Curtis Hopkins[edit]

Hi, nice to meet you. I should get back to work on Hopkins. Thanks for the push. --Tregonsee 05:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've started it. Stubish, but only a beginning. Did much research awhile back, now will start adding this in - bit by bit. --Tregonsee 13:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've got a lot more to add (I got a copy of the Gail M. Harley biography and did other research), but will have to do it one paragraph at time, maybe two, but I'll keep at it. If you have info about her, please contribute yourself. --Tregonsee 23:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking[edit]

Please read the policy on blocking AOL addresses. I'm getting fed up with having to unblock myself because admins have ignore the guidance on dynamic ISPs. jimfbleak 06:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA for Johntex[edit]

Hello Will, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. I'm looking forward to using the new tools in the fight against vandalism. I am sure I will see you soon. Best, Johntex\talk 00:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments[edit]

  • revd the commentary of the leftwing nutjob. [1]

Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In serious cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be banned from editing. Comment on content, not on the contributor. For further help, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thank you. -Willmcw 00:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess your Arbitration Decision failed to convince you. You will be now reported for personal attacks. Eleemosynary 03:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made that comment on purpose. I made the comment to point out the one-sidedness of the policy. In the same article just two edits before you, Eleemosynary, called an editor a "rightwing nutjob." So what we have here is an example of the system where the people that constantly engages in personal attacks, Eleemosynary, and he/she is the first person to file Arbitration complaints against others. Thank you, Eleemosynary, for making my point for me. --- --Keetoowah 12:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Willmcw: How come you did not warn Eleemosynary when he made this comment that I found on the Talk page for Kathy Lopez --- :I re-added the C-Span photo. Why exactly, don't the wingnuts want anyone to see what Lopez looks like? Are they ashamed?  :)--Eleemosynary 06:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have a good day Willmcw and Eleemosynary, your silly one-sidedness has been exposed. --- --Keetoowah 12:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Eleemosynary's comment:
  • deleted POV wingnut spin.
addressed the edit, while your comment addressed the editor. That's an important distinction. Attack the edits, if you wish, but please don't attack the editors. -Willmcw 19:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Willmcw: As you yourself pointed out on Eleemosynary's Talk page, Eleemosynary IS personally attacking editors when he states, "Why exactly, don't the wingnuts want anyone to see what Lopez. . ." If you are going to file Arbitration complaints, etc. why don't you criticize the Eleemosynary's of Wikipedia? Sorry, to expose your one-sided handling of this issue. --- --Keetoowah 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One-sided? When a similar personal comment by Eleemosynary was found I went to his talk page and asked him to avoid making remarks of that kind. -Willmcw 22:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you did, I agree. But you did it only after I critized, fairly I might add, for your one-sided complaints. -- --Keetoowah 14:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My name on this system is Willmcw, as I've told you before. -Willmcw 19:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editor-in-Chief[edit]

How can I be the Editor-in-Chief when I haven't even signed up as a participant in either the Southern California WikiProject or the California WikiProject? Besides, you seem to be the chief vandal and nonsense whacker for all things Southern Californian. ;-) BlankVerse 00:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of that oversight. My contributions recently have been more janitorial, you're the one with the vision. -Willmcw 00:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am going to undo your addition. It wasn't an oversight, but a deliberate decision on my part.
When I was preparing to create the two WikiProjects I looked at many of the existing WikiProjects and Regional notice boards trying to identify the things that worked and the things that didn't work. One thing that I noticed in passing was that I kept seeing some of the same names signed up as participants. Sometimes th actually did do something with that WikiProject for a little while, but many times the only thing they ever did was add their name as a participant. The extreme example is the Stub-sorting WikiProject, where they had so many people that signed up that they had to create a separate page, yet it's mostly the same 3-4 people that do almost all of the work and a rotating cast of about a half-dozen that do stuff for a month or two before disappearing. Since I am much more of a doer than a joiner, I'd rather not be listed as a participant. If someone is really interested they will notice my participation on the talk page and in the history of the projects page and subpages.
Besides, my goal is to get both WikiProjects to the point where they are self-sustaining without any need for my input. The certainly are not there yet, so it's probably about time for another recruitment drive. BlankVerse 06:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can understand your reasoning. I'm more active in some projects I haven't signed up for than others that I have. Even so, you are the originator and most active organizer so your choice not to be named is unusual. In any case, all that really matters is the end product. I think that we can point with pride to the articles on Southern California. We have articles on every city and region, fine histories for many of them. Someone has even been working up the L.A. old city politicians recently. And so on. Anyway, I was just showing my appreciation for your efforts. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion at least gave me something new to add to my rant subpage, which I've neglected as of late. The next step for the WP:WPSC is that I'd like to get a couple of cities and a couple of landmarks elevated to Featured article status, so I've been looking for some articles that might already be close to that status.
After tagging a number of more articles with Category:Streets in Los Angeles, California, I've been thinking that it probably should be renamed to Streets of Greater Los Angeles or Streets of Southern California. BlankVerse 10:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about your suggestion about the category. Regarding Featured Articles, I was just looking at St. Francis Dam and thinking that it is a nice little article, and was going to post a note about polishing and acknowledging it. -Willmcw
It looks like the article just needs some polishing and some more citations to make it clear where some of the information came from (the WP:FA regulars are sticklers for citations). Have you thought about posting it for comments at Wikipedia:Peer review? BlankVerse 10:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Finkelstein[edit]

Will, if you have a chance would you mind taking a look at Norman Finkelstein. An anon massively POVd it the other day, and now User:Xed is reverting to that POV , justifying his reversions with rather ridiculous statements on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking after my talk page[edit]

I've reported User:Cooldude1234 on Vandalism in progress. Mike Dillon 01:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. First they try to push their advertisements into our encyclopedia, now they object to any mention of their name. I guess they didn't like us joking about (or revealing) their TOS. And then some guy named "David K." comes around and claims that their service is "free". If it weren't such an obscure website I'd say we should write an article... -Willmcw 01:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy Classes[edit]

Can you place P.E.T.A. in this catagory? They're a animal rights group that uses controversial means to make their point.Martial Law 08:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

I see that P.E.T.A. is categorized under category:Animal liberation movement, which is categorized under category:Activism. That seems logical. -Willmcw 15:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BUT....[edit]

I didn't actually accept the RfA. In fact, I declined it.

I've had many differences with Rex, who nominated me, but I believe he was making a good-faith nomination, so I didn't just say "No". Instead, I thought I owed him an explanation. My discursive response omitted such straighforward words as "Decline" and "No". Your having missed my point is understandable!

Regardless, thanks for your support and your kind words. JamesMLane 11:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I should never edit Wikipedia with dirty contact lenses. It was too good to be true. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Living in Southern California, when would you not have dirty contact lenses? JamesMLane 12:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After the summer hazes, after the fall fires, after the winter storms, then's the time to see clearly. But -- before the spring mists, before the glorious miasmas of June, before the July crap. It's really only about a three-week window of clear vision. The rest of the time we can barely see as far as Wikipedia or our computer screens. (I'm not kidding - the fog was so thick on Palos Verdes last week that I couldn't've hit the hand in front of my face.) (Hey, speaking of fog, did you know that, supposedly, in a fog, in 19forty-something, a bomber hit the...Yikes!)(hmm, never mind) Janitor, doorman, concierge, whetever your role here you're helping the project. Thanks. Cheers, Willmcw 15:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've been studying under Tom DeLay. While the rest of you are mopping the floors, I'll be going after the termites. As for air quality, yes, I do live in a nonattainment area. Some of our local crackpot leaflover environmentalists held a press conference about that at an EPA monitoring station near Bloomingdale's. JamesMLane 17:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Will, discussion going on here that might interest you, regarding setting up a WP page or project where editors can make a note of good or dodgy sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oxnard, California[edit]

If you don't mind, could you take a look at the Oxnard, California article? Unfortunately, after being described as an "edit warrior" after a single removal of a paragraph (although I was the second person to remove it), I then proceeded to describe some of the additions to the article in rather unflattering terms, which (of course) only made matters worse. If possible, I'd appreciate a reality check on my opinion of the paragraph that was removed and then reinserted, as well on as the other two sentences that I point out on the talk page. BlankVerse 08:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at the page and catching those copyright violations. BlankVerse 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

User:SlimVirgin/AGF. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnosis[edit]

Will, I don't know what else to do. Sam Spade has taken over the Hypnosis article and made it a complete mockery of Wikipedia standards. Before I got sick, he was fighting to include unsourced claims that hypnosis can be impossible to resist in cases of brainwashing and mind control, and fighting to exclude mention of the POV that hypnosis as a separate state does not exist. Now I check in to see what he's done in my absence and he's got the article claiming that hypnosis has been used to increase breast size.

I tried to call attention to the fact that this major article was being turned into a crackpot's crack dream by an RFC but the attention it got was sporadic. A few people showed up to try and resolve the dispute but they actually believed Sam's BS that this was a personal dispute and that I was opposing him because I had too personal an attachment to the article -- not because he was trying to rip out balanced writing and substitute his pseudo-science BS. Where on Wikipedia do I find people who care that an article on a very major subject has been successfully taken over and turned into a complete mockery of NPOV? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm getting a reputation for working on crackpot topics. Certainly a therapy that can make you quit smoking, cluck like a chicken, become a zombie, or betray your country is interesting, especially if it can be learned from a $15 booklet. And then there's the breast enhancement too. I'll take a look as soon as I can. -Willmcw 08:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category vote/comment request[edit]

Hi, I notice your disagreement with User:Vulturell on the applying of xxx American labels to people who don't necessarily identify as that, even if they have a forebear of that ethnicity. I am planning on cfring all these categories to Americans with xxx ancestry which in my opinion would be much much more WP:NPOV than the xxx American label. I would also appreciate your comment or vote on a current cfm Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_American_actors. The major problem in my opinion with combining ethnicity and nationality with other subjects in one category is that someone of multiple ethnicities could end up being placed in a vast permutation of categories, i.e. Jewish American actors, French American actors, Jewish American Stanford Alumni, French American Stanford Alumni etc. Arniep 00:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support on my RfA, it finally passed after a lot of debate. I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence[edit]

Now that we're happy, joy-joy about the Category:Wikipedian autobiography, maybe I'll recommend a page of concern to you. Looking through your user page and talk page, it seems like it would be of interest.

Basically, as I perceive things, over at Race and intelligence, several editors are pushing the article towards a pro-Jensen type slant; basically amounting to stating a lot of hereditarian conclusions as scientific consensus, where the matter is much less agreed in reality. I don't think these editors are extreme eugenics types (no MacDonald's among them), though I also doubt I'd particularly enjoy going to coffee with them. And the edits all have a veneer of scientism to them... their real error is that they read only the hereditarian scientific articles, then conclude that since everything they've read supports that conclusion, it is "scientific consensus".

On the other side, there are a few editors who oppose the hereditarian/racialist agenda (rightly so), but go way overboard with sticking in rants rather than encyclopedic sections. While the anti-bio-reductionist ranters probably write something not so different from what I might say to my friends at cocktail parties (not that I actually go to "cocktail parties"), it's not what belongs on WP.

So big surprise, the article is a bit of a briar patch. In fact, I've unwatched it from yesterday because it was making my blood pressure rise too much. But I'll probably take another look sooner than I should. I don't have any one particular edit that I want your intervention in. But should you decide to take a look, I'm sure your influence will be salutary. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I've looked in on Race and intelligence many times, but rarely get involved. The issues are so arcane that I find it hard to keep up with the discussion. I'll stop by and see if there's anything I can do. -Willmcw 21:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you feel like looking at something specific, I've recently tried to get a straw-man argument/caricature out of the section headings. Any supportive intervention would be great (not with your admin hat, just as an editor). See the talk page and edit history for details. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Drudge[edit]

Would you mind stopping by the Matt Drudge page regarding an edit war with Sockpuppet "Giles22"? It seems that some perfectly sourced (though rather salacious) info about Drudge is being blanked at will. Thanks. --Eleemosynary 20:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War at "Abercrombie & Fitch"[edit]

Hi there, I was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at the Abercrombie & Fitch Co. article and offering your perspective on a potential edit war. I'm not going to revert any of the changes that AustinKnight made until I get an unbiased opinion. I've posted my perspective in the "Talk" section in case you're wondering about the nature of my concerns. Thanks, I'll look forward to hearing back from you! (Socalmikey84 20:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Conflicts of Interest[edit]

Will, could your go over your last note again? I find it nothing short of extraordinary that a very factual -- and respectful -- statement, one pointing out a very glaring conflict of interest, is somehow un-Wikipedian...particularly when backed up by edits that all but proclaim this. If a blatant "conflict of interest" is not of interest to Wikipedia, then I would humbly offer there is something quite not right in Wiki-land. --AustinKnight 00:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, comflicts of interest are not of great interest on Wikipedia. I wouldn't even call this a glaring instance. (A college student writing on businesses in his major). We do have a gruideline that discourages autobiography (now that is a glaring conflict of interest), but I'm not aware of any policy or guideline on conflict of interest. We do have a strict policy forbidding personal attacks. If you read that policy (please do), you'll see it includes:
  • Using someone's political affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said political affilitions are mainstream or extreme.
If there is an edit that you object to, state your objection. Blanket comments that an editor should not edit an article due to bias or other motivation are inappropriate. -Willmcw 01:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rockero420[edit]

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I tried to leave a message for you here earlier, but either it has been deleted or it was never saved due to some error. It seems we have some similar interests. It also seems you're pretty swamped with arbitration requests and the like, but I was wondering if you might look over my articles. I'd appreciate some feedback and would love to know if I've been making any glaring errors in formatting, style, or any other area. They are: Nican Mopohua, Luis Laso de la Vega, Chicano Park, Rodolfo Gonzales, Joan Little, and Huei tlamahuiçoltica. Anyone else reading this is also welcome to comment. Gracias, Rockero 03:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your suggestion regarding the merger of Barrio Logan, San Diego, California and Logan Heights, San Diego, California, it has been carried out. Please let me know if I have neglected any aspect of the merging process.--Rockero 06:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eagle Scouts[edit]

Could you do List of Eagle Scouts a favor and determine consensus on the mormon scout issue? Thanks. --DDerby-(talk) 07:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that confusing?[edit]

In my interpretation you are not liberal, in my statement you quoted from a few weeks ago it seemed like you were being portrayed as liberal for some reason back then. So you claim to be liberal? Weren't you one of the folks that supported Jayjg's censorship of info critical of Israel's assassination of a wheelchair bound cleric (and innocent bystandards) by rockets fired from an attack helicopter? Should I even bother to bring up the Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory mind games? zen master T 22:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought the two statements were amusing, seeing as how they purport such different political positions. I didn't mean to make fun of you and I can remove your name if it is embarrassing. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am not embarrassed at all, I just interpreted the situation where you were portrayed as liberal as being provably false. Feel free to quote my wikipedia posts anytime. zen master T 22:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Neighborhoods[edit]

Curious as to why you are deleting these references ? Intersofia 17:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted San Diego neighborhoods from the list of unincorporated places in the county. There is a full list of neighborhoods in the city article, San Diego, California. Maybe we should have the neighborhood list in both places, or at least a pointer from the county article. -Willmcw 18:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Origin of the conflict[edit]

Please see [2]. If this is the origin of Willmcw's monitoring of my edits, then this whole mess is one giant case of mistaken identity aggrevated by bad faith assumptions. Rangerdude 06:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Check .......[edit]

Can you have a look @ the article Contact Consequences ? Its a real notable article concearning what could happen IF alien life IS found, it find US. Its so notable that( @ the last counting) 12 Wikipedians want it gone, one is unsure, another wants to clean it up and keep it.Martial Law 19:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

...for the barnstar. I am touched by your thoughtfulness. Tom Radulovich 05:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers[edit]

Thanks for the compliment - but I'm not very active at all anymore. I might well be making some larger contributions, though; I might be able to add a lot to African politics, for example, and I might take a look at Anarchism again... that page is a nightmare though! --Sam Francis 23:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Austin[edit]

You may recall my mention of Leslie from our email exchange; I just discovered with no small measure of delight that we in fact have an article on her. Leslie Cochran. You may also like to read up on Keep Austin Weird! Enjoy · Katefan0(scribble) 18:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on[edit]

Yes, it might be inappropriate what i have written there at talk:prem rawat, but i find it also innapropriate for an admin to use 2 different identities and act as 2 different person in the same article series for a long time. I find it even worse that another admin is helping in covering this up. Wikipedia will surely take "advantage" of such behaviour. Thomas h 07:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain? What two accounts? -Willmcw 07:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As anonymous 64.81.88.140 and as jossifresco since the beginning of the Rawat articles, ask Andries Thomas h 08:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All of us forget to log in on occasion, or are inadvertently logged out. I see that the IP has edited only a few times in a the last months. Nor do those edits seem to purport to be a separate identity. Sock puppetry is a serious violation of Wikipedia norms, but this doesn't seem to be intentional. -Willmcw 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i know he didn't almost edit with that number for a long time. The article series with Rawat started in the midth of 2004, there he heavily used both identites as different persons and asked about it he denied to eb 64.81.88.140. He even faked once a source at the Guru article, and related later as Jossi to this edit it to back up a certain matter. Please ask user:andries about that. You must admit that the fill in after that entry at Talk:Prem Rawat as Jossi is deceptive and he has good reason to hide that. 08:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Thomas h 08:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel there is sufficient evidence to place a complaint about sock-puppetry then do so. That's no excuse for casual, derogatory personal comments. Article talk pages exist only to discuss the article, not other editors. If you wish to discuss an editor then use his talk page, one of the dispute resolution pages, or a complaint page. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hints, since you confirmed his identity, there is plenty of evidence. I apologize for letting my emotions go, but if i hadn't, this would have never come to surface. I will consult with Andries what to do. Thomas h 08:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "confirmed". You suggested it, and from what I can see, it appears that he is the same person. However I have no way of checkng the IP address. -Willmcw 08:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you can see? The logical conclusion out of the dialogue or something as an admin? i don't know what possibilities an admin at wikipedia has. Thomas h 08:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admins have no special powers to discern sock puppets. ArbCom members, and a few others, have a "checkuser" function that reveals the IP addresses of registered users. That power is used in cases before the ArbCom and a few others. The information is not kept for long- I believe it only tracks the last week's worth of edits. Also remember that an IP address may belong to a network and so be shared by some different people. In this instance, I checks some IP talk page contributions and didn't see any that asserted he wasn't the same editor. My advice is to figure that they are likely the same person, based on editing and other reasons, and move on. If in doubt you can always ask on the user talk pages (though you might not get an answer). Unless there's a current problem don't make it one. -Willmcw 09:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you call me Jossi? I am not Jossi. at [3]. The IP is a fixed IP located somewhere in or around Los Angeles Thomas h 09:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a direct assertion. If not a sock-puppet it may be a meat puppet. If the IP belongs to the network at the TPRF, for instance, there could be several people editing on it. In any case this happened back in February so it's not worth making a ruckus about now unless the behavior recurs. Let's focus on making the articles better. I realize that doing so can be difficult for certain articles. Thanks for being patient with your fellow editors. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This behaviour recursed right now. [4] , if this is not a denial and an attempt to cover it up, then i don't know. So far so good. Thomas h 09:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've convinced that there's smoke, if not fire. I've posted questions to both user talk pages asking if they know anything about it. -Willmcw 10:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yet i don't think this will be a sucessful query. If you'd know what happened on the talkpages, it would be more than embarrassing for jossi. It isn't that his integrity would be in question then but devastated. Thomas h 16:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The editor Jossifresco responded to my question by denying that he is the IP. However he did not deny knowing who the IP is. If you feel that the two accounts are in fact sock or meat puppets, and are being used to distort the consensus on articles, then you should make a formal complaint. If you don't make a formal complaint then you shouldn't make an issue of it. -Willmcw 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Like you have said, since it is quite a while ago that this couple of identities was used to take influence on articles and voted about concensus, nobody will care. Thomas h 08:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Tech[edit]

Thanks for catching that revert I made too hastily, and restoring the deletion. I agree it was unsourced non-NPoV material that should have been deleted. Hu 10:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory redux[edit]

"This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends..." See [5]. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heard about..............[edit]

Heard about this discussion. See Robertson Panel as to why other people suspect that this "professor" may be a govt. disinformation agent. The Robertson Panel was initiated by the govt. to ridicule people who has had UFO/Alien encounters. While I was "Out West" people had told me that IF the ridicule does NOT stop, and IF there's alien contact, they'll revolt, some, for religious reasons, some, to vindicate themselves and to seek vengeance against a govt. that is cooperating w/ hostile aliens who want people to shut the (expletive) (expletive) up and accept alien dominion. This is not vandalisation, only stating in a polite and truthful manner WHAT was told to me by other people. What they said, had I posted THAT here, may violate Wiki policies.Martial Law 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being abducted by aliens is NOT a religion. Those that think it is one usually end up destroying themselves, like what happened w/ The Heaven's Gate cult.

People are abducted, brutally medically examined, experimented on, raped, assaulted, then, if they're not chosen to be food,etc. ,they're returned to a social system that, at best, disrespects, ridicules them, incarcerates them in mental hospitals ,at worst, kill them for messing w/ The Devil, demons. How can this be a "religion" ? Should there be alien contact, it is commentary like that that can initiate a rebellion. Some consider NPR a source of disinformation. You ought to hear this about Bill Nye, The Science Guy. its "Bill Nye, The Govt. Party Line Guy", and worse.

Appreciate your vote. Got a wireless mouse, and it croaked. Had to go off site to fix it.Martial Law 08:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding aliens and religion. Consider this from the encyclopedia's point of view. If you assert that alien abduction is a scientific fact, then editors will expect scientific proof. If you assert that alien abduction is a matter of faith, then there is no easy way to challenge that. Wikipedia norms require that faiths be treated with a certain respect, while questionable scientific theories might be torn to shreds (within NPOV of course). Due to the strongly-held beliefs of many, and the relative lack of regular scientific support, this field is probably better treated within the encyclopedia as a matter of faith rather than science. My opinion is not intended to be disrespectful, just the opposite. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the Article Radio Reciever. Someone removed data concearning "self powered" radios, incl. the Grundig data and the Baygen radio. These radios are usually used in remote areas and/or used in the event of a emergency, like the recent hurricanes, tornadoes, and will be used in upcomming blizzards. The Grundig model is sold @ the local Radio Shack, and the Baygen is sold through the C Crane Co. Website is http//:www.ccradio.com.Martial Law 07:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henry King[edit]

I couldn't see the point of the ones without articles if the page is meant to distinguish between people of the same name who have articles about them, but if you prefer otherwise, I don't mind. I've started the long-threatened copy edit of Lyndon LaRouche, by the way; feel free to revert anything you don't like. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to have one-fact stubs stay in the disambiguations. If we can find more to say about the folks then they can get articles later. Just because they aren't worth getting an article doesn't mean they aren't worth getting a mention. Thank God folks are editing the LaRouche articles. The old codger is gonna kick the bucket some day, and I'd like us to have a nice, comprehensive yet readable obit ready for the occasion. -Willmcw 09:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV Pushing[edit]

  • On, Carl Baugh's entry, you claim that Louisiana Baptist University is a diploma mill. However, this is POV pushing and violates Wiki's NPOV.
  • Do you have any evidence for your claim?
  • A lot of evidence has been offered to the contrary. It includes:
    • Founded in 1973
    • On-campus university and graduate school
    • World leaders in the distance learning industry with nearly 400 courses
    • Their enrollment exceeds 1,100 students in 40 different states and 20 different countries.
    • An approved school of the Baptist Bible Fellowship
    • Notable alumni include:
  • LBU is one of five approved colleges and universities of the Baptist Bible Fellowship. The BBFI is a fellowship with over 4,000 churches in the United States and several foreign countries. Students who complete their degree in missions through LBU and meet other requirements can be approved as fellowship missionaries.
  • LBU is is listed in the Directory of Postsecondary Institutions published by the National Center for Educational Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. It is also a member school of the Association of Christian Schools International. ACSI is the largest association of Christian schools in the world.
  • The University holds full institutional approval from the Association of Christian Colleges and Theological Schools. ACCTS is designed to monitor religious colleges, universities and seminaries and holds no secular status with the U.S. Department of Education or any other agency. As primarily a religious institution, LBU has not sought either regional or national accreditation by a secular accrediting agency.
  • LBU's CEO currently holds membership with the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. CAEL is a non-profit organization devoted to expanding lifelong learning opportunities for adults and to advancing experiential learning and its assessment. CAEL works with its members and clients to support and develop educational institutions and professionals in adult learning and prior learning assessment.

Naming conventions for neighborhoods?[edit]

I noticed that you've been moving neighborhood articles to Neighborhood, City, State. I haven't been able to find any naming convention anywhere for neighborhoods, and was wondering where I might find it. I ask because the Chicago and Oakland articles, for example, already had/have a standard format; Neighborhood, City. Nogood 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown (Salt Lake City)[edit]

Why was this moved to Downtown Salt Lake City? This goes against the current naming convention for SLC neighborhoods. Also, there are now double redirects, and the majority of articles are focused to a redirect. If you do not respond, I shall be moving the article back. — {{User:JonMoore/sig}} 02:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Grazon (132.241.245.49)[edit]

An RFC has been opened on Grazon/132.241.245.49 for violation of NPOV and other issues; you can comment here. --DDerby-(talk) 08:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vonbluvens[edit]

Hi Willmcw,

All yours - you know what to do. ;)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 01:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet show[edit]

You've been very helpful dealing with sockpuppets in the past, so I'm asking for your help again. You may or may not be aware of long-time vandal Dvirgueza (talk · contribs) who has also posted as Pewyyy (talk · contribs) et al, both of whom are permanently blocked. Please see my comments on Talk:Lists of tropical cyclone names for further info. I hope something can be done. --Viriditas 10:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it on my watch list. Lists of tropical cyclone names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I can't believe it - just when topics seemed to be addressed in a straightforward manner along comes some tangential viewpoint. Not to worry - Wikipedia is equipped to handle this. NPOV. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I'm not sure that will help. The user has moved on to bigger and better things, such as 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, List of notable tropical cyclones, 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, 2011 Atlantic hurricane season, etc., ad nauseum. That's why I recommend checking out my comments on Talk:Lists of tropical cyclone names and monitoring the contribs. The accounts, both anon and registered, grow on a daily basis. The user has now expanded into the project and main namespace, by creating a vanity bio over at Wikipedia:Eddie Segoura and at Eddie Segoura. See also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EddieSegoura. --Viriditas 13:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

A friend in need.... Tom Haws 04:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and double block[edit]

Hi, I just applied a block on Reddi for his 3rr vio after looking over the evidence. Then when I went to post a note on the 3rr page I found you had been there and done that too. I should've reloaded that page before taking action. Now, I understand that the blocks run at the same time and as yours has precedence the ending time will be from your block and will not be extended the extra 15 - 20 minutes from mine. Is that correct? Thanks, Vsmith 00:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory[edit]

In my interpretation removing the {npov} template from an article when an in good faith dispute exists is a form of vandalism, so I am merely correcting vandalism. It is your right to choose not to debate the neutrality merits of "conspiracy theory" within presentation contexts but please stop pretending there isn't a dispute. zen master T 02:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle[edit]

I was wondering why you removed Photo gallery of Seattle. Not too ad-heavy, rather good pictures (on the whole better, I think, than those we have illustrating the article). I'd have left this one. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's good I'll restore it. It was added by a guy spamming links to a minimally informative "wild animals" website. Even so I shouldn't have assumed it was as bad as the other site. Thanks for checking. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References/external links name-change proposal[edit]

Will, there's a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#References_title_misread_as_non-web_External_links to change the References header to "Sources", and External links to "Further reading". So far, the proposal has been accepted by all the editors on the page, but because Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy page, I'm putting it out for further discussion before changing it.

The reason for the proposal is that using "References" and "External links" is confusing. Sources are supposed to be listed under References, and any further reading is listed under Further reading or External links. But many editors think that any external links, whether used as sources or not, should go under External links, so then they list any material that isn't online, like books, under References, even if not used as a source. To cut through all this confusion, the proposal is to change the headers to Sources and Further reading, which are self-explanatory, and don't make the online/offline distinction. Comments would be welcomed. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Black RfA[edit]

Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 08:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important AfD[edit]

Hi. If you have time please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the main protagonist for the keep side is threatening to reverse the long-established consensus against creating historical categorization schemes on Wikipedia based on editors' original research. If you are interested, arguments against generating such a list have been stated and restated over the course of several years at Talk:List of dictators. Thanks. 172 20:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:NPOV[edit]

Our interpretations differ as to whether WP:NPOV is justification for adding the {npov} header to the Conspiracy theory article. How would you propose resolving disputes over neutrality other than debating the issues? zen master T 01:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What specific part of the NPOV policy are you referring to? We have debated the issue, at length. I propose that, for this article, we rely on the consensus to decide what is NPOV. I don't understand how you propose that debating will solve the issue. It hasn't in all these months. -Willmcw 03:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True consensus means everyone, not merely a majority. If a single editor appears to be working towards compromise or consensus on the talk page (and has otherwise not acted in bad faith) then the {npov} template should remain in the article. Potential censorship of a factual or presentation neutrality dispute is exponentially more serious than any potential article quality damage by keeping the {npov} template inside it. And having {npov} inside the article will hopefully bringing new people into the debate which will hopefully help resolve it and improve the article otherwise. It might be even better if the {npov} template was replaced with a per article message that succinctly and neutrality summarized the disputed points (or at least gives some sort of overall synopsis if the dispute is large). In many situations the {controversial} template may suffice but that would depend on a case by case basis and may still require a succinct synopsis of the dispute specific to each particular article inside the header. zen master T 03:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I mean a new {controversial}-esque header that summarizes the details of why the article is controversial or disputed, not necessarily that the subject is. zen master T 03:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:consensus means the preponderance of involved editors. It is increasingly doubtful that this is a genuine dispute, but rather an extended effort at disruption. After long debates, which you have consistently "lost", you have refused to recognize the consensuses of other editors. Instead, you demand new debates, even though you are not presenting any new evidence or positions that I am aware of. Engaging in edit wars, grossly violating the 3RR, and making undiscussed page moves do not encourage other editors to continue to assume good faith on your part. You told me to re-read the NPOV policy, and I asked you specifically which part you think is relevant. No answer? As for tags, I don't care much one way or the other. -Willmcw 03:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is a bad word for that title/policy then because that isn't consensus. And if there is a chance there is a genuince dispute then there definitely is one and the {npov} template is added to that article, NPOV policy 101. You can say I've lost the debate just as easily as I can say your side has yet to come up with any compotent argument that successfully defends the phrase "conspiracy theory" from a charge of non neutral presentation. I often don't need to present new evidence because the old evidence, challenges and arguments remain to be refuted, the problem you have is the more you try to push your POV the more obvious the disinformation becomes, in my interpretation. Feel free to come up with a new argument that could somehow champion the neutrality of "conspiracy theory" within presentation contexts over on Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 06:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. I don't enjoy playing your game, and it looks like no one else does either. -Willmcw 06:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hardly call striving for neutral presentation a game, but your interpretation is your own. I also thought a random wikipedia user that cared about being neutral would take lack of presentation neutrality complaints against a phrase a little more seriously, but I guess I was wrong. zen master T 06:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken your concerns seriously enough to expend dozens of hours discussing the matter with you on at least a dozen pages. -Willmcw 06:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time, but have you really considered the possibility I am right/have a point? If there is even a challenge against the presentation neutrality of a phrase shouldn't we seek alternative neutral ways of saying the same thing before we even have to determine if the phrase is conclusively non neutral? Why do we have to use exactly "conspiracy theory", wouldn't "alternative" be more neutral in titles for numerous reasons? zen master T 06:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's one of your points that I responded to months ago that you keep bringing up. We call them "conspiracy theories" because they involve conspiracies. -Willmcw 07:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But they are also "alternative" theories too, right? They also might be political theories or left handed theories too, right? Isn't it a form of selective POV if you only point out that a theory involves a conspiracy (in the title)? Isn't the point of neutrality to not be too unbalanced toward one POV? Isn't it confusing that "conspiracy theory" is both a argument type and a discredit worthy narrative genre? Is it possible someone engineered that language definition confusion to trick people? Isn't presentation neutrality easier if we avoid confusing language? zen master T 07:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been down this road already. No thanks. -Willmcw 07:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One last question, if a phrase has even the appearance or possibility or someone has charged it with lack of neutral presentation wouldn't it be best to just find alternative phraseology? zen master T 07:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is your last question. In any case, we've already discussed this one too. Many terms in the english language are potentially non-neutral. Every color of the rainbow can be used as a negative epithet, for example. It is the actual usage, not the potentially offensive usage, that matters. If the article concerns conspiracy theories then that is an appropriate term to put in the title. It would be confusing and incorrect to use a less direct term. -Willmcw 07:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasoid, Caucasian race[edit]

Hello Will. Another user and I have been having an edit war with Jmac800. I don't know if you like to deal with the articles Caucasoid and Caucasian race, but this user has been reapetedly deleting information that Caucasoid or Caucasian can also refer to people from West Asia, North Africa, and the Indian Sub-Continent. The correct definition for Caucasoid or Caucasian in the dictionary is a person who has origins from Europe, West Asia (the Middle East), parts of North Africa, and the Indian Sub-Continent. Despite telling User:Jmac800 about the definition of Caucasoid/Caucasian in the dictionary, he still deletes that information. I and another user have even reported Jmac800 for vandalism, and it's possible that this person has also used sock puppets. It would greatly help if you take a look into these articles, and this user. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 07:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn's WMD...........[edit]

A tactical nuke can actually fit into a lunchbox, especially if it is a MIRV unit, and the Soviets also had them.Martial Law 09:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

That's right or at least something in the range of a breadbox or shipping carton. I think that a very small WMD, such as you describe, could conceivably fit in a backpack, though it'd be quite heavy I expect. It certainly demonstrated that on certain stretches of the border people may cross without being challenged. -Willmcw 09:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviets also had "suitcase nukes". all they had to do was to place it in a good location, set it, then leave, and if they got into the hands of terrorists, like Al Qaeda, they'll place it, then STAY with it, just like it was a nuclear version of the bombs used in the "homicide bombers".Martial Law 22:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A recent news article stated that 200 of these things dissappeared out of CIS custody.Martial Law 22:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the war that resulted from the 9-11 attacks, I will NOT tell you how a "dirty bomb" is constructed.Martial Law 22:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Article vandalisim[edit]

Found on the article American Patrol that a 69.170.103.157 and/or a 4.231.178.8 claims that Glenn Spencer, who favors the removal of criminal aliens is some kind of racist. I looked at the sources provided, nothing on American Patrol on the sources mentioned. I will examine the external sources. Stand by......09:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Assertions like that should be attributed to reliable sources. -Willmcw 10:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn IS mentioned in both given sources. He says that a legal alien has no problems. Its the criminal aliens that are the problem, and a example of his website has been removed as well.

It was this:

Pix of Osama bin laden
Media source (Newspaper,'net site'radio,TV source)
Illegals to get Drivers Licenses
Your Tax $$$$$s @ work

All he does is post material about what illegal aliens, their sympathisers are doing, and where that posting has come from. the example was in a solid square box. An example is that a illegal had killed a police officer in some town, the local media reports this, he posts the report, and its source.

This is why I suspected vandalisim. Am I correct ?Martial Law 10:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say that the assertion that Spencer is a racist needs attribution. That he supports deportation of criminal aliens is stated over and over on his website. But we can't call him a racist on our own account. If someone from a reliable source said so then we can report it. As for your sample of the website (which I reformatted for brevity here) it was not helpful. If you want to illustrate the article I suggest you take a screenshot of the main page and upload that. I believe there is a particular "Fair Use" exception for screenshots of websites for use in articles about the website. In fact, it would be quite helpful if you did that. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to do this, and, some may find some of the symbolics offensive, such as a bull on a toilet, crossed out with the symbol for "NO". This symbol is intended to mean No Bull(expletive). This is a example,not profanity/obscenity/vandalisim. Thus the reason I used a non-offensive example of what is on the American Patrol website, which was a discription of a drivers' license with Osama bin Laden's pix on it, the media source(es) used and commentary such as "Illegals to get Drivers Licenses, Your Taxes at work."

All Glenn does, is post news concearning crime committed by illegal aliens, and the news source itself, so that others, such as you and/or I can read the article itself. A recent Sean Hannity TV show had, the day after Thanksgiving, featured the problems on the border. Sean even held a "instant" interview with a illegal alien, who had been thrown out twice before on some kind of criminal charges. You might find this on Sean Hannity's Homepage, most likely located in the Archives relating to his FOX News TV show. He had even shown that the only border seperation between Mexico and the US was only a barb wire fence, the same kind used in farming applications, and it was damaged, even destroyed in places by illegal aliens.Martial Law 22:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He also has a radio show that airs on the AM radio band, just after Rush Limbaugh's show, @ 14:00 CST/CDT, Mon.-Fri.Martial Law 22:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More about his radio affiliates is on his website as well. Wikipedia should also have a article concearning Sean Hannity as well.Martial Law 22:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

Yes, Spencer's radio show should be mentioned in the American Patrol article. Also, you should learn to use the "Find" box. If you type in "Sean Hannity" it will take you to our biography of him. YOu can also type his name with brackets around it, then preview the page, and see if there's a blue link. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer is not the one w/ the radio show. Sean Hannity is. Just seen on FOX News that Prez. Bush has stated that he'll crack down on illegal immigration. Seen it 11-28-05. As usual, the people living on that border have no reason to believe him. Go to American Patrol itself to see why NO ONE on that border believes him.Martial Law 07:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you could go to Michael Savage's website as well.Martial Law 07:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racist site[edit]

Found this on Glenn's site and it is definately racist: It is http//:www.mexica-movement.org How do I or someone else report this to the ADL and/or to The Southern Poverty Law Center ? It tells White people to get out of the American Hemisphere and go back to Europe,or else.Martial Law 03:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that those groups have websites that include "contact" links with the information you want. "Definitely" does not have an "a" in it. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that info.Martial Law 07:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

Patience[edit]

Thanks for your message. Whatever you might think, your own patience is no less impressive.

I am coming more and more to share your feeling, but WP:AGF has never yet let me astray.

Keep up the great work. Canderson7 15:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision advocacy[edit]

Would you mind taking a look at the Circumcision advocacy page, and the debate on Talk: page? From my perspective the entire page consists of WP:NOR, but one editor there insists it is not, based on the definition of the word "advocate", and on the fact that it is "obvious" that various people are Circumcision advocates. Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have done a fine jobs of explaining the WP:NOR problem. I'll watch the page and see if there are any other ways to handle it. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and a reminder[edit]

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! Please discuss seemingly controversial changes on an article's talk page before taking the initiative and actually editing the article. It is also recommended that you do not censor useful external links without comment solely because you disagree with their content. Thanks! 24.224.153.40 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia link removal.[edit]

Concerning the removal of certain external links to the pedophilia article: though I do not advocate pedophila, I do not think such "censorship" is necessary. Please describe your reason for their removal, if not, then I will add them back to the page on the External Links section.--FDIS 06:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've already started a discussion Talk:Pedophilia#Links to forums. Your participation would be helpful, I'm sure. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Afrand6[edit]

On talk:Watts riots Afrand6 (talk · contribs) has expressed the following sentiments: you stupid jackass and you stupid prick. The user has also vandalized articles (see ProBoards and Malcolm X among others) while marking them minor edits. It don't mind getting involved, it looks like they may need some "discussion" about their behavior from an admin. BlankVerse 17:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've given him another warning. After reviewing his history I'd say that if the attacks or vandalism continue he'd qualify for an indefinite block as a purely disruptive user. I can't find any positive contributions and his insistence that "Afrand Nikoukar" is a well-known person seems disingenuous. Reading his contributions list reminds me that some topics seem to be vandalised frequently by immature editors. I think we can almost follow the Junior High School syllabuses as they work their way through American history. -Willmcw 21:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BlankVerse 23:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Go to my user page. Got two Admins. listed there, since you said you need a Admin.Martial Law 06:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Article[edit]

Can the Article: Mysteries-Megasite be examined for errors ?Martial Law 06:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu....[edit]

In lieu of a barnstar, I dedicate this article to you. I've been working on it for awhile. I hope you will accept it as a sort of reward for your patience, diligence, and even-tempered demeanor. - Outerlimits 07:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a true honor. Thank you so much. And I'm glad to see an article on the guy. Good work. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Will_Beback/Old_Archive9&oldid=1138984405"