User talk:Will Beback/archive1

φWelcome!

Hello Will Beback/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --bainer (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm[edit]

Am I missing something? Causality maybE? — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Will! I had great fun taking the pics, but it's even more fun finding uses for them on Wikipedia. Infratec 11:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberstalking[edit]

Can you state your reasons for removing content at Cyberstalking? It showed up as pozssible blanking vandalism on my RC patrol screen. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the text of a deleted article, gang stalking, that the author has tried to recreate repeatedly. -Will Beback 22:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But some of the material is salvageable... ~~Do you have a link to the AfD for that article?~~ ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it looks like original research. -Will Beback 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will be back as what?[edit]

Just curious - why did you change your username? Marcuse 02:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious editors. -Will Beback 06:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User formerkly known as Willmcw, and reason for name change[edit]

go here [1] and scroll toward the bottom for judgement of wiki admins against User:Willmcw who is now User:Will Beback. It seems clear this user is attempting to distance himself from these official rulings against him. notice each one was unanimous. It is important to follow closely now because it appears he is reverting at will another article under the same tactics,

Former username: user:Willmcw

admins Final Decision Message left on User:Willmcw's discussion page

W.W. Behrens, Jr. :: Future Thought Leadership as MentorshipART[edit]

Username change[edit]

A reminder that you need to redirect your previous userpage before the name change. Also, your old account needs to be blocked indef so no one can impersonate you and this page protected. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you find all of this? I asked around about how to do all of this and those steps weren't mentioned. -Will Beback 17:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Changing_username#Instructions. That is what I did when I changed my username just recently:

Recreated and blocked my previous account to prevent someone else creating the account and impersonating me.
Moved and redirected my userpage and talk page to my new name.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change my username. I'm stopping use of one and starting use of another. The old account still exists. Thanks though. -Will Beback 19:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you have now two accounts with admin privileges? That seems quite unusual... If you have decided to switch names for good, I would suggest that your request a deletion of the old account and still go through the username change. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the admin flag was transferred to this username. There were too many edits, over 20K, to go through a username change. -Will Beback 19:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had 10,000 edits but after asking nicely the devs managed to do the name change during off-peak time... Nevertheless, I would think that the name change instructions still apply to you, because the only reason you had to do it this way was the number of edits on the previous account. You may want to ask the bureaucrat that assisted you with the admin privilege switch for clarification. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'm not doing a name change, so I'm not following the name change instructions. I have followed the instructions that Angela gave me. Obviously this is not a step that I've taken lightly, but I needed to do something to cut down on the number of editors trying to harass me by posting (what they presume is) my personal information. I appreciate your understanding. -Will Beback 20:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I changed my username for the same reason, but was asked to redirect my old userpages to the new ones. As for my oppose vote to your nomination to the mediation committee, I hope you don't take it personally. I respect you as a capable editor, but I sincerely don't think you have the necessary aptitude for that role. Hope that my vote will not impair our ability to continue collaborating in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

Will why were my edits on the BAPS article reverted? I have justified my reasons for editing in the discussion page.

I've responded at Talk:BAPS. -Will Beback 06:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still love you[edit]

...oh my yes. We'll be absolutely IRRITATING! All year! It's going to be GREAT! I was up until 3:30am last night; I'm tired, hung over, and thoroughly satisfied. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsiged dis'es[edit]

If civility was important to you, you would have critized all parties to the debate, rather than just single me out. You might have also signed your comment. I can take criticism, but if calling comments "balderdash" is acceptable (you didn't criticize it), now I know the correct lingo to use, although balderdash and useless are somewhat similar. Carlossuarez46 22:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Part of the problems is that all these categories are inescapably arbitrary, and there is overlap of all kinds. Thank you for being reasonable. Haiduc 23:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Biff Rose # 2[edit]

Thanks for the reply. I'll reply on WP:MC soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hawkins' knighthood[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if you would mind taking the time to research Hawkins' knighthood claim and edit his entry with what you find? Perhaps add an entry for the source of his knighthood as well? I remember you wrote that the Prince he referenced does not exist. Many websites still say the "Danish crown" knighted him. I would research it, but I don't really have time to, and I respect that you already started down this path. Thanks for the consideration. --66.31.144.141 22:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can....[edit]

Can you remove the Clean-up tag on Fictional resistance movements and groups ? Martial Law 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

...harassing me.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton devonshire (talk • contribs)

Would you please just leave me alone! Morton devonshire 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my comment?[edit]

Discussion page of W. Patrick Lang. Was it something I said?--csloat 02:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I figured it probably wasn't intentional but I guess you never know :) -csloat 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Review article[edit]

That National Review article is highly biased and is not a good reference. I'm not saying I disagree with it, I really don't care. But opinion pieces are not proper references. I'm going to ask for a third opinion though. It might be ok if there is some trustworthy info. --DanielCD 03:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at talk:Curley v. NAMBLA. Cheers, -Will Beback 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I replied there. I think you are right. Cheers x 2. --DanielCD 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so this is you![edit]

n/t - Guettarda 14:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irritating[edit]

Yes, we will be absolutely irritating. We have been waiting on this opportunity for quite some time. My goodness what a great game. I would love to meet you again in Tempe if it will be a similar event. We each have to bring along new QB's though. I bet the Buckeys are licking their chops for their rematch with us in Sept. And of course if ou gets that Peterson guy to stay healthy... Anyways, thanks for the congratulations - you Trojans were a worthy foe! Johntex\^talk 04:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for message[edit]

Thanks Naserke 18:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virago[edit]

Just got your message. Wow! And thank you! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never vandalised Wikipedia[edit]

I have never read this article on 'Cattle' until today. I must say that I found your note to me somewhat offensive as I never vandalised wikipedia or even looked at the article you refer to. It may be that every AOL user comes up the same (as we sem to be classified as multiple users) but rest assured I have not done anything untoward. Ben

baps etc[edit]

I wish that I could say "sure, no problem!", but I don't think that it will be quite that easy. I think that the followers of these sects are more interested in a PR outlet than in contributing to a collaborative encyclopedia. There is probably an emailing-list out there somewhere encouraging followers to systematically revert to the dogmatic versions. I will see what I can do however. — goethean ॐ 18:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback abuses power[edit]

there is an RfC and a few other procedures going on about you in admin land, as you know. You're latest move has bee ndocumented as an abuse of power. one who yearns for meditation title perhpas should not so frequently ban those that they disagree with in edits of an article, should they? you go girl!!!216.175.117.65

Congratulations...[edit]

...you've been called a rouge admin.

I, Katefan0 award Will Beback the **Rouge Admin award** for his hard work inciting vandals.

My bad[edit]

On the Hilton thing.

I'll retire for the day.

grazon 21:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, again[edit]

Hi, Jonah Ayers has been back to vandalizing Biff Rose with IP: 216.244.3.79 and sock User:Peter hopetter. Maybe they can be added to your block list? Marcuse 04:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reconquista[edit]

Will, are you still an admin? Can you block User:216.178.51.241? He/she has vandalized (blanked portions of) Reconquista (Mexico)'s talkpage twice--or maybe just warn him/her? Thx.--Rockero420 00:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberstalking the Merkey Page -- Only Warning[edit]

Alter, edit, or vandalize the Merkey page, and you will be added to www.merkeylaw.com as a cyberstalker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.137.28.189 (talk • contribs)

Gotta love this Jeff Merkey character... I have been editing his page since before Christmas and quite a few times and have not even gotten one single warning... and all you have to do is edit once... no fair LOL

Go check his webpage... it is worth the trip and quite hilarious. --Kebron 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just lucky, I guess. -Will Beback 00:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop the guy at Reconquista[edit]

I think I have run into him on many civil rights wikis. It seems his sole purpose is to vandalize those pages. Is there anyway to put a stop to these constant edit wars? Mosquito-001 01:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -Will Beback 01:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksMosquito-001 03:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Thanks for your kind words, much appreciated :) -- Ze miguel 09:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LBU editing[edit]

Admins are permitted to protect and then edit protected articles so long as they aren't involved in the dispute beforehand. Because I wasn't involved in the article (with the exception of one revert during RC patrol) prior to the protection I believe I can. Also its the only way I see moving the article forward. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiat POV?[edit]

How is the term "fiat currency" POV?
Def: "money issued by government fiat" that is not POV, it is a matter of fact.

Search 4 Lancer 23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It implies illegitimacy. "Legal tender" is the conventioonal term. -Will Beback 23:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snowshoes[edit]

Thanks. I meant to add only the image and some supporting text but as I lingered over the article, I noticed that there were a lot more improvements that can, and still could, be made.

You know, it could be a featured article despite its relative brevity if we get a little more in it and adequately reference it (and go through peer review, of course). Daniel Case 03:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kilgarvan[edit]

Thanks for the clean-up on this article, nice work. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.129.165 (talk • contribs)

No problem. Thanks for getting the article started. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiloh Shepherd Dog[edit]

Feel free to hop in at any time; the article and talk discussion could do with some fresh perspective after all this time :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CantStandYa[edit]

I suppose I won't be surprised if it turns out 24.0.91.81 was Shran. Ah well, I guess it's better to err on the side of caution. —Viriditas | Talk 04:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely why I asked the user to leave you a message, but I don't think he did. In any case, if you think the tag should be replaced, add it back. --—Viriditas | Talk 05:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category sort[edit]

Oops - thanks for the reminder. I did forget about that. Johntex\^talk 23:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sub pages[edit]

Sorry about that. It's a format that I'm using on wikicities, and I was working on the wrong site. Go ahead and delete them.

As far as tracking the members of all the various boards, these are some of the most powerful people on the planet, in many cases with more influence than our elected officials. So many conspiracy theory websites try to tie the individuals together, I thought it would be worth it to bring a Neutral point of view to the subject, and bring it under the scrutiny of the Wikipedia Community. Chadlupkes 00:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I get it[edit]

You're a retaliatory editor. You don't like my edits on one of your pet pages, so you go and revert all of my recent changes on multiple pages. Bad form willbeback. Morton devonshire 02:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure your edits are all good, then there won't be any questions. Thanks, -Will Beback 02:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unless they disagree with your political point of view, of course. Don't try to hide behind the label of good editing. Facetious. Morton devonshire 02:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD tag was improperly placed. The article, which is still being edited, was up for less than 2 minutes before it was marked. Not much of a process if you don't have a chance to even edit an article. I think you are harassing me, and if you continue, I will report you to an administrator, which seems to have happened to you numerous times. Morton devonshire 02:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no minimum time for AfDs. The article was up for seven minutes when it was AfD'd. Almost an hour has passed with no further dvelopements. Meanwhile you've violated the 3RR and acted like a vandal. -Will Beback 03:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've targeted several of my articles, and I'm the vandal? Morton devonshire 03:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately, I've cleaned up edits because they appeared to intentionally violate the NPOV, to introduce incorrect information, or to circumvent normal Wikipedia procedures. Please make sure that your edits never do those things. Thanks. -Will Beback 03:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic slurs[edit]

I never thought that a simple attempt to improve the quality of an article would create this sort of a mess. I don't understand why people are adamantly opposed to improving the accuracy of our articles. Guettarda 03:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Getting this list verifiably-sourced is important. It's one of the worst I know. -Will Beback 04:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Spam[edit]

You wrote me recently and asked if I would stop putting links up to my site. I assume you are referring to the links I embed in bibliographic citations. I am new to Wikipedia and don't wish to do anything wrong or that will offend anyone, but when I put links, they are to pages I have about those books mentioned, where there is often additional relevant reading material available, so I didn't think that I was doing anything incorrect. I am a 72 year old senior professor of history at Umass Boston and have published a variety of books, in both gay studies and ancient history. I was the co-editor of the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, which is still regarded as the most thorough text of its kind, so you can see that I am not some sort of cheap vandal. I simply feel that there are many articles on this cite which pertain to my work, and I feel fair in adding the appropriate works in the appropriate places. Like I said; though, I don't wish to do anything wrong, and I would like to be a healthy member of the Wikipedia community, as I firmly believe in the potential of this site. If you can point me to the regulations of the website of which I am unaware, I would be much obliged. -William percy 05:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC?[edit]

Could you drop by #wikipedia - I'd like to talk with you about your request. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Committee[edit]

Hi Will,

in the apparent absence of our chairman, allow me to welcome you to the Mediation Committee. Please make sure you have read and understood Wikipedia:Mediation, and you'll figure out the rest as you go along. If you could add your email address or link to {{Medcom}}, I'd be grateful, and you can also join the not-very-active mailing list.

Congratulations on your vote! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. And with the added incentive to prove me utterly wrong, I hope you become an excellent mediator. :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats esse. Is like, you deserve it, joo know? Is good, is very good. Shaggorama 10:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!! I wholeheartedly approve! At times, in my dispute, I have found you maddeningly patient, fair, and even-handed towards the "other" side as well as mine....which may sound a little backhanded, but is in fact significant evidence of your suitibility for the role of mediator. You are a force of positivity. Cheers and all my very best. ---Sojambi Pinola 07:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think...[edit]

...that while some of these articles describe fabulous people, they'd probably not survive a round at AfD, as their assertions of notability are noble but rather weak and, er, self-referential. And maybe slightly incorrect. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but there is an assertion of notability, primarily involvement with an environmental activist group. It's an extraordinarily weak assertion, IMO, but it is there. So, though it's imminently borderline, this article just meets my "not a speedy" standards, by a hair, and I would normally send it to AFD to judge its assertion of notability. I would say, though, that the assertion is weak enough and its creation smelly enough that if you tag it as speedy someone else might nuke it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr violations on Biff Rose by User:Sojombi Pinola[edit]

he admits it. If you don't block him, you will play into the hand of an already building arb com case against you, sandboxed, and created by another user until such time as you don't exercise equal and fair duties. you need to block this user as you'v eblocked me for the very same violation.Jonah Ayers 06:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Davenbelle[edit]

In general, I am not in favor of deleting userspace talk pages for the reasons you indicated, but in this case Davenbelle asked me by email to do so, and so I honored the request (I indicated this in the edit summary). If you or any other admin wishes to undelete that page, go ahead, but please leave a message there justifying your doing so. -- Viajero | Talk 14:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Drier[edit]

You made a post on the David Drier page regarding the 2006 elections and the possibility of him running for the senate. Could you please repost the information with a source or could you make a personal post on my user page regarding where you heard this and where I could look for further information on this. Thank you. Dapoloplayer

re: Pedophile activism[edit]

Hi, I'm messaging you because you're listed as having recently edited this article. What is going on with this article? I saw that the name changed again, its been protected, is tagged NPOV disputed, etc. Is it coming into shape, or what? Per some discussion starting with the article's AfD a couple weeks back, I created a project structure to address this article, here: User:Herostratus/Pedophilia I'm not now up to speed on article, so I'm asking current editors -- Do you think this would still be useful, or what? Thx Herostratus 14:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOS[edit]

You've probably already noticed, but I'm asking the editors who were squabbling over Save Our State to look at my proposed version User:Rockero420/Save Our State. Would you mind doing the same?--Rockero420 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bandini[edit]

I've always thought that Arcadia Bandini de Stearns Baker deserved an article . . . . -Will Beback 04:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Arcadia Bandini de Stearns Baker. Please fill it out, if you know more, as she's more of a LA-area figure than San Diego Dananderson 06:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concept of "Child Sex Offender"[edit]

Re: Edward Brongersma

This concept didn't exist in 1950. Also, at 16 years old, that's pushing the boundaries a bit. But this "label" is not going to stand in this case. We aren't going to go rewrite history with modern concepts. You can revert it, but I'm going to put it back and we'll call for mediation. I've let a lot of stuff go, but inventing material like this is starting to go too far. Please respond at the Cat:CCSO talk page or at my page so we can find a way to work together and not at cross ends. I think it is more a matter of definition than personal ideation. --DanielCD 15:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the discussion at Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders. Thanks. --DanielCD 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will bear with me and accept this message of my good will.

Sometimes when I try to sound assertive, it comes across as a little too agressive. Lately I've been concerned about quality in Wikipedia, and I'm trying to find a niche where I can focus my efforts on improving things such as definitions and citations. I am able to agree to disagree as well; so if we disagree on something, I don't in any way see that as a threat to our friendship (which I hope we can say exists). I gave up on the Ped. Advocacy article because it seemd like everyone is arguing "apples and oranges". People are using the same words, yet each meaning totally different things, and this is why people can't reach consesus.

In this regard, I'd like to refer you to the commendable efforts of Herostratus at User:Herostratus/Pedophilia. This is exactly the kind of "can do" "take the initiative" spirit we need right now (IMHO).

Anyway, peace and goodwill. --DanielCD 21:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that I am not able to back up my statements, I think my initial statement about calling for mediation was a little premature and uncalled for. I think a little progress is being made though. I have left some other small comments at the Cat. talk page. --DanielCD 14:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and re-add the cat at Edward Brongersma if you feel it needed. Me and the others will continue to work on the definitions at the category talk. Please join in if you care to.

And feel free to ask for clarification if something sounds odd in my comments. I'm kinda old fashioned, used to the face-to-face discussion, and sometimes get confused talking when I can't see a face in front of me. Cheers! --DanielCD 21:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoconservatism[edit]

Did you mean to delete the John Birch Society link when you were reverting that uncommented text deletion earlier? If so, why? If not, I'll be happy to add it back. Dick Clark 23:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was a mistake. I must have inadvertently edited an out-of-date version. You can add it back, or I'll do it. Thanks for noticing. -Will Beback 23:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Take This Case[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&action=purge#phpBB_entry_dispute

Talk:Hinduism/Temp[edit]

I guess it is being used as a sandbox. In that respect it does serve some purpose.

Pizzadeliveryboy 22:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Could you help me with a simple question? Just for my information, because I really don't know, when editing a controversial topic, is it allowed to insert comments by critics based upon editorials? Or does that constitute NPOV violation? You can answer here, but to get an idea of what I mean you can look for more info at Talk:Samuel_Alito#Opponents_of_the_unitary_executive_theory and at Talk:Samuel_Alito#Requests for comment.--Nomen Nescio 07:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Deunov page[edit]

Hello Will Beback, your support on this issue is really appreciated, I didn't expect such a quick response!

Hi, Will Beback. I was about to contact an administrator about this issue but noticed your note on Quartz's page. I didn't recognize your new avatar but remember your previous one well although I don't recall working with you directly. Thank you for your supporting comments on the talk page for Peter Deunov. I added cleanup tags to Peter Deunov and Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov and justified those tags on the respective talk pages. Great White Brotherhood and Paneurhythmy seem to be edited by the same anons as well, and have similar problems. I'm inclined to wait a bit on those rather than trying to do everything at once. I'd be grateful if you would take a look at what I've done and make any changes or comments that you deem appropriate. This isn't one of my areas of interest or expertise, but I'll work on it as I have time.
What do you think of asking Sam Spade to take a look? He is interested in religion and Christianity. The article would benefit from his involvement, I think, and it might provide him with a good outlet for his considerable energy. I'd welcome your thoughts. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Spade is interested and willing to help when he has time. I'll contact a couple of other editors as well. I'm adding the noncompliant tag to the four articles; if you have a better suggestion, I'd welcome it. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

Per your experience as a mediator, there is a couple having a squall at Henri Poincaré (see the talk page). I was hoping you might help me decide how to deal with it as I'm not a mediator and know little about Henri Poincaré. I refered them to RfC, but I don't know if that will take or not. Suggestions? --DanielCD 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the offer. Ya know, I think I am actually making progress though. Let me see if I can ride it out. --DanielCD 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The change being demanded by this anon is a stylistic change, and I'm not really sure why he's so adimate about it. You can read near the bottom that he wants the "works" section between the "early" and "late" life sections. Why, ...? Of all the conflicts I've been involved with...I don't see the why in this (and you've been party to some of those!) I'm just hoping they'll sleep on it and settle down. It's just this one anon, wanting this simple change. People are the most fascinating thing about Wikipedia. --DanielCD 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LA History[edit]

Thanks for your note. I didn't realize I was writing on an archive page. And you're right. I need to research my sources again, but my memory generally serves me well when I come up with these historical anecdotes. This is why I didn't even attempt to edit anything at this point. I had a good talk with one of the curators of the El Pueblo Monument one time, and we discussed alot of material which surrounded Olvera Street and all the history about it. At the time he was working on a Master's thesis on the Pueblo. I even began translating the Avila Adobe brochure into three other languages. I came upon a lot of information that was new to me and had been more recently researched than the Britannica of 1911. Nor am I saying that the Britannica is not factual. But I have found a lot of modern-day research that retells stories from sources that have never before been uncovered. And I am not referring to history revisionism, just newer research brought to light.

Mmanning 07:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Mmanning[reply]

Virago and Asian fetish[edit]

The same editor who keeps reinserting the removed content on Virago seems to also be editing Asian fetish. Perhaps you would like to take a look. --cesarb 16:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. You may recall that I was involved in the discussion related to Virago. Please take a look at my latest note on the discussion page re: NPOV. I'm out of reverts for the day and could use some help. Sunray 03:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titles in article titles[edit]

You say "We don't use titles in article titles". This is ridiculous! An article title is a title. Georgia guy 20:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look in[edit]

In case you didn't see my last post, could you take a look at Asian Fetish? Thanks. Sunray 03:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably didn't know this but...[edit]

Zen-master is actually banned from "title renaming" discussions. He just got blocked a 2nd time for discussing WP:Conspiracy theory. Don't worry. You didn't cause it. :) Just a heads up. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Never Ending Story[edit]

User:Winter x
User:Vomus titus

--Sojambi Pinola 23:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and you missed some. -Will Beback 23:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elvis troyko --Sojambi Pinola 23:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reversion at Sierra Club. If I have a spare moment, I'll take a stab at an NPOV paragraph. -- hike395 02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skunksville
User:Dimes for eyes
--Sojambi Pinola 07:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change?[edit]

Willmcw, is that you? --Gramaic | Talk 02:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]