User talk:Will Beback/archive57

MHP mediation[edit]

Hi - It would appear you're more or less letting Sunray run this. Discussions tend to quickly spiral out of control (currently there are at least 3 or 4 active threads with at least as many open questions). I was imagining you and Sunray would be approximately equally active, which I was hoping would help keep things under control. If this was not your intent, can you reconsider? IMO, the discussion needs much more structure than it currently has (see my post on Sunray's talk). I don't fully understand why it happens so frequently with this topic - but this splintering into multiple threads creating a chaotic mess regularly happens (and quite effectively prevents any progress from occurring). I've asked Sunray for help. I'm asking you as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested discussion stop on the mediation page pending input from a mediator. Sunray hasn't edited since Wednesday. If you could comment that would be great. Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an estimate on how long this break might last? Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An old matter[edit]

In view of an old comment of yours on Talk:Mark Riebling, I thought I'd let you know that I made some drastic edits to the article, which, I believe, are all in accordance with our guidelines. (And I have a suspicion that more than one editor has something to do with the subject...) Just thought you might like to know. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Kane[edit]

Hi! Would you please take a look at the article Doug Kane. He was in the Illinois House of Representatives and is married to Wisconsin State Senator Kathleen Vinehout. He is suing another Wisconsin state senator for libel. You probably would do a better job in adding a citation and more information on this then I could. I did added a citation about a biographical sketch done in the Illinois Blue Book 1981-1982 his last session in office. His notability is established. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bell[edit]

Dear Will:

I really miss your input on the Bell controversy article. I have put in a lot of work and would appreciate your feedback and wisdom. Pretty please? Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An oddity[edit]

I thought you might be interested in the full web address of Soros's Official Web Biography. I just view this as curious, I'm not trying to make a point. There's a bit more there that's curious - and I have to say - subjective as well. The bio borrows quite a bit from the Wikipedia article (but not to the point of plagiarism). The counter argument might be that we've (almost) plagiarized him, but I wrote several of the sentences (or watched as they were being written word-by-word), and I swear I didn't plagiarize. All the best. Smallbones (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Quincy Adams[edit]

You deleted a quote I added to John Quincy Adams with the explanation that it was "undue weight on minor topic based on primary source". Are you trying to say that a minor topic should not be based on a primary source? Or that you have decided that this is a minor topic and not worthy of inclusion? It might be a minor topic if the speaker was a minor person, but this was the president of the USA writing on foreign policy in the wake of the first and second Barbary Wars. How do you consider this to be "minor"? Are you qualified to make such an assessment? Wouldn't it have been more gentlemanly to leave it in place and see if anyone else objects to it? Santamoly (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I tried a different approach using a secondary source. Santamoly (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Edith Sirius Lee[edit]

[1] Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosis[edit]

Thanks for doing the necessary work with Gnosis. The "Wikipedia Writing" page you found really scared me. I will keep my eye out for these sorts of editors/articles in the future. To know that Wikipedia now has PR firms explicitly and openly trying to subvert WP's goals (for cash, no less!) is galling, but i guess not really that surprising. Thanks for the help! The Interior (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I had no idea I'd butted up against such an individual. Did you read some of the rants? A lot of anger there. Can't wait for his/her next for-profit foray into this world he/she hates so much. The Signpost should do an article on this outfit. Scary. The Interior (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the pansy version of the SS or Gestapo of WWII" Woo hoo! The Interior (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more, nice of them to list their for-profit edits - [2] The Interior (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The parting shot. What an interesting exchange. Some fun drama to my day. Guess they will have to start making good faith edits in order to really fool everyone. Byaatch! The Interior (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hunting them. User:Smkovalinsky and her sockpuppets are the real ranters. See the archived SPIs. Also see this thread. We saw a serious rant break out on their forum which has since been removed. If it weren't stale, I'd have included User:Artemis84 who I believe is the company owner which still needs watched. If you have more info (socks, articles, etc.) that might help me, I'd appreciate it. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and out of the blue, the stale meatpuppet appears today here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...see Talk:Urethral sphincter. User:Two16 leaves a Kegel spam link and later has meltdown of rants. This User:Two16a and User:Two1655 may be related.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page.

Mestizo article[edit]

Hey Will. If you've got the time, can you look at the Mestizo article for me and give me some suggestions? The article doesn't sit well with me. Been trying to clean it up by researching and adding sources to the material that is already there - it's a slow process. In my opinion, the article is poorly written and has several other problems (see my embarassing rant on article's talk page - I got really frustrated the other day). The thing that is bothering me the most is the info box regarding population counts. It contains population figures found in the World Factbook, which is promulgated by the US Central Intelligence Agency. The problem I see with this is that these countries don't officially use the "Mestizo" category in census data anymore, and some countries dropped this designation more than 100 years ago. The other thing is that is bothering me is the newly created map in the Latin American section. This map was generated by an editor using a Wiki map tool and the population counts found in the World Factbook. Is this original research or is it allowable for these types of maps to be created by editors? Sidenote: A few years ago you gave me some good advice which I'll paraphrase: "Take it easy because you're going to get burned out. You need to pace yourself." You were right and I left for a few years. This time around I'm taking your advice. Thanks. Chicaneo (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Take care. Chicaneo (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will if I need to, but I think I can manage for now. Chicaneo (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Moritz[edit]

I'm probably adding this incorrectly, so apologies for that.

The Andreas Moritz page is just some random guy promoting himself. He should be deleted and I have proposed as much for the page. That said, so long as the page is up, how can I go about listing out the criticism he has faced? The source I gave was PZ Myers who is a legitimate source and professor from Minnesota. There's also a repeat of the same information from RichardDawkins.net, a source not considered a blog. Is that legitimate?

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5114 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MHawkins1985 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Assistance[edit]

Would you please go to the John Berry page and explain copyright issues to a Hammer (I know you are good at this ;-) Also there seems to be a war cooking and I am not going to play, esp. over one word: Irony! Both Hammer and admin Dragonfly don't seem to understand the irony of having One's First number one hit song the day you have brain surgery. Also, On my talk page,Hammer displays some ownership issues. HELP> TY. Namaste--DocOfSoc (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC) [3] THIS john Berry, sorry. DocOfSoc (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My picture files are gone[edit]

A good deal of my picture files have been removed. They are old public domain pix. Can they be restored, or shall we just let the articles fly without visual appeal?--Magi Media (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Magi Media[reply]

RE: John Berry article[edit]

Dear Will, No, I wouldn't get mad at you, I value you too much. However< I may respectfully disagree with you and see what you think ;-) When an artist has worked for years and years and finally gets a number one hit, where is he? In the hospital having dangerous brain surgery. If that isn't irony, what is? "ironic"- 3 dictionary results i·ron·ic–adjective

1.containing or exemplifying irony: an ironic novel; an ironic remark. 2. ironical.
3. coincidental; unexpected; paradoxical.

What do you think? I know in my heart I am right, (Linguistis 401 ;-) but will acquiesce to your decision. Thanks! Gotta luv ya! Namaste--DocOfSoc (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK< Over and out, Badge 714 (retired) ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

Hello! I was considering proposing an article for deletion. Is this a process that only an administator can start upon request? - Sthenel (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there is an IP user who has started an edit war in Piraeus and Patras articles, and I don't want to take part anymore in this fight. I've tried to talk to him but he insists on his version, which doesn't seem accepted by other editors while the stable version hasn't been a problem so far. Using several but akin IPs he has done the same in the Greek wikipedia as well, and his edits have always been reverted. Any idea? - Sthenel (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting Piraeus, could you do the same for ISAP? Now a new (?) member appeared, 109.242.142.28 (talk · contribs), who also left a provocative message in User talk:79.107.4.49 "Φίλε θα τους ταράξουμε ;)" meaning "Mate we'll upset them ;)". We don't know what to do with them.. - Sthenel (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! After a long discussion about the Piraeus-thing and an official source which proves that Piraeus is part of Athens [4], a short period of calming stopped after Pplatis (talk · contribs) decided to start again an edit war in Olympiacos F.C., this time using his account because the article is semi-protected. He disputes even the official source of the state, making an original research which proves nothing (as he did as anon user). I had put a thread in the WP:ANI ([5] where nobody helped), I've listed him in the WP:SPI, here, but the case is open with no improvement for some days, while more recent cases have been resolved. He doesn't care about any other source, he doesn't care about the rules of Wikipedia, he only wants to put on the map what (only) he believes is right. - Sthenel (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these proposals were before I'd added the source from a state's service which is perfectly clear and resolved the dispute. He drew back after that (so far) but he came back to make an upset in the club's article. Do we need to discuss the state's determination, which is also a plain fact that never needed a citation in the articles, especially when he is the only editor who supports his view contrary to the stable version which was never a problem? - Sthenel (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic and media sources[edit]

Will, there is an ongoing discussion concerning the relative reliability of peer-reviewed and journalistic sources at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Academic_and_media_sources that may be of interest to you. --JN 466 17:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[6]. --JN 466 22:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation help[edit]

Hey Will. I don't want to bother you all the time with every question & I prefer to go to you strictly for disputes because you have always proven yourself to be neutral and able to resolve the issues. Do you know a good admin who I can go to with citation questions? Right now I have a book published in 1966 with no ISBN & an illustrator. The book is an orthinology field book & the illustrations are important in identifying species - I'd like to give the illustrator credit. Couldn't find an appropriate entry in the wiki templates. Harvard citation from WorldCat looks like this:

SMITHE, F. B. (1966). The birds of Tikal. Garden City, N.Y., Published for the American Museum of Natural History [by] the Natural History Press.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number is 66-17459

Suggestions? Chicaneo (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christine O'Donnell[edit]

I came here about the same issue. I checked the source and that's what it says. Please review the definition of "vandalism" used on Wikipedia: WP:VANDAL. Will Beback talk 00:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on KeptSouth's talk page, "My dial up Internet access is so slow that the edit referring to vandalism was referring to the first edit by Blast your rage at 17:29, 17 September 2010. However by the time the edit went through at 17:35, 17 September 2010, Blast your rage made yet another edit, which I never examined and User:Antandrus already fixed them at 17:31, 17 September 2010. So by the time my edit re vandalism -- and if you look at Blast your rage's edits they were vandalistic -- appeared it was already moot. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISAP[edit]

Thanks for semi-protecting the article, I hope the supposedly anonymous edits stop for a while... SV1XV (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's time for Pplatis (talk · contribs) to use again his account after a long time, he started a new edit war in Olympiacos F.C., about Piraeus-Athens. What a surprise! I find rather complicated to ask an investigation for sock puppetry, otherwise I would've already done it. His account in Greek wikipedia is permanently blocked for sock puppetry, after he was involved in edit wars in more or less the same articles with different IPs/accounts. - Sthenel (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage[edit]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFARB[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about Mark M. Goldblatt entry[edit]

Dear Will Beback--

Sorry if you're getting this message a second time. I'm still new to behind-the-scenes Wikipedia use.

I notice that you have deleted a list of quotations I added to the new Mark M. Goldblatt entry; let me confess, first, that I am Mark M. Goldblatt. The publisher of my latest novel alerted me to the fact that he had created a page and invited me to contribute to it. As for the list of quotations, each one of them was sourced--and first appeared in either a nationally-recognized newspaper or a respected online journal. I'm at bit at a loss as to why they were deleted. I'm also at a loss as to why my notability would be called into question. I'm familiar with Wikipedia and have a fair sense of the notability guidelines. Obviously, I'm no Justin Bieber. But I've had two novels published by established literary presses; my political columns have appeared hundreds of times in major newspapers and journals; I've made significant (in many readers' minds, at least) contributions to the fields of theology and epistemology. I've also been interviewed on television (the Catherine Crier Show from Court TV about a column I wrote on the Central Park Jogger case; also between innings of a NY Yankee broadcast about a column I wrote on Bobby Murcer) and on radio (many times, most notably NPR, the BBC, as well as local channels). For what it's worth, Rush Limbaugh has read columns of mine out loud on his program at least twice (that I know of). Honestly, I didn't think my notability was a close call; I'm not enlarging the entry for vanity purposes but because I'm doing a book tour in February and I thought readers might want background and because students of mine have looked for information about me and my work . . . and often come up with the other Mark Goldblatt (the film editor).

Sincerely, Prof1957 (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Mark M. Goldblatt[reply]

further clarification for Mark M. Goldblatt[edit]

Will--

Thanks for the clarification with respect to the Mark M. Goldblatt entry. Would book reviews meet the criteria for notability? If so, here is the link to the starred review for my first novel, Africa Speaks, at Kirkus.

http://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/fiction/mark-goldblatt/africa-speaks/

Here's another review of AS from the literary website "Free Williamsburg"

http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/june_2002/africa_speaks.html

The Amazon page for Africa Speaks also quotes at length the (mixed) Publishers Weekly review:

http://www.amazon.com/Africa-Speaks-Mark-Goldblatt/dp/1579620892

Here's a link from National Review in which the editors asked their regular contributors what they're reading for the summer.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/207410/beach-reads/nro-symposium

Also, here's a link to a recent profile/radio interview I did with Lisa Baron for the program "Book Talk with Lisa Baron" (my segment starts 12 minutes in and runs for 45 minutes, not including commercial breaks).

http://www.radiosandysprings.com/podcasts/BookTalkJul19.2010.mp3

Oh, and though it's hardly favorable, I was attacked by a writer for the Village Voice over a column I wrote for USA Today. Here's what he wrote, and the link to the entire piece:

While there may not be a media conspiracy to smear the Gods and Earths, the potential for inaccuracies when reporting on an esoteric entity is increased when sources come from outside the group. Exchanges obtained by the Voice between USA Today writer Mark Goldblatt and two NGE adherents angered by a October 29 column in which he called the NGE "virulently racist" are illustrative. "What bothered me," says 27-year-old Irize Refined Earth, a Philadelphia music industry executive who wrote Goldblatt, "is that he didn't make any attempt to contact anybody from the Nation to get information." In a response letter to Eboni Joy Asiatic Earth, who also wrote him, Goldblatt admitted using sources other than the NGE, but did not see this as a problem. . . . Goldblatt wrote to Irize Earth, "You are inspiring the most hateful, misguided, delusional art ever to emerge from black culture, and thus you are indirectly undermining the confidence of young black people that America is their nation as much as anyone's—a confidence which they need in order to succeed." Irize Earth protests, "He was saying that the Nation on a whole is violent, and I definitely disagree with that. I've never learned racism from the Nation." Asiatic Earth noted that Goldblatt based several assumptions on hip-hop lyrics, such as those from Da Lench Mob, but "you have not quoted our founder, Allah, who said, 'We are neither pro-black, nor anti-white. We are pro-righteousness and anti-devilishment.' "

Link: http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/172521/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof1957 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure, if I think about this a bit, I can find other links--the interviews I've done with NPR and the BBC are probably archived somewhere. Africa Speaks was an assigned novel in several college courses after it came out in 2002--I might be able to come up with a list, but it would take some digging. Oh, and several of my essays have been anthologized, and a piece I wrote for Philosophy Now on abortion was required reading for a course in bioethics at Southern Methodist University. Again, I'd have to dig for those links, but I might be able to track them down.

Please let me know, in any event, if this is enough.

As for the Greenpoint Press entry,I do recognize the conflict of interest here, but I thought the tone was unbiased and that the press itself had received enough notice (measured by its well-reviewed list of books and noteworthy stable of authors)to merit an entry. Again, however, I'm sure I can track down other mentions than the ones I cited on the entry.

Thanks again, Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof1957 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your guidance on the MMG entry[edit]

The radio interview I linked is about my life as a writer--in all its aspects (columnist, novelist, theologian and academic). If you have the time to sit through all 45 minutes, you'll find it all mentioned there. --Mark

PS. I'll see if I can track down more mentions in the media of Greenpoint and get back to you asap. I really do appreciate your forbearance in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof1957 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tag removal[edit]

In an article, I placed a ^{[citation needed]} tag due to information being provided which I know is not usually "publically availble". I noticed the tag was removed, but no reference was placed. If this happens again, what is my best, next course of action? NECRAT^{Speak to me} 21:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I did exactly what you said. I brought it up in the talk:WJAR page. I hope I phrased it correctly NECRAT^{Speak to me} 23:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about the radio interview (for MMG entry)[edit]

Will--

The radio interview is a commercial broadcast (you'll hear commercials throughout) that's archived on the web; it's not a blog or self-published enterprise. Here's a link to the radio network:

http://www.radiosandysprings.com/showpages/booktalk.php

As I mentioned, the interview with me begins 12 minutes into the program and runs the rest of the hour. Prof1957 (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Mark[reply]

notability and the MMG entry[edit]

Will--

I appreciate all your feedback. Honestly, I don't know whether the station is a web station or a broadcast station; I know we had to break for commercials, so I know it's for-profit and not the kind of thing someone does out of her den.

I'm heading off to teach class in a few minutes, and it's struck me that I've spent the last couple of hours trying to demonstrate that I'm notable. There's something inherently silly, and slightly distasteful, in that exercise. I understand--sincerely, I do--that the Wikipedia site is vulnerable to abuse for commercial or vanity purposes. Neither of those was my motivation. I thought I was providing a research database for my upcoming book tour and for students who had expressed interest in my writing activities.

The fact is--and this much, I believe, is not in dispute--my work has appeared hundreds of times in nationally-recognized journals; my name is well known in conservative political circles, and I've published two well received novels. One of the foremost British philosophical journals has declared (in the subtitle it assigned to my essay) that I'd "killed off theology." (That is, I'd rendered God outside the bounds of rational predication.) I've been interviewed dozens of times, though there are no available links that I can track down at the moment.

If I don't qualify as notable, by Wikipedia's standards, then I'm content to let that judgment stand.

Prof1957 (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Mark[reply]

logrolling[edit]

Will--

Just one last point--and as I said, I'm content with whatever decision accords with Wikipedia guidelines. There was no quid pro quo between me and Charles Salzberg. I put up the Greenpoint Press entry, thinking it was a well-established publisher and thus worthy of an entry. Then it occurred to me to put up the Salzberg entry because he seemed a distinguished figure who was associated with the press. I did not know he intended to reciprocate since he had no idea I was doing it. I'm sure, when he saw the entry I'd done for him, he had the same thought--thinking I also met the criteria for notability. (I don't know the degree to which he read the Wikipedia guidelines.) I began expanding the initial entry he wrote (naively, in retrospect) because I thought it would be useful to have more info rather than less, provided it was verifiable, to form a searchable database. I should have read the Wiki-rules more attentively. I did read some of them, but, frankly, I was more concerned with the mechanics of creating and editing; I had no idea any of it would be controversial.

I'm grateful for the time you've spent on this matter. I wish you good luck; Wikipedia is a valuable resource which I use everyday. I'm glad it's being monitored so scrupulously.

Prof1957 (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Mark[reply]

East, Compton[edit]

As with mostly everything listed on the "East Compton" article; Yuin University is both in the official city of Compton, and also, it is in the unincorporated community of East Compton. Please refer me to your map, because the city officials say otherwise, which is also clearly reflected by the zip code of 90221. Furthermore, a lot of maps on the internet are inaccurate. The most reliable sources are city officials and the zip code. Therefore, I am putting up a bare listing, and a dispute resolution has been initiated regarding what further information should be included. Tiffspiro (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)TiffSpiro[reply]

2010 US Census[edit]

Hey there!

I did participate in that discussion about the upcoming census returns last year (I think I may have even started it), but so far as I know, nothing more than what you can see on that page ever occurred. I think your best bet might be User:Ram-Man, if you haven't already contacted him, because he may or may not have mentioned an intent to oversee the process, or possibly that he had the 2010 census in mind when he was working on the insertion of the 2000 data. Anyway, sorry I can't be of more help, but thanks for being interested in this, as the data release is creeping up on us all. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 02:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MHP mediation[edit]

Could you please check in over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem? I've emailed Sunray for help, but he hasn't responded yet. I think it will be somewhat obvious what I'm talking about if you look at the recent edits. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting useful contributions[edit]

I note that you are apt to ban users on the thinnest of pretexts, such as [7], but in fact most of the users you've blocked lately; regardless of your reasoning, it's silly to revert useful edits made by those users, such as these: [8] [9] [10] [11].

I don't see how you can possibly claim to know the identity of single-post users such as this one, [12], so saying 'rv banned user' is just bizarre when the user in question is not banned and you haven't pulled a name out of the air to identify them. It seems reasonable to suppose that many people could hold the views expressed by the user you peremptorily removed. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See bottom of here: [13], and already tagged as such in history (user was not however blocked). Which obviously begs the question as to why you thought otherwise..... Sumbuddi (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CU notes that the user was an obvious sock, but probably not of ColScott, although that was the rack on which to hang it, and subsequently identified it as of Jon Awbrey. Nothing to do with me, just following what it says there, just wondering why you disagree with that.Sumbuddi (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically I think the connection was drawn from the specialist logic contributions of [14], consistent with Jon Awbrey, and the tag-teaming with Ludwig Beethoven on the unrelated Don Murphy and Transcendental Meditation Sumbuddi (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not apparent to me. Could you perhaps explain, in the manner I have done above? You no doubt have more background in this than me, so I am probably missing something obvious about what links this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/S._Fursa to any others. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What list are you referring to? Sumbuddi (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense. I don't see the point in reverting useful contributions however. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are you suggesting that someone else then reverts your reversion of those useful edits? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to use a bit of common sense. Clearly such edits are done as a tactic to make the account look less like an SPA. They are therefore constructive, in order that the account appears to be a good one, not a troll. It doesn't serve to deter the blocked user by reverting them when the contributions were only ever made as a cover for a greater purpose, presumably pushing a particular point of view, it merely degrades Wikipedia. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look over the various contributions you went through them by hand, as some have been struck, some have been reverted, which doesn't seem all that simple to me. So while I apologise for expending your valuable time on this particular conversation, you might like to note that the banned users policy does not *require* these contributions to be removed, and that in fact the simplest action is to block and move on. I assume btw that this was set up as some sort of test, and that having the accounts identified is as much part of the game as having the spelling mistakes and bad grammar restored back to Wikipedia, where they will probably remain for another few years until someone else eventually fixes them. No big deal, but there's no way to 'win' on this I think. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a Third Opinion[edit]

hey Will, Cirt and I are locking horns on Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) on the Subsection headings. Usually this is when Jayen466 comes in with a compromise that we both agree too but due to WP:ARBSCI, He is not a good choice for an informal mediator. So we kindly request that you provide a third opinion for a content dispute that probably deserves to go into the WP:LAME pile. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sideshow[edit]

Your name came up indirectly at ANI. Ignore or observe Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 10:40 pm, Today (UTC−4)

2010 City of Bell salary controversy again[edit]

Could you keep an eye on this. The article seems to have gotten slightly out of hand with excessive quotes again. Also, the majority of the quotes are in italics now. I'd work on this myself, but I'm heading out for a long weekend tomorrow morning and have to get some sleep to deal with LAX. AniMate 07:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just a quick trip to the Bay area, and we're more stressed about getting to the airport than anything else. We decided to try the Flyaway Bus from Union Station. We'll see how that goes. AniMate 07:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]