User talk:Will Beback/archive8

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

Archives[edit]

User:Ericsaindon2[edit]

Something needs to be done to end the community naming feud. I have an idea for a way that would make both the people who strive for consistency and the people who strive to name communities based on how much power the community has. So I propose this:

  • If a community within a city has a provable community coalition or council, whether recognized by the city government or not, it may be named ((community, state)) or ((community))
  • If the community has no community council that can be found (and proven) then the community must be named ((community, city, state)).

I think that this would solve a lot of issues, and you should add it to the rules and naming conventions because community naming rules are so vague that they are getting out of hand with the debates (communities within cities). I am seeing almost 1 dozen community articles that are in heated debates because of the vague guidelines. Almost all the larger communities have community councils or coalitions (some are recognized by the cities, and some cities do not choose to recognize others, but both have the same representation), and the smaller ones dont have these organized practices, and the larger ones with the community councils are usually large enough to stand on their own, (but should include the city they are apart of in the first sentence of the article). I think that would make both parties happy.

So, what are your perspectives on the proposition? --Ericsaindon2 04:40, 01 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with JarlaxleArtemis[edit]

JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) has been removing {{imagevio}} tags and re-adding images tagged as possible copyvios to articles. I've left a note on his talk page, but I'd appreciate any help in keeping an eye on the situation and taking administrative actions if needed. --Muchness 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's partly my fault, because I didn't leave a note on his user page when I initially tagged his images. I figured given his past involvement in copyvio image discussions, another policy notice would be redundant. I'll make sure I always leave a notice on the talk page in future. Thanks for your help and regards. --Muchness 20:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no[edit]

I am reverting Chuck Munson because he has repeatedly engaged in vandalism of others' edits to "his" site -- nevermind that he does so is against every line of the WP:AUTO guideline.

By the way, are you even familiar with Munson's conduct as of late? He is a known edit warrior and himself engages in 3RR violations, using his own sites as references on others. Please read Revolutionary Communist Party, USA to see some of the nonsense he's engaged in. --Daniel 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Talk Live[edit]

Will, I noticed your spam warning to an anonymous user who inserted half a dozen or so links to various Free Talk Live interviews. (Since my initial message, I notice this also seems to be an issue with User:Cstern1977.) I thought I would drop you a line about this, because it isn't apparent to me that this is linkspamming, since the interviews are free to download, and (at least among those I examined) appear to be germane to the articles in which they were inserted. I've never listened to the show, but it does seem to be a notable source. What am I missing? Regards, Dick Clark 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Power!![edit]

He's back! And with a vengenance! :-) --Nobunaga24 08:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a more serious note, I have tried before to get the USS Simpson page protected to no avail. If you look at the edit history of the page, DJS's "contributions" to that article literally number in the hundreds, and he does the same with every article he edits. All of his contributions are, pardon my French, crap. I was hoping as an administrator you might be able to bring this to a wider audience who can actually take action. At first it was amusing, now it is downright annoying, and in my opinion pretty much vandalism. He is oblivious, in his little Silver universe, to any suggestions that people make to him, and to be perfectly honest, I'm getting tired of half my time on here recently being spent sweeping up after him.--Nobunaga24 14:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Mistake[edit]

You listed the Afd for "Terrorstorm" at the wrong place. You listed it on the page for July 20 afds. [1]--Jersey Devil 02:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it though.--Jersey Devil 02:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I mustn't have updated the "psot here" link. -Will Beback 03:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardng Tustin Foothills, California and the user who's editing.[edit]

Is there by chance that you can semi-protect Tustin Foothills, California. After investigating this morning, banned user Ericsaindon2 continues editing the page as the following IP:

I'm afraid that he's abusing the article. According to his recent edit, he claims that Tustin Foothills, which is unincorporated, is part of the city of Santa Ana.

Your help is greatly appreciated. --Moreau36 11:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User pages[edit]

Don't edit the user pages of this or other IPs. If you want a user page of yor own then register. --Will Beback 16:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for you. But, if its not my user page, then it obviously isn't my sock puppet. Please stop writing that it is.198.97.67.58 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty and Power, revised, August 5, 2006[edit]

Will and Chairboy:

I hope that this passes muster. What do think? Thanks!

znrwl

LIBERTY AND POWER (Revised entry, August 5, 2006)

Liberty and Power is a group weblog established in 2003 and is part of the History News Network of the Center for History and New Media. The members share a libertarian or classical liberal perspective. They are primarily university professors and represent diverse fields. Past guest bloggers have included Nicholas Von Hoffman, a former 60 Minutes commentator.

Liberty and Power played an important role in shaping coverage of several news stories. For example, journalists Debra Pickett of the Chicago Sun-Times, Ellen Barry of the Los Angles Times, and Jerry Mitchell of the Clarion-Ledger quoted David T. Beito because of his entries on the Emmett Till case. Beito had conducted the first interviews in decades with Henry Lee Loggins, an alleged participant in the crime, and Willie Reed, a trial witness.

Entries opposing the Academic Bill of Rights sparked a running debate on Liberty and Power with David Horowitz, the chief sponsor of the bill. They were also instrumental in two articles on the subject for the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians. Radley Balko’s blogs emphasizing flaws in the charges against convicted murderer, Cory Maye, have contributed to media coverage of the case. The regular members of Liberty and Power include:

znlrwl 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion sought at WP:LIST talk[edit]

I've made a proposal here, and am seeking feedback. Best,--Anthony Krupp 14:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Washington Wikiproject[edit]

Hey, I just created a WikiProject for Eastern Washington, and since you are an active editor on the Spokane page I thought you might be interested and able to help with the project. Please check it out by clicking on my name, the link is on my userpage. Thanks SpokaneWilly 05:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Kidd

thanks for the help, i will probably need it when it comes to starting up! SpokaneWilly 06:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACIM[edit]

I seem to be the only one left working on the ACIM article. I have been trying to improve it in terms of content, organization, and citation. I admit that I really do not know what I am doing in terms of WP. I am not a writer and do not yet understand the WP style.

Would you mind taking a look at A Course in Miracles and let me know where I am going in the right direction (if anywhere) and where I am going in the wrong direction? Thanks—Who123 12:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mark Levin Blog Links[edit]

You appear to be someone who has strived to keep the Mark Levin article up to Wikipedia standards by reverting vandalism and extraneous information. I've noticed a raft of anonymous POV edit wars and general incivility on that page, which is why I've also tried to become active in improving it in the past few months. I'm interested in your take on a discussion of a rather unnotable (IMHO) Media Matters blog link included on the page. See Talk Page for more detail. Your input would be helpful to determine consensus and help avoid the discussion from taking an Uncivil turn. Thank you.FLeeLevin 13:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help[edit]

I need your help with a troll and sockpuppet who keeps posting slanderous remarks about me to the entry about me. I don't want to edit the page about me, but these frequent attacks leave me no choice. The user "In The Stacks" has long conducted a personal vendetta against me away from Wikipedia. This person trolled our website to the point that we had to permanently ban him. If you can find any other Wiki administrators to help, I appreciate it. Chuck0 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Hills[edit]

Is the edit warring over yet?? --TheM62Manchester 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can we improve this article so it meets WP:NPOV criteria?? --TheM62Manchester 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion - I'll try and find some verifiable sources for this article - if anyone wants to know, they can ask me on my talk page. --TheM62Manchester 19:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 Thanks[edit]

Aw, thank you! You comment means a lot to me today because I happen to be involved in discussing a somewhat controversial subject. However that particular debate turns out, it is nice to know someone cares about my contributions. Johntex\talk 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.74.209.82[edit]

Can you take a a look: Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus sockpuppets?[edit]

I believe that Alienus has returned in the form of the anon IP addresses 24.44.189.175 and 67.90.197.194. Both of these IP's are editing pages frequented by Alienus, and both are stalking me, reverting my edits and calling them vandalism (without discussion). Other users, such as User:Yossarian, have made these observations. LaszloWalrus 07:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mootstormfront (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hi Will. I'd like you to have a look at this. Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 07:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig von Mises Institute[edit]

Hey, I think that back story on the Mises Coat of Arms should go in both places, due to its representative nature. For instance, in every country that has a profile on Wikipedia, there is at least a paragraph or two dedicated to explaining the insignia/pattern/etc. See for instance, England: [2] Tejano 09:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Time(s)![edit]

Which, his attention to me, or my attention to him? 68.39.174.238 09:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one where he spewed his hate all over my talk page (ref). 68.39.174.238 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's because I've been working on WP:'T. After he did that I added some more info just to pifs him off... 68.39.174.238 02:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Primetimery[edit]

Looking through my usr talk page, I discovered THIS. I don't know if this has anything to do with it... 68.39.174.238 03:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even MORE...[edit]

On ES WikipediA, Usuario:El Periodico 68.39.174.238 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That account isn't blocked though... He keeps reverting his other userpage... 68.39.174.238 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a littel irksome he keeps reverting the "Blocked" statement. 68.39.174.238 16:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Jolla[edit]

Re: your recent update to the Identity section... what are San Diego communities that do not use San Diego, California? San Ysidro? While the USPS allows "San Ysidro, California", it does not require it. It does require "La Jolla, California" on any mail going to a :a Jolla address, and actually rejects mail going to the La Jolla PO Box zip 92038 that is addressed San Diego, CA instead of La Jolla, CA. If you don't believe me, you can verify this on the usps.gov website. Detailed instructions on the La Jolla Talk page.

Also, you deleted the assertion that "La Jolla, San Diego, California" is unused, In fact, the only usage of that that I know of are by businesses that are near but not actually in La Jolla. Do you know of any actual references to La Jolla in the "La Jolla, San Diego, California" format? If not, why did you delete this? --Serge 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Havoc[edit]

Could you pleae take alook at the unilateral actions of User:Psychohistorian? He has redirected and merged Illegal immigration to the United States onto United States immigration debate withour consensus, and is selectively deleting content that is well researched and sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to leave these articles off my watchlist. Had enough of that editor's attitude. What a bloddy waste of my time... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for catching Ericsaindon2's latest shenanigans and blocking OC31113. I've on the road (see my latest photograph at United States Patent and Trademark Office) and have been too busy to keep up with Wikipedia. You might want to run CheckUser if possible on Anaheimat for August 10. The weird history of the Anaheim Hills article on August 10 indicates that Ericsaindon2 may be trying to fabricate evidence that I have a sockpuppet for the arbitration. --Coolcaesar 01:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once More with Feeling[edit]

Hey Will Beback, I finally found time to try again on the articles I was working on so many months ago. Would you please check out my recent contributions to make sure that they are Wiki-OK? (I just made that word up.) Also, there is an entry called Disowned Selves but I can't seem to connect it to my entries. By any chance, do you know why? Thanks! Cate108 06:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, WB. Thanks for your kind comments and corrections. I actually have written permission from the Stones to use the image provided. How should I tag it? I will also make what ever corrections I need on the other photos to make things right. Any help you might offer would be appreciated. Thanks for everything. Cate108 23:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Will, I am a glutton for punishment. I went through my files and listed the permission on Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission. What is the next step now? Sorry to be such a newbie about this. Thanks. Cate108 01:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Woodard is listed on the Melvin Belli entry[edit]

I think the reference should be removed, it is not backed up with any proof.Robert551 22:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ste4k - request for template change[edit]

I posted this on the noticeboard:

Thank you for ending this. I have one last request (hopefully). The template that says: "This user, Ste4k, has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of an administrator named Rebecca, without much explanation at all except for "per ANI".", was, I believe, a variation of the normal template by Ste4k to attack Rebecca.
Please replace it with the standard template.
—Who123 10:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LvMI paleolibertarian vs. libertarian[edit]

Paleolibertarianism runs strictly against their mission statement, their books and all their efforts. Check out the list of books they have published and compare it to the characteristics of "paleos" -- very different.[3] Tejano 20:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)[edit]

I moved Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), William Allen Simpson reverted without talk. Maybe you can add your point of view to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested[edit]

At Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline#Criteria Thanks! --Anthony Krupp 23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving discussions[edit]

I don't normally move discussions from one page to another, and I don't appreciate the implication that I do on my Talk page. In this case, I moved a discussion back to its original location... in other words, it was a correction, a revert. Do you have a problem with that? --Serge 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion has been diverted to the subject of specific places, cities, but the larger topic, the general statement on the places page, still concerns the places page, not the cities page. --Serge 20:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did I was just trying to make the sites better and do no harm. I decided to let him work on it and I am going to leave it alone for now. I hope you understand. John R G 06:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Apology[edit]

Looking at what I said on "Open Thread 66," I see several things I regret and must apologize for. First, I thought on that particular day that there might be some bias on your part connected with the apparent animosity between you and TNH. I no longer believe this, and I probably should not have said so when I did believe it. Sorry about that! It won't happen again. Second, I said something about "sorta-kinda" gutting an entry. I was initially shocked by that edit, but I probably should not have characterized it in that way. Third, I referred to the deleting of text because of the kinds of sources "deeply foolish," but I should have made it clear I think the strict application of that policy (with which I strongly disagree in some ways) is foolish, but NOT that you personally are foolish for making a good faith attempt to apply established policies correctly. Again, I let my frustration show, and I'm sorry. Frustration also accounts for the final item. The removal of TNH's attack/rebuttal struck me at the time as a little unfair, because Mark had previously posted his external links on that Talk page, had a Wikiname that closely mirrored his full name, repeatedly identified himself as the person involved in the off-Wiki conflict with TNH, and, most of all, constantly accused Jules, myself and others of bias, called us names, and attacked TNH, and his hurtful words were never removed, and seldom criticized except by Jules, Jean Marie and myself. (St_JB came along later.) At the time of my off-Wiki comments, I was especially annoyed that Mark had just leveled a rather hurtful insult at me specifically on ML. I should have remembered that you have asked him repeatedly to tone it down, and realized that the issue with the removed remarks was the identification by name, which Mark had not done on his side of the equation. Anyway, I let my enormous frustation spill over into frustration with you about Mark, and that's not fair. Please accept my apology for that, the other remarks noted above, and anything else I may have said that may have been hurtful or inappropriate. I am genuinely close to tears here, because I have not lived up to my own standards, and feelings have been hurt because of me. That is not acceptable, and I'm very sorry. Good night! Karen | Talk | contribs 08:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marian P. Opala[edit]

I noticed that you have previously edited the Marian P. Opala article, and I was wondering if I could get your assistance with respect to that article. An anonymous user has made multiple unsourced edits to the article. I reverted the unsourced edits, and contacted the user on his Talk page, requesting a source for the questionable edits. The user responded by re-adding the questionable edits without a source cited, and has continued to make unsourced edits to the article. I am not sure if his actions constitute a violation of Wikipedia policies. --TommyBoy 18:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

You're an admin. If you feel like you need to know because you want to monitor the situation, you can make a case for it. But I don't happen to know you well, so it would be up to you to establish trust perhaps by having someone vouch for you. But quite a number of trusted people do know who can keep an eye on the situation. - Taxman Talk 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off Wiki comments[edit]

Regarding your comments on my talk page, feel free to do what you feel you must. Nevertheless, you can be certain that I will point out that in the 7 months you were active on the Sathya Sai Baba article — using the name Willmcw , for some reason showing as User2004 (talk · contribs) — not once did you ever seek to remove the original research from non-reliable sources that Andries published on the article, among other questionable edits made by you. I also believe it is important for others to know the history of the Sathya Sai Baba Wikipedia article (which is public domain) and the fact that Andries (an Anti-Sai Activist) has unremittingly pushed an opposing POV on the article. The Wikipedia bias I accuse Anti-Sai Activists of is still very much alive. See for yourself. Of course, the webmaster for that site is good friends with Andries and is promoted on Andries Anti-Sai Site. Andries is careful not to include material about me or Wikipedia on his own Anti-Sai site and has even deleted and modified pages when arbitration began. The "attacks" you do not want "posted in public" are already posted in public on Wikipedia and can be duplicated under the GNU General Public License. I have only sourced them on my own site, which I am perfectly entitled to do (very much akin to Andries and Anti-Prem Rawat Activist's references to Wikipedia "engaged editors" and "attacks" on an off-Wiki forum about which you have never complained). Anti-Sai Activists struggle, to this day, to control the Wikipedia article. In my opinion, you are not familiar enough with the controvery to know this fact, which is why it is now at Arbitration. SSS108 talk-email 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marian P. Opala Follow-Up[edit]

Following up on my earlier comments regarding the Marian P. Opala article. The anonymous user responded to my concerns, but still does not seem to understand Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and has continued to make unsourced edits to the article. His response to my concerns can be seen here: User talk:134.126.177.251. --TommyBoy 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your intervention regarding this matter. --TommyBoy 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:221.170.155.105[edit]

I saw that you added a welcomeip tag to User talk:221.170.155.105 (talk · contribs). As far as I can tell, all they are doing is adding links to the movie reviews, etc. that they've written that are on their website. I've just started reverting those edits and will add a suggestion that they need to look at the External links page before they add any more external links.

Also: I see that Ericsaidon is editing again. I just found one of the images that he has uploaded and has claimed that he took is a copyright violation. Image:Caliber Motors.jpg [4] BlankVerse 09:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you can look at the speedy deleted Caliber Motors image, is there any imbedded information in the image? If it was taken with an electronic camera, it probably has some info imbedded in it. BlankVerse 08:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a program like IrfanView, you can look at the EXIF and IPTC header data, as well as look at the hex code directly. BlankVerse 10:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rollbacks. Although for the longest time I've said that all I want to do is quietly edit those articles on the Wikipedia that I'm most interested in, and that I want to stay as far away as possible from Wikipedia bureaucracy and Wikipedia infighting, if I am going to keep editing on the Wikipedia, I may just have to visit WP:RFA sooner or later.
re: Too many tabs open: I've done similar things. The thing that drives me crazy is that every once in awhile Mozilla Firefox, which I use for my internet browser, seems to loose 'focus' and I'll try typing or even just paging down and nothing happens, but eventually I'll end up on another tab and see that is where the typing or page movement happened. BlankVerse 09:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just under 10,000 edits. I've thought about submitting my RFA before I hit that number, just because so many of the editors listed at Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts with over 10,000 edits are editors that I'd say "no friggin' way" if they ever showed up at RFA. Still, I like nice round numbers. After I hit 10,000, I'll have to do a second update to my essay on becoming an admin, do a little work on my answers so that I'm prepared (since I rarely visit the RFA pages), and then I'd be honored to have you nominate me. BlankVerse 10:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem editor: 70.189.59.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They have been going through all the SoCal Area code articles and changing specific dates to "a flash-cut sometime during [year]". A quick Google search suggest that "flash-cut" has something to do with CNC, so I don't have a clue as to what the editor means with their edits. BlankVerse 11:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking up on this editor. BlankVerse 10:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: User:Ericsaindon2: I think that I need to add evidence to his RFAR page that shows all the lies that he has written, plus a list of all the links that he has given as references that don't back up his edits, etc. It needs to be shown that much of what he has written on talk pages is questionable, as well as what he has added to articles. Since he is an untrustworthy source of information, I think that one of the proposed remedies should be that ANY data that he adds to articles has to be referenced from an easily accessible source (in other words, no commercial databases that require fees), with a link to the reference added to the article. BlankVerse 10:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a one-year ban is appropriate, even after seeing that he can still cause problems during a one-month block. This latest batch of arbitrators, however, has been much less tolerant of any nonsense, and much less likely to try solutions like mentorships. BlankVerse 12:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The big four oh[edit]

Thank you! :-) Actually, I've cheated and already have the 40,000 userbox on my user page. I've been having to guess since Interiot's stopped working, and thought I had reached it already. Recently I found another counter that works and it said I had 39,100, so I take it that means I've made 900 edits since I looked at it, a depressing thought in itself.

I bet you my swag bag has a few personal attacks in it too. The IRS is welcome to it. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus[edit]

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity[edit]

I'm not sure how many diagrams you have created (all you know how to do, it seems, is revert, block, and talk), but there isn't really a flashy way to show a company's acquisitions. I'm sorry you have trouble understanding that.

I notice last night you blocked Adorno Horkheymer and Galassi as my socks. They're not me. I'll admit that ╗Creat╚ is me, though. It looks like they expanded some entries, but the text they added was not wikiformatted, and Galassi edited some articles I have no interest in whatsoever. Your abundance of confidence combined with your lack of perceptiveness is very dangerous.--Primetime 20:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just wont give up![edit]

I see now that I am unblocked, you are back to backslashing me with BlankVerse. So what, I wrote an article on California's 2nd most profitable car dealership? There is one on Tustin's car dealership system. I do not understand why you insist on treating me like crap, for all you are doing is working hard on absolutely nothing. You spend all your time trying to find everything I do, and revert it. Then you go cry to others about my editing. Pretty soon, you will probably hack into my account and do a 3rr just to be able to punish me! Just GIVE UP!!! I am much more constructive to this site than you have ever been. I look at your edit history, and 99% of it is reverts. I do not see you contributing anything to the project except your complaints. I have tried to bring peace back to the pages that I see turmoil on, and you are always the first one to bash the proposals. And, calling my edits "bad". That is coming from the person who has never made an edit (not counting reverts or talk pages) in his life. And, that is also coming from the person that feels if someone doesnt agree with you, then they WILL be blocked one way or another. I am back from my block, and if you think I am going to just sit back and let you stomp on me, you have another thing coming! And not that it is any of your business, but I do not work for Caliber Motors, although I bet it is probably better than whatever craphole you work at. I actually own a car from the dealership though, and due to my affiliation, I wrote an article about it. I did not get to the top of my company, earning over $220,000 a year, and owning an estate in Anaheim Hills, by taking crap from people like you who make a career out of creating a downfall for others. Ericsaindon2 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with User:JarlaxleArtemis (2)[edit]

He's added approximately 400 new redirects within the past week, such as (P) to P, and from various unicode characters to their normal ASCII component, such as ⓐ to A, in addition to redirects from ㎌ to Farad, and [[|]] to vertical bar. I think we may have a problem. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this is a problem. Arthur Rubin appears to be paranoid. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 23:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that[edit]

RE: Lou Dobbs:

I thought those were two different matters...because the entries seemed to say that he was quoting from the CCC as opposed to being a member of them or another org... Pat Payne 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so alert[edit]

I see that you caught another several rounds of Jason Bennett spammers. You have the patience of a saint. I see that you already banned 66.98.131.107. Thank you. I also see that 70.84.56.178 has been doing the same sort of spamming. How do we find out where they are from? Is there any way to stop this stange spamming merry-go-round? They seem to pop up every few months. Anyway, you have been wonderful with handling this problem. Tree Trimer 00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooppppsss, I just found one remaining spam link for Jason Bennett on Michael Chekhov. I think we got them all. Thanks again. Tree Trimer 00:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. My friend, is there any way that we can stop this whole spamming problem? Tree Trimer 00:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I added comments[edit]

I added comments to the Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll regarding some statements you made, and a new format nobody has introduced yet. I want to see what you think. Ericsaindon2 03:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community (City, State) Setup?[edit]

Do you not like the convention? I thought it was a way to get the city included, but still give the community some independence. And, the most desirable thing is that, when typed into google, it will come up under multiple tries. (comes up if type in [community], [community, state], [community, city, state]) etc. It seems practical, and I would be willing to move a bunch around to conform to this standard. It would allow for there to be no excuses for exceptions, since buroughs, etc. are all part of a larger city. It is the perfect solution! Please comment on the talk page. Ericsaindon2 04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand, you can move Griffith Park back. But, I am still confused, what is that pipe reference on the communities strawpoll? I might sound dumb, but I have never heard the expression, so I am a bit confused if you like the idea or not. Ericsaindon2 05:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, when I made Caliber Motors, I was really kind of bored. I do not understand why it cannot stay, for, since it is already completed, why not leave it there just for the sake of providing information. Ericsaindon2 05:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what your saying in the "pipe trick" is that the technical name would be ex. Anaheim Hills (Anaheim, California), but would only show up as Anaheim Hills in the title? Ericsaindon2 05:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well desrved Award[edit]

A Barnstar!
The da Vinci Barnstar
This is to award you for your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place, and for your valued assisstance to me. Martial Law

Re.:Thanks[edit]

You're welcome. Martial Law 07:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia and JB[edit]

Hey Will, I found your efforts on Wikimedia to stop spam: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#jbactors.com Good show! Goodonya! I checked the reference link and some of them do not actually show spam. Links 60, 61, 64, 66, and 68 do not show spam but rather minor edits. I agree that there IS that much spam, I just think that the wrong links were accidently connected. Keep up your excellent efforts regarding this problem. Tree Trimer 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: San Francisco, California -> San Francisco[edit]

Please vote at Talk:San Francisco, California. Thanks. --Serge 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like this?[edit]

I changed San Joaquin Hills of Laguna Niguel to San Joaquin Hills (Laguna Niguel, California). It does not really look too out of place, but I wanted to see what you think. I am really going to try to push for the community (city, state) setup, because I think it proivdes the best solution. Ericsaindon2 20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing/spamming[edit]

Thank you for bringing these policies to my attention. I will comply. --Serge 21:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize[edit]

Yes, I admit I did use the Caliber Motors image from the website. I am apologetic for those actions. I was at the initiation day where the photo was taken, but the photo I took did not come out with the right coloring. I apologize for the lying and hope you can forgive me. Ericsaindon2 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serge![edit]

I am going to go crazy! Is Serge going to create a straw poll on every city. It is ridiculous. There are 42,500 cities in the US, and we could literally be doing this forever. Now, he is starting to stack votes in his favor, it is getting out of hand. Is it time that the community just come together, and create a list of goals for ALL places in the Unites States (Cities, communities, census designated places, unincorporated areas..etc.). I mean, would it be possible to create one LARGE straw poll that encompasses all major place namespaces in Wikipedia. It is clear that we need to update the consensus on place conventions, and I think one large poll would do this. Plus, it would give me an excuse to cancel the Communities strawpoll, since so many people think it was poorly constructed.

I think what might work would be something like this.

There be the 4 categories, and say someone likes Choice 6 for cities (out of a possible 7), Choice 4 for communities (out of a possible 5), Choice 1 for unincorporated communities (out of a possible 3), and Choice 2 for Census Designated Places (out of a possible 4) on a large straw poll. That person would put their vote in as 6412. We would count the votes in each category in the end, and reconstruct the controversial naming conventions once and foreall. I think that this would allow us to just kill 4 birds with one stone, and would attract a large group of people. What do you think? Would you help discuss and construct? Ericsaindon2 05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok[edit]

Ok, I can agree to that. But, how do we have a discussion on a larger scale like this? I know that there is not going to be a consensus of all voters agreeing, but I would like to update all the naming conventions relating to places in the US to meet a newer standard. Do we start a large discussion page that is aimed for the naming of all places in the United States on the Wikipedia: namespace, or what? Should I begin that large discussion? At what point would a straw poll be necessary? I was also thinking of something else. How about I sort of create a straw poll that is inactive on the Wikipedia namespace. Then, we have a discussion with all people interested on how to better improve it, other naming options, etc. before it starts. It would be considered "inactive" until a thorough discussion is conducted, and people agree with the way it is worded, and that all the options are listed, at which point it would be open for voting. How does that sound or work? Ericsaindon2 06:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

That was a really nice comment. I appreciate it. heh. Want to work on Pacific Western University with me? (Note, it was recently stubed by OFFICE...) JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Offical Primetimery[edit]

I've asked Jimbo (Who banned PT to begin with) about the depth of the ban and if it is/could be extended beyond just En Wikipedia to deal with the other wiki/language socks. Since I've seen you active in dealing with this dude I thought you might want to see or comment on this to him: User_talk:Jimbo Wales#RfCfc. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 18:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar Usernames[edit]

Is it a violation of Wikipedia policy for two different users to have similar usernames? I recently discovered that a new user is editing under the username User:Tommyboy25. You may contact me on my Talk page regarding this matter. --TommyBoy 18:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I got a response from my post at the Village Pump. --TommyBoy 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACIM (again)[edit]

There is controversy at the ACIM article again. You may very well not wish to become involved again. IMO, the article is making steady progress toward a much better article. I have been obtaining secondary source material and using it to improve the article, IMO. I have also included for now some material from the primary source (ACIM) that I was planning on replacing as research time allowed.

An apparently new editor on the scene now wants to delete most of the section that I added that is now called Basic tenets. I think it is fairly well written, sourced, and cited. This person also wishes to delete all of the temporary primary sourced material.

I have a few concerns. This "new" editor only started editing on Aug 15 as far as I can tell. Since day one they have done what appears to be a HUGE number of edits similar to another editor. I wonder who this "new" editor is.

If you have the time and the inclination please stop by to have a look. If I am the problem please let me know.

Last, I seem to recall you citing a guideline that said something to the effect that it was better to leave the reader with poorly written information (although not false) rather than to delete. Does this ring any bells? If so, what is that guideline?

Thanks—Who123 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you tell me what Who123 is talking about/insinuating regarding wondering who I am? I was told by another editor that there is a contentious history to the ACIM article, and I'm starting to think I should just stop trying to improve it. I don't think Who123 is correctly describing my efforts on the article, as I'm just trying to "trim the fat," ie, remove some of the longer (and often redundant) quotes from the primary source, and other trimming attempts you'll see on the talk page. I also don't think "temporary" material, by definition, has any place in an encyclopedia article (these are not works in progress). I'm surprised, actually that Who123 took the time to come here and engage you about it, rather than substantively discussing my proposed changes at the article itself. Oh well. Thanks.Not a dog 00:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'T[edit]

Hello again, I'm not a sysop here, so I can't update this, but you might want to link wikt:Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/March 06#Primetime somewhere on there. Also, I did go to my local library, and noticed that all of the differences from what Primtetime posted vs. the images he posted, match the current edition of the OED. So I guess he must be exactly as smart as all the OED employees, collectively.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When WILL you BEBACK?[edit]

Hello Will, I found some more JBactors Spam. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=ActorScholar Please report it. Thanks, Tree Trimer 18:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are taking a wikiholiday. Hope that all is well and that you return soon. Your friend, Tree Trimer 03:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clary[edit]

Hey there Will, I noticed that you voted against the Johnny Lee Clary article and was wondering that you would be willing to help with an article or perhaps help with getting it out of its deletion tag. Any help would be appreciated. I have drafted it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary Nick. Potters house 06:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

The categorization system is having growing pains. There seem to be several different view about what our category system should be; a way to browse, an index of articles, a classification system, and/or a database search tool. Each of these views leads editors to different conclusions about how categories should be populated, and many conflicts result. To deal with these problems, Rick Block and I have been working on a proposal to add the ability to create category intersections. We think our proposal will address these problems and add some very useful new features. We are asking editors and developers concerned with categorizaton problems to take a look. We'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 06:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Atkins (actor) vandal[edit]

The Tom Atkins vandal is at it again. He has also been putting bizarre and offensive statements on my talk page and on Batman2005's talk page using the ip 195.93.21.68.

Sullenspice 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOD[edit]

I noticed that in the past you took some interest in the Alpha Omega Delta article. The dean of students of Bob Jones is concerned that another fraternal organization has registered the trademark "Alpha Omega Delta." There is a concern that that fraternal organization will take legal action against the university. Because of these concerns, Bob Jones U would like the article removed. I submitted a request for deletion to info@wikipedia.com, but have not heard back from them.

Do you know of anyway I could contact an administrator to help with this problem? Thanks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Will_Beback/archive8&oldid=1081105992"