User talk:Will Beback/archive24

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)[reply]

Another restaurant to review

I saw your comments on The Hat last week (which didn't get deleted BTW). Thought you might want to weigh in on The Crab Cooker. :) --evrik ^(talk) 15:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

abercrombie & fitch

recent editing of the a&f article has gotten out of control. certain users have completely decimated the article and turned it into and advertisement more so than it has ever. i have been reviewing what can be edited, but since you tend to frequent the article more than i, you might have a better idea as to where to revert back to, and what should be edited. let me know how you feel about it. Kmccusker2 06:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Platinum Triangle (Los Angeles)

Could you take a look at this article? I'm fairly certain it's a creation of Ericsaindon2, but can't be positive. The majority of references to a Platinum Triangle in California seem to point to something in Anaheim... but the creator of the article seems to have interests that Eric doesn't share. I've never heard of the Platinum Triangle either, though that means nothing. There are references in the Golden Triangle article to the neighborhoods listed in the Platinum Triangle article, but I always thought the Golden Triangle was the shopping area on Rodeo. Anyway, take a look. Hope things find you well. AniMate 21:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? This is the second Elite Hills article I've managed to find. I've done some more internet research on the other and have found references to it. I'm guessing that when I first started looking for property I pretty much ruled out anything west of Fairfax and the "Platinum Triangle" passed me by. I may have to reconsider seeing as how its turned into a buyers market. AniMate 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic_fascism

A somehat combative editor wants to abolish the disambiguation page for Islamic_fascism and create pages with names that in the past have resulted in huge edit wars. I wonder if you could visit Talk:Islamic_fascism and see if what I am proposing (have the discussion on an exisiting page that other editors actually monitor) makes sense, or if I am being obstructive.--Cberlet 23:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks Will for the kind words. SaltyBoatr 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Math expertise

I have removed my bad comment in response to messages from yourself and Arkolochori. However, I am still looking in vain for any rebuke to Cberlet from you, for comments such as this. --Marvin Diode 16:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Quest Page Mediation

Greetings, I need some help with difficulties in the editing of the laser quest page. I added a bit of slang/jargon that has been in the sub-culture for several years now. A few days ago, a user came along and erased this comments as he believed that they were vandalism. I posted on his page a brief note saying that it was in fact slang that was used in laser quest circles and that he may not know this as it appeared, at least on his user page, that he did not know anything about the game. He has since reverted the page ( I admit that I reverted it to the version that included the slang before contacting you) and added a comment in his edit line that I perceive was an insult towards me. I took offense to this, made him aware of the offense, that I was seeking a third party/admin help on the matter, and that I felt he does not have the right to revert the slang of the laser quest sub-culture as he does not have involvement in it. Furthermore, I detailed as to why it was pertanent to include, and why there was no "encylopedic" documentation, as sometimes slang does not get official documentation, how ever well known that it might be. Any advice/help in this matter would be appreciated, as although I do not really wish to engage in a revert war, this user has made it a point to. Thanks for your time and any advice or help you may be able to offer Rocdahut 19:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, I am the user in question. Rocdahut has not provided any proof of verifiability or notability of the term Denver download, other than his own word for it. A Google search for +"denver download" +"laser quest" gave only six hits: four Wikipedia mirrors and two internet forums. They do not meet WP:RS. As explained in WP:V#Burden of evidence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." A ecis^Brievenbus 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

challange

ok this will take forever so make sure you have the time and yes it is pretty much a waste of time but its fun. get a random article then go to the discusion then go to some ones talk page that you don't know then click one another random person untill somebody shows up one someones talkpage that you know plus its suprising some of the stuff people do and yes i came and wrote this message by that challenge then you tell the person that you find this challenge and get them to do it. ok!? ANOMALY-117 20:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC) for any questions[reply]

election linkspam

Yeah, I thought so - but actually was trying to AGF it on Ron Paul. I took it off Edwards as it was not only spam but also incorrect identifying text. So thanks Tvoz |talk 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mommyheads

Hi Will! This article has a tag saying it does not meet notability guidelines. I and others disagree and feel we have now established adequate notability. Who should we talk to about getting the article reassessed and the tag hopefully removed?

thanks!

Sojambi Pinola (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity & Neutrality

Will, long time no see!

Thanks for this edit to Sun Myung Moon. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

You may want to review the Acceptable request guidelines before making claims. You provide no evidence to back your request. Sfacets 06:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dking/User:Larouche planet

The new user suddenly appeared about a day after Dking began to promote the "LaRouche planet" website on the talk page of United States v. LaRouche. My hunch is that Dking thought he might weaken his case if he added the link himself. As it stands, under the Dking name he appears to be restoring it.

Your request seems ironic to me, because when I asked you for evidence that User:Don't lose that number was a sock, you merely pointed to the fact that someone added a template to his talk page, and you indicated that the template was sufficient evidence to make the accusation. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the the future, I pledge not to "express concerns" about any account being a sock, unless I possess incontrovertible evidence. Can you make the same pledge? --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I categorically deny that I originally placed the material from the LaRouche Planet website in the United States vs. LaRouche article. However, I did restore one of the two links removed by Marvin Diode (on the other, I agreed that it was not relevant to this particular article). I don't have a sock puppet name. I was not "promoting" LaRouche Planet but merely acting in conformity with Wiki editorial policy. However, Marvin Diode has now convinced me, through his unruly behavior, that I should. Everybody, click on LaRouche Planet today and learn the truth about Lyndon LaRouche!--Dking (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:WillNotBeBack

Why are you spamming this user's userpage with harassing unfounded messages? There is no evidence to back your claim. 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Stance on WP:BADSITES

Hey Will - I actually really did want to support you based on your tremendously level-headed handling of the edit war at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, but I am very strongly opposed to the concept of designating entire domains as "attack sites" - I think we are throwing out many, many babies with a very limited amount of bathwater. I actually think it's the worst decision ArbCom has ever handed down. You've made a number of edits that indicated agreement with that decision, and you've enforced it at times. Ultimately I just have to oppose your candidacy based on that philosophical difference. No disrespect intended, though - you're one of my favorite admins. --Hyperbole (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denver

Nice comeback! [1] --Uncle Ed (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will...is describing the "propaganda" controversy as a "propaganda controversy" too pejorative?

I'm new on Wikipedia, I'm hoping you can explain why referring to the controversy over Unification Church owned/controlled/subsidized politically agenda-oriented media should not be referred to as "propaganda" in the sub-heading, as your recent change to my edit would indicate?

That's the heart of the controversy, right?

While the characterization of Unification Church associated media as "political propaganda" is clearly less politically correct among Unification Church members and neoconservative pundits than "publications", the former fairly and accurately describes the controversy using the proper word while the latter (in my opinion) utterly fails to describe the controversy.

I'll open up a topic on the talk page for discussion, and you might want to check Uncle Ed's talk page for my more extensive comments for more context...

Thanks,

riverguy42 (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to LaRouche M

I know nothing about LaRouche Movement, but know a spot of POV when I see it. I thought people would just revert my tag lol, it looks much better now to me. Thanks again. Merkinsmum 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs

Why are you adding a beliefs section to the SY article when consensus has not been reached? Sfacets 00:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

combataircraft.com

Hi - you seem to be keeping tabs on this. Do these edits always come from that same IP? --Rlandmann (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine, etc.

I've replied to you here. Since you haven'tr responded yet, I'm guessing you hadn't noticed my reply. The favor of your reply at the same page is requested. --Ssbohio (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply v2.0 posted. --Ssbohio (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming up on 3 days... Any reply? --Ssbohio (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be a week tomorrow... Have you had any thoughts or formulated a reply? --SSB ohio 21:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

75.43.208.182 & Anaheim Hills

Hey there Will! I saw this edit by the IP and naturally came to take a look since it was such a large addition. However, the edit actually seems okay. Now mind you, I didn't get through the whole thing, but what I did read was sourced and seemed fairly useful and straightforward. I saw that you blocked the IP as a sock, and obviously I don't know the story on that and won't pry, but is there a reason we shouldn't keep the edit? Just curious. Thanks for your time! GlassCobra 07:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, you're right, that's quite the history. Okay, well, I've got my eye on the article and will revert if the guy shows up again. Thanks for the quick reply! GlassCobra 08:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edit removal of links to Richard Barrett nationalist

As far as guidelines on blogs, it says under 12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

The second link is not considered a "blog" but a reconized authority, as the writer is an expert on Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists. It should be allowed. User:ReaganRebel 20:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC]

It is a known fact that Johnny Lee Clary is an expert and recognized authority on Neo-Nazis and Nationalists, and it is a proven fact that Richard Barrett is a Neo Nazi. Clary is an author and has appeared on many talk shows as an authority. His article on Barrett should stand. If you do not wish to recognize Clary as an authority, shall we go to arbitration or get it up for a vote? User:ReaganRebel 20:34, 14 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaganRebel (talk • contribs)

The other blog I am not sure about. It appears to have some of the same information that the Racist Hall of Shame has. I would just go with this one. ReaganRebel 1:38am, 17 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaganRebel (talk • contribs) 07:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LTA page for Ericsaindon2

I'd been thinking of doing an LTA page for Ericsaindon2 for some time, but his latest appearance last night (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaheim Hills, California, (Anaheim) for more details, prompted me to start one. Feel free to add more as needed. Blueboy 96 00:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jacknehoff

Hello, may I know what's wrong with the username? --King Edmund of the Woods (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I might contribute my 2 cents (before the dollar falls again)... That username could be seen as an oblique reference to masturbation. I can also see where it might be someone's legitimate name, but, overall, it's better for a user not to have a name that could be taken the wrong way, even if the name was well-intended. --Ssbohio (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help needed to verify sources in section at False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse

Dear Sir,

I was wondering if you would be interested in helping with a dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse The section in question is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse#False_allegations_of_sexual_abuse_in_childhood We need someone neutral that is well versed in wikipedia policies. If you aren't able to, would you be able to suggest someone else.Abuse truth (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carlo ms06

Hey! Please have a look at the history of Twelve Olympians. The user Carlo ms06 adds everyday Hades to the 12 while he is not, without any source at least, though the twelve Olympians are clearly assigned in the greek mythology and some variations are mentioned in the article. I have tried to start a conversation in the discussion page but nothing...I tried to talk to him in his talk page but....nothing again. Could you do something with it because I don't want to go on with this edit war. Thank you! - Sthenel (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! As you can see, although I changed the paragraph, this user insists on his version.. - Sthenel (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable University Faculty

I noticed that you contributed to some discussion on this topic over at UNLV. Question: IYO, should all faculty on Wikipedia be added as notable faculty at their respective universities? Please reply to the specific case of UNLV at the talk page. Thanks. Tparameter (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

I see that you removed the quote attributed to Justin Raimondo from Chip Berlet, saying that it was "self-published." Could you explain to me how the cited source, Antiwar.com, is different than Political Research Associates, Berlet's group, which is cited so ubiquitously around here? --Niels Gade (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re; chill

I think that is a great idea. Unfortunately the person who asked for the protection accused someone else of sockpuppetry. My reference to mediation was a very subtle reminder that dispute resolution may become necessary. I really didn't have a strong opinion on the matter until the accusations started . but now I am just letting everyone know that getting rid of John will not resolve anything. : Albion moonlight (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weil, Gotshal & Manges

Will, as an uninvolved administrator I was wondering if you might have an opinion on the "Controversies" section in this article, as is being discussed on the Talk page. The article could definitely use a third (actually fourth, as I was the third) set of eyes.--Samiharris (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I'd appreciate your advice on next steps with the Weil Gotshal page. Your comments were on target, but what is the best way to refit the article so that it is more balanced? Milleri (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugliness

As I've already said, I'm not going to loose any sleep if it's reprotected. I've actually been busy over the past couple days too. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority

I just left this comment on the talk page for LoCLaDbMWCoA and I always think it is fair to leave it on the talk pages of the people I address as well. I know it is after-the-fact. and I am probably just procrastinating house-cleaning, but that edit war bothered me...

As someone who does not know either Sfacets or Will Beback, and who really has no vested interest in this article (List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority), I have to say that Sfacets brought this one on him or her self. Had they read the article/source that Will Beback provided carefully, they would have seen the Weber citation. Instead they chose to demand a full quote (instead of taking it to the talk page at that point). Will Beback tried to comply with the request. After having complied, the person who requested the quote/information (Sfacets) erased it. To do so was to imply that the quote was not important anyway, begging the question as to why it was requested. Further, it was an indication (to me, casual reader) that Sfacets had assumed control of the article (because why would it be necessary to provide a quote solely to Sfacets that was not necessary to the article and future readers as a whole). Finally, the use of the phrase "You poor thing" in response to Will Beback in the edit summary is completely uncalled for. Of course the entire quote was not needed in the first place, but after demanding it Sfacet, you need to be prepared to live with it. I am sure Will Beback simply felt forced into an indignant / emotional position and decided to stand his/her moral ground. Most people would have done the same. In the future these types of problems can be avoided by first reading the referred-to article, and, failing that, taking your complaints to the talk page rather than edit warring (sp?) and name calling. Anyway, it just always makes me, as a reader, cringe when I see name calling and edit wars and I don't deserve to have that experience here, thus I feel compelled to say something. Saudade7 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

I hope I enjoy collaborating with you as much next year as I did this year, much love to you and your loved ones. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul Vogel

If you really extended the block on User:Paul Vogel based on your statements in this thread [[2]] based on 'apparent' violations of a block, I am appalled at the lack of good faith that you are showing. Extending a block based on substantial evidence is one thing, but based solely on your perception of 'similarity of edits' - that is very poor form.207.69.137.26 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Depository Trust Company

I just stumbled upon this article, as I see that it was protected by you at the same time as Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. was protected, and because of the same anon edits. DTC is a subsidiary of DTCC, and the two articles are essentially the same and really should be merged.

I noted that Depository Trust Company (without the "the") is already redirected to Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. and I wonder if it might be possible for you to redirect The Depository Trust Company? Otherwise there will be two duplicate articles and, God forbid, two duplicate debates on the same material. --Samiharris (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HarveyCarter 2

He's back using AOL here,here and here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a report filed here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's doing edits under the ip 172.206.142.183 today. --PhantomS (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Fork Road

This article seems to have been caught in the middle of a larger dispute, where most of the road editors, for some reason, have decided that most unnumbered roads are non-notable and should be deleted. If you care to see the background... never mind, I see that you just found it. --NE2 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expert Opinion Needed

Will, since you're an expert on the use of unreliable sources (in the sense of identifying them, not using them!) and better versed on limits on quotations of, well, anything, I was wondering if I could get a second opinion on this article on Chris Gibson. The vast majority of the article is a quote of a Usegroup posting. Seemed odd, but I didn't want to PROD it, at least not yet. If you have the chance; if not, I understand you're busy. Thanks in advance! VigilancePrime (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied

... --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck

Did you look at the history? I protected the section blank. I was not involved with the reverts on that page. What do you not understand about that? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Scott's edit. Look at my edit. See any difference? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting all worked up over nothing. The scope was initially all roads in the U.S., and I changed it a month ago to (what I thought was, but was actually just ignored) a compromise worked out on the talk page. I've accepted wholeheartedly this slight narrowing of the scope, but recently they've wanted to restrict it yet further (same as a month ago when I thought we had compromised). So Rschen7754's edit was actually, if anything, changing it back to what I was originally arguing for a month ago (but now believe to be going too far), since if there's no scope written out you have to go by the name of the project: U.S. roads. (And this isn't saying that I think I temporarily won or anything; I see the empty section with a disputed tag as saying the scope is currently undecided; the template might be wrong but the point gets across.) --NE2 07:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DTC merger

Thanks for your reply. Do you think that, as an uninvolved administrator, you might be able to insert the merger notice in the affected articles? I've posted on the merger in the talk pages of both articles.--Samiharris (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving talk page

Just wanted to express my thanks for restoring the talk section. I honestly didn't think that I did something wrong (especially when no one commented on the talk page for more than a week) and I wasn't sure what to do after that. Are there any content guidelines or procedures that address how, when, and where to archive a talk page? J Readings (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Abercrombie & Fitch

I see that you reverted to an earlier version by Hpfan1. Were there something wrong with my edits? I'm just curious. миражinred 07:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I think through my editing, I actually reverted most of Hpfan1's edits. Are there any parts that needs to be fixed? Was it poor grammar? миражinred 02:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the main initiative of the LYM at present"

Your message to me was:

"You wrote in an edit summary:

This is the main initiative of the LYM at present. See discussion at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche [3]

I see no evidence in that thread to support the assertion. Please provide some. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

I suppose that it was simply my opinion that I put in the edit summary. I did not put that opinion in the article. However, I see that another editor has added an additional source citation to my edit in the LYM article, so I hope that you are satisfied now. --Polly Hedra (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on celebrity movie stars sites

172.200.147.94 appears to be another sock of Harvey. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey There

In reference to your tag on the article for California's National University - the article does site a few specific sources/ references (especially in the 'Recognition' section). Please do look into whether or not the sources which are cited in the article are genuine as you wish. (You will find that they are). Or, if we are missing something in our understanding of the tag which you are placing on our page, please fill us in so that we can rectify it. Thanks, and have a good new year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.1.77 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]