User talk:Will Beback/archive33

Talk:Populism#Merge proposal

Arguments in favor of merging have been presented by other editors who responded to the RfC. Please respond. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Will. The 72.76 IP is back on this article's talk page again. Is it time to consider semi-protection? (Last March it was protected for two weeks). EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychohistorian disappeared?

Hi. The anonymous multi-IP user (possibly the same person as Psychohistorian) doesn't appear to have been active since around August 15. I'm not sure what this might mean. Any thoughts? Richwales (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterson

Well, that might explain the strange edit. De728631 (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear meltdown

I wonder if we should move this back to the proper talk page (I note you're an admin...) Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - what I was suggesting was moving a copy of our discussion on Alotma's talk page, back to the proper topic page. bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP requesting unblock

Hello Will. You blocked User_talk:60.229.16.214 as a reincarnation of Sfacets. Now this IP editor is requesting unblock. Inquiring minds need to know how to respond to his unblock request. Can you say more about how you identified him as Sfacets? My guess is it must have something to do with Nirmala Srivastava. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Cook

This RV of my RVing a vandal is confusing? rootology (C)(T) 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 South Ossetia War move

Could you please move 2008 South Ossetia war to a more suitable title. As it stands the title misrepresents the conflict which did not take place solely in South Ossetia. Russian-Georgian War seems to have the most support as a new title, but War in Georgia (2008) might be an appropriate compromise. Either way no good reason has been giving for keeping the current title and it runs against everything stated in every medium Russian or Western. Neither Russian nor Western media are calling it South Ossetia War and it's not backed up by anything else because it does not account for the expansion of the conflict beyond South Ossetia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed page moves

I'm going to move the cities back to their original names. Please follow the page move procedure and seek consensus before making controversial page moves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules recommends using simple names for cities? For example, Chicago is not at Chicago, Illinois, and Oslo is not at Oslo, Norway. Why do you object to making the articles conform with the guideline? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a specific guideline for U.S. places. It has been discussed extensively. If you want to change the guideline please use the relevant talk page to make a proposal. If you think that individual articles should not follow the guideline then make that argument on the relevant city's talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#United States. This is very confusing because it is a direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules. Perhaps this could be clarified so others don't make the same mistake... —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So New York City is going to be moved to New York City, New York, which is it's proper name? Huh? rootology (C)(T) 15:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Millenium73 poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Millenium73 poster.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert C. Martin

Thanks for the kind note you left on my talk page. It's been a lot of fun visiting LA's historic sites and buildings with my sons this summer, and working with them on articles about them. There's no a decent article on the overwhelming majority of the Registered Historic Places in the City of LA, and we're working on other parts of LA and Ventura County now. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement.Cbl62 (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Lost, Catch Me Up Please

Amongst all the jumble of words and such that have been said in the past two months regarding such pages as Quixtar and Amway, I've noticed much discussion as per re-writes and/or mergers. Unfortunately my brain hasn't been able to fully comprehend and formulate a summary of the decisions made or pending. So if it wouldn't be too much of a bother, could you get me caught up to speed on the status of both articles, and what needs done or is looking at being done to each? Thanks a bunch!Infero Veritas (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you want to converse on your talk page or mine or both, but I'll post here. The merger is pretty much just a name change. The company will run the same in North America as it has in the past 10 years. So merging articles will be for namesake only. However, from what I've heard, the global markets will be working towards becoming more like the american market (obviously not completely as not everything is the same in other countries). Infero Veritas (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need advice on how to avoid edit war

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia last year. I haven't needed your help until now. I'm having difficulty working with an editor on the Peace (Cult album) and The Cult articles. The editor believes that Peace (Cult album) should be deleted, but appears unwilling to use wp:afd. This being despite my suggestion at Talk:Peace (Cult album). The editor appears to work from 72.185.242.31 (talk), 72.185.241.73 (talk), and most recently an apparent SPA Nomorepeace (talk · contribs). Instead of filing an afd or responding to my talk page post, the editor deletes page content, threatens an edit war, and promises to ignore talk page posts.[1] Can you give me some advice on how to proceed with this conflict? Thank you. Noca2plus (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on Reliable Sources

Will Beback: Could you give me advice about a couple of examples relating to the Wikipedia Reliable Sources regulations when you can spare the time to look into this.

1. I have posted on my own website passages from books written by John Stachel, founding editor of the Albert Einstein Collected Papers (with the author’s permission). The webpages consist of nothing else but the relevant pages from two of Stachel’s publications. As this is published material, by an authority in the field, would my posting them in an appropriate Wikipedia webpage (i.e., “Mileva Maric”) be within Wikipedia regulations for Reliable Sources, possibly as clearly within the remit of Reliable Sources, or at least as sensible examples of “special cases”.

I quote: “In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers. Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.”

The articles are here: http://www.esterson.org/Stachel_Joffe.htm http://www.esterson.org/Stachel_Einsteins_letters.htm

2. Also, posted on my website are pre-publication versions of some of my articles on Freud published in history of psychology/psychiatry journals. These are virtually identical to the published versions (which I was not able to post for copyright reasons). Do these constitute Reliable Sources by Wikipedia regulations?

Examples: http://www.esterson.org/Masson_and_Freuds_seduction_theory.htm http://www.esterson.org/Mythologizing_psychoanalytic_history.htm http://www.esterson.org/Myth_of_Freuds_ostracism.htm

Hope you can spare the time to check these out. You can see my website here (it is not a blog): http://www.esterson.org Esterson (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback: Thanks for your response, and the useful information. But I need further clarification just to make sure I have got it right!

You wrote: "Articles published in peer review journals are among the best sources available. The fact that an article is also posted on its author's website is irrelevant, but the citation should be to the journal and not to the website (though you can add a link to the website for the convenience of readers)."

My articles are not the paginated pdf versions (accessible by subscribers only). They are the final pre-publication versions (virtually identical to the published versions). Is it still okay to link to them? (Of course the journal reference would be given.)

Again, with reference to the two verbatim extracts from Stachel's books posted on my website: These articles contain no commentary by me, only Stachel's own words, but obviously the URLs are to my website. Of course in citing them I first cite the respective books by Stachel, noting the relevant pages. Is it alright to then add the URLs to the articles in question (enabling readers to see what Stachel wrote in the referenced pages), although the URLs are to my website? Esterson (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback: Thanks for your response of 12 September. As I wrote, the articles in question are the final pre-publication versions, so they are virtually identical to the published versions. (Only minor editing, alterations to punctuation and suchlike, and changes necessary for printing in the journal, e.g., the layout of references, are different.) With regard to the passages from John Stachel's books, there's no question of copyright violation, as I obtained permission from the author, who owns the copyrights. They are not lengthy, and are from academic books of a kind one would not normally find on local library shelves.

One final request. Is the following an appropriate website for citations? It is a reputable source of academic articles and book reviews:

Human Nature Review: Human Nature Review is a significant source of analysis and commentary for readers at leading universities and research institutes in over one hundred and sixty countries and is one of the most popular sites on the whole world wide web. http://human-nature.com/

The articles I have in mind are the following: http://human-nature.com/esterson/synopsis.html http://human-nature.com/esterson/esterson3.html

The first is a synopsis of a journal article that an editor of Human Nature Review invited me to submit. The second is a related article. Esterson (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

This discussion is about the suitability of the peer review process w.r.t. the Millennium '73 article, not about the content of that article. Consequently I suggest to move that discussion from Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1 to Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1.

I post this same suggestion on Jossi's, Will Beback's and Rootology's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novice's question about deletions of posted passages

Will Beback: I have only now understood that terms like "Original Research" and "Reliable Sources" have a specific Wikipedia meaning, which means that some of the items I posted recently were illegitimate. I have been experimenting, and now know how to check "history" to see recent changes. I see that Editor "Skoojal" has correctly removed a considerable number of items of this kind that I posted recently, but on one or two occasions I believe he has gone beyond an editor's remit. Would you advise me on the following two instances so I am in position to make a judgement if similar cases arise in the future:

Mileva Maric Wikipedia page

1.With the explanation "removing statement sourced to Allen Esterson's blog; not a reliable source", Skoojal deleted my statement:

Stachel has argued against the claims about Joffe. -- Ref: Stachel (2005), pp. liv-lxxii: http://www.esterson.org/Stachel_Joffe.htm

It is quite evident that the statement is sourced to Stachel's book. I can understand why Skoojal would remove the link to my website, but as the source is a published book, what grounds does he have to remove the whole sentence plus book reference?

2. With the explanation "removing statements that seem to constitute original research when presented in this way" Skoojal removed the following:

"Einstein remained an extremely fruitful scientist well into the 1920s, producing work of importance long after separating from Marić in 1914. She, on the other hand, never published anything, and"

It seems to me that if this kind of statement is deemed "Original Research", a great mass of material would have to be removed from, e.g., scientists' webpages. I can see no reason why Skoojal should have deleted this sentence and a half. At most, he should have requested reference citations – but if one had to do that for every statement like this, the Wikipedia pages would become overcrowded with references.

(Skoojal removed the above without raising it on the discussion page, so I've only just found out about it. But that's not important here.) Esterson (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Stachel's book is in the Bibliography on the webpage, so a full citation wasn't necessary. Esterson (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have several comments on this: I'm not interested in entering into a prolonged dispute with Esterson over the Maric article. I realize that what I did there may be reviewed and possibly changed by other editors, and I don't have a problem with that. Honesty compels me to point out that, while one's own website is not usually an acceptable source, it can be so in some cases when material on it has been republished by a reliable source (which appears to be the case for at least some of Esterson's articles, as one can see here [2]). I may modify or undo changes Esterson makes to other articles in future (this is always a possibility on Wikipedia), but I have no plans to disrupt his editing simply for the sake of it. Skoojal (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Emotions"

May I ask you that you avoid attempts to gauge other editors' "emotions"? You have no means to gauge that, besides measuring your own, that is. It also places you in a position that seems a bit condescending and self-serving (as in "I am not emotionally involved, I am not biased, but everybody that disagrees with me is"). Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud computing

I was listing the sources (like this) in edit logs for this information (which, like most categories, is more relevant for people seeking articles than vice versa) but figured it would be ignored so I went back to using hotcat. It's important for the cloud computing articles and using a category rather than a list solves the notability issues, and if the subject of an article doesn't particularly want to list this information then they can easy enough remove it.

I imagine eventually the category will go away (in much the same way as a 'computer user' category would have been relevant 20 years ago, but not today) but it's very useful for the time being; the subjects of the articles have been happy enough to be quoted in releases, etc. so it's no secret.

samj (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, capturing the sources would be nice, but a list would be a massive spamtrap and means we have to include *all* users, which is not all that interesting. The ones listed on the google page have agreed to be listed and the reason it's google apps and not salesforce for example is that these deployments are across the board (eg all staff, all students). The idea is to give people an idea of who's using the stuff, and who's happy to talk about it. Anyway using a category was a conscious decision... samj (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens City

Will, I seriously don't want to get into a "pissing match" over the OTRS agreement again. The agreement was reached, filed, approved, and tagged. It's over and done with. Plus, saying that a section I worked VERY hard to get added "should be removed" if "no editing is allowed" isn't the best way to start things off.

According to the OTRS agreement, no section of the "hosty section" (I am guessing you meant "history") can be removed. We can add to it, but not remove from it. - NeutralHomer • Talk 10:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have messaged another user to get clarification on this and I will wait for what they have to say before going any further. - NeutralHomer • Talk 10:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium '73

On 17 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Millennium '73, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on criticism of IPCC AR4?

If you have time, could you give me your opinion on whether the addition of the Tom Harris/John McLean piece to Criticism of IPCC AR4 is appropriate? I'm tempted to add it back in, but I'd like to consider the opinion of someone seasoned and impartial first. Thank you. MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for sharing your comments with me. I did check the original source documents and discovered that the claim that I'm trying to get into the article is actually true. I looked hard for any refutation, anywhere, and basically there is none, at least not that's honest/accurate. The claim was also widely cited in skeptic circles, so I think that qualifies as a view that should be represented. Incidentally, I'm not a climate change skeptic, I just think that the charge that only 62 people reviewed the IPCC's main conclusion (that climate change is largely caused by human activity), when it's commonly presented as being the work of 2,500 scientists, is exceptionally relevant. So I'll revisit this when I have time. Thanks again! 220.33.190.79 (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry man

Nice job cleaning up. I'll have to have a look at that Socktime tool. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Arthur B.

As you have some experience with this fellow I thought I'd point out that sometime ago he added his own self-published book to the Cults article "books" list and has now added his email address to that listing. The publisher, "Axiom books" was a UK LLC owned by the book author, David Brear. Last time I checked the LLC was defunct. Note it is not related to various other established publishers with "axiom" in the name. This info can be confirmed with UK Company House. I'd edit it myself but I don't wish to get in to another firefight with him --Insider201283 (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request for NZ inclusion on GDS' article

In order to solve the revert war on GDS article over the inclusion of the banning from New Zealand, I have opened a request for formal mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Giovanni Di Stefano. Please participate on the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Monica Mountains

Hi. Thanks for photo offer. Season is often important. Please see my list of Flora of the Santa Monica Mountains on the main article page. The list is a work in progress, about half finished. I shuold be done this week. I am basing the list on species that I know how to locate (so as to photo0, then I will go back and fill in the blanks from flora books on the subject. I hike run (barefoot) to the top of Griffith Park most mornings at sunrise. Tom Labonge is there then, as is Sol Shenkman. I also practically lived between stunt road and saddle peak as a teen mathematician. I also bought a property that goes down into the LA River near Glendale Rapids, and am working with a River Commissioner's volunteer group and FOLAR on cleaning out the non natives, then getting rid of the concrete if allowed. EricDiesel (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Flaming Sword cover.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Flaming Sword cover.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threats for reverting BLP Violation

Will Beback, I dislike being threatened for reverting a violation of BLP, and have therefore left a comment at ANI about this. Skoojal (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor error on ANI Noticeboard

Will Beback: Under the heading "Threats for reverting BLP violation at Jeffrey Masson" at ANI Noticeboard there is a slip in one of your posted paragraphs that could confuse other editors. You wrote:

"Esterson has not substantiated his assertion that Esterson and unnamed scholars are biased, which he has said is based only on his own impression of them.[157]"

I'm sure you intended to write that "Skoojal has not substantiated..." Esterson (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email address for Axiom Books in Cult

Moved to Talk:Cult#Email address for Axiom Books

·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

WP:ANI#Clay_Aiken – iride scent 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I commented out my edits to Clay Aiken pending the magazine coming out later this week. An undo/rollback wouldn't have worked as other people had edited the text. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the link that Bugs found (which I elaborated on), it seems pretty much resolved now. To be honest, I'm not going to worry too much about it. I added the CNN link to try to avert further edit warring, but now somebody thinks I'm trying to game the system. (sigh) Oh well... I should just refer myself to Wikipedia:Dude, it's a frickin' online encyclopedia. Chill out, already! and move on :) caknuck _° is geared up for football season 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hi there. Just thanking you for your welcome.212.84.122.28 (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I am new to Wikipedia and have not learned everything about it yet. I'll not change anything else until I have a firm grasp of Wikipedia's policies.212.84.122.28 (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NumbersUSA edits

These look good -- I've been afraid to Be Bold, especially when a revert war seems to hover on the horizon. I was planning to embed the criticism section into the article like you did. I think we're awfully close to being able to remove the POV bug. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afowler (talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question about Margaret Sanger

Hi! I see you keep watch on the Margaret Sanger page...was wondering if you could give me your informed opinion of this edit [3] and the source used. I see no mention of evolution on her article. The IP in question also added some other mild POV edits, so I'm a bit suspicious of it. Will watch here for your answer. Thanks in advance... Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the source, the material appears irrelevant to the topic. I've deleted it and left a note on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Political Cesspool

I've been involved in a mediating a rather minor dispute between two users at this article, and looking through the history I saw your name and was wondering if you could possibly see something I'm missing. User:Rock8591 and User:WSmithPC/75.66.253.96 engaged in a brief edit war on the article, with WSmithPC claiming to be the Winston Smith affiliated with the show, but not Harold Covington as is widely believed. Rock8591 countered that WSmithPC was removing sourced information from the article (which he was) and that he was trying to whitewash the program's nature. After they continued their argument on my talk page, I thought things had ended when I suggested to WSmithPC that WP:OTRS was the best way to handle his problems. The whole exchange left me feeling suspicious, especially when a new IP removed sourced material about the Smith/Covington connection followed shortly be a second removal of the information by Rock8591 who has decided to, "give Winston the benefit of the doubt". This little gem makes me doubt Rock's authenticity, and this does little to relieve my unease. I'm not sure what's going on with these two, but something is off, and I'd really appreciate you keeping an eye on things. A ni Mate 04:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of me feels incredibly foolish, because I knew something like this was the endgame. Well, if I'm to be lumped in with members of a "nefarious organization" like the SPLC, I consider myself in good company. Keep an eye on the article, as he seems to be planning on exposing the evils of Wikipedia. A ni Mate 04:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Animate - good to see ya again, with both of us as loyal Wikipedians. I apologize for bringing back old things (as I'm responding to this rather late) and for the misunderstanding regarding the "give Winston the benefit of the doubt" remark. The reason why I removed the information citing Winston Smith as Harold Covington is that such is not at all the primary purpose of the Political Cesspool article, but instead, about the radio show. If what Winston said is true, that he is not Harold Covington, then having a falsehood present in the article would taint it greatly, which is the last thing I want; to not whitewash the true nature of the radio show. At the same time, it is true that there is a somewhat dearth of sources regarding the Harold Covington allegation; enough to make me think twice.

P.S. Regarding the "little gem" - I am VERY much surprised by that, as I had not a single idea of such a thing until it was mentioned here. My best guess (within my ability) is that someone has used my Wikipedia username and IP/computer to make that "little gem." The reason why I say so is because I am oftentimes at a public computer and have forgotten to log out of my account; this is not the first time an event similar to this have happened to me and I apologize for the misunderstanding and inconvenience. Rock8591 06:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A vandal?!

There is a vandal around here that is up to no good, as usual. The vandal's Ip address is 24.20.47.60. I see you've blocked the cad before and so request that you block him again. This user will only go on making more mischief if something is not done. Thank you--KnowledgeLord (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permit me to disagree with your remarks, friend, in telling you that this IP addressee is up to no good. Well-intentioned, nothing! This user deleted and debased portions and a whole section of a page on film characters, deleted sections of a page on a television show, and changed information on a novel. What's more, are we to believe that this user really would stop vandalism simply because he was blocked more than once?

Oh, I would post something on this user's talk page and I have before, but my words fall on deaf ears. This user must be blocked. Forgive me for being bold as to say it, but he must.--KnowledgeLord (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Till in popular culture

Hi, I made the recent anon edit to Emmett Till in popular culture. I don't want to start a revert war but I stand by the edit. His murder was a pivotal event in the Civil Rights movement and there are probably thousands of cultural references and there will be more. Listing every song, book, and poem that mentions him makes this article awkward and unencyclopedic. The section also repeated (and still does) information that is elsewhere in the article. Respectfully, --Sand Squid (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]