User talk:Will Beback/archive34

Harvard cites

I'd suggest removing the "author-link" field for those individuals that will not likely have articles, no sense having all those redlinks. For further help I'd suggest Jbmurray (talk · contribs), who is more experienced than I with the use of {{Harvnb}} (though I can try to help/fix things where I can). Cirt (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Reflections of an American Political Prisoner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Reflections of an American Political Prisoner.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. 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 description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Oldboy212

I noticed you helped revert the vandalism on Racism. Can you also go through an revert all of this user's page moves Special:Contributions/Oldboy212, including United States Senate, Ode to Joy, etc. Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For super-fast action on those pesky vandals! --Jh12 (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Democrats

My edit was to make the entry consistent with Carter's bio, as he is no longer a member of the SBC. If you can think of a more precise wording to reflect both his past and current affiliations, you're welcome to introduce your own edit.Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries=

Sorry I will explain my edits. As for Coughlin article I intended to make a small edit and then decided to make more.

DB.Gerry (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

That article is in my watchlist, so please let's have the discussion there. I would also appreciate if you allow me and others to reply to your requests without so much urgency, as there are other articles that have my attention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

Didn't look like a PROD candidate. What is your reasoning for placing a PROD template on it in the first place? Everyking (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it exclusively reflects a viewpoint held by a fringe movement, it might warrant an AfD, but the article as it stands is not so obviously baseless that PROD would be valid. I learned of it through a thread on Wikipedia Review, of course, although I assure you I do form my own opinions and do not act as anyone's automaton. Everyking (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contest the PROD because I feel there is a reasonable chance, based on the article's appearance, that the subject may warrant an article, and I feel that this possibility warrants an AfD in which the article will be subject to community evaluation. Everyking (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Everyking (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've established that the term is not exclusively used by LaRouche and his supporters, will you undo the redirect? Everyking (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this unreliable source you refer to is Paul Kreingold. A Google search shows that he is based in Leesburg, mentioned on LaRouche websites, and has contributed to LaRouche campaigns, so I'm inclined to agree that an article should not be based exclusively on his views. At the same time, however, I don't wish to create a whole article from scratch about this topic, given that I know little about it and have little interest in it; also, I am concerned that a redirected article will permanently deter creation of a new and better article. Perhaps we could restore the article and tack on some better references in a "further reading" section, and others could take it from there? Everyking (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thank you for sourcing the juicy quote for the John Birch Society page. I chased down a dozen bad leads (all the sources ended up citing each other like Grendl). Collect (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JBX Grill

You're right, it's not notable enough to have its own encyclopedia topic. I'll integrate it into the main Jack in the Box article and add some sources. Poiuyt Man ^talk 11:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: South Los Angeles

I agree with you; if you notice, it was first deleted by NawlinWiki. He routinely deletes and undeletes pages to remove vandal diffs from the history. It was my guess that he just forgot to restore this one, so I left him a note to that effect. I deleted the version that someone created in the interval that consisted only of the word "lolwut"; aside from being inappropriate, I wanted to keep it a redlink in the hopes that Nawlin was coming back soon. Unfortunately, he hasn't made any actions in a while, and I'm not sure what he was trying to do. Currently, South Los Angeles is a redirect to the main LA article, probably best to leave that as is for now. GlassCobra 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, he just fixed it. All done. :) GlassCobra 21:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oliver_North_2_cropped.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Oliver_North_2_cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

I won't redirect established articles without announcing it on the talk page next time. I have found a better solution to this issue, which is simply removing the "dictionary" and leaving the rest of the article in. Thanks for letting me know! --dicttrshp 10:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larouche

Hi there. I responded on the article talk page re the fact tag, when I noticed that you had the article up for FA. I have access to Lexis/Nexis and PACER, and may be able to help with the cites - just let me know what, if anything, you need. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO

Please post at talk, thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Reeluser

Hi, he seems to be caught in 60.229.16.214's hard block (Sfacets). Is it possible the IP rotated and was given to someone else? -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My "troubles"

the restriction you quote is not the restriction on me, that was for other editors.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

Sincerely appreciate your calm demeanor and can sense your involvement in any WP article would be appreciated and beneficial. Fcreid (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ross (consultant)

Will, you were mistaken about the paragraph not mentioning Ross. [2] In fact, you have managed to delete any mention of Ross being arrested! With an edit summary of, "(undo - covered in article on the topic - doesn't mention Ross)". :-) Jayen 466 05:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar/SV case

[3]- FYI, judging by these edits [4] [5] [6], Daniel is probably not the editor(s) in question that the arbs are criticizing. Cla68 (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, I assume your last comment on that talk page wasn't directed at Daniel because he wasn't the one who started the recent thread which just caused the arbitrators to take action on it. I have to ask because your statement isn't clear as to who it's directed at. Cla68 (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Range block?

Hello, Will. Yesterday, I was discussing with Bongwarrior the possibility of a range block on my friend the stalker, but he declined. Is this something you would be comfortable doing? Alison said that she would do it, but is away on a much-needed Wikibreak. The vandal has made clear that he has no intention of stopping. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to RJ and to add a note here: unless Alison had something else in mind, it doesn't look like there's one silver bullet. It is impossible to range block CIDR ranges below /16 because that would involve too many users. As a result, if you put all the IPs together, you get a big mess because it ends up with 64.0.0.0/4; certainly too high ...the only thing I could possibly think of otherwise is that you break down the different ranges and leave out the middle ones to reduce the collateral damage as much as possible. If you were to split the IPs based on their first two to three octets, then you get smaller ranges.

From there, 68.18.0.0/18, 68.157.17.0/24, 70.152.192.0/18, 70.157.211.224/27, 72.146.64.0/19, 72.154.191.0/24 and 74.230.96.0/20 would, in theory, cover all of the IPs, but that's too many ...? Strange how that works. If you don't mind then, I would suggest notifying a checkuser (who isn't busy at the moment) to look at this. May be we could have short rangeblocks on the more used ranges to test how it might work. ~ Troy (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I should have noticed that you responded on RJ's talk page :) ...well, I'll just let him know right now. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your responses. I honestly have no idea what Alison had in mind, and cannot claim to understand how any of this works. It does seem, though, ~ Troy, that contacting a check-user is the proper course. I appreciate your offer to contact one on my behalf. Did you have someone in mind? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any checkuser; perhaps someone I already know like jpgordon or Thatcher; the important thing is that they see this, they see what Alison said, and are hopefully not too busy to deal with it (usually they'll say that they're on a wikibreak if they are anyway). Oh, and I hope you don't mind the discussion here, Will Beback; it's hard to keep it all in one place sometimes :) ~ Troy (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, jpgordon is a name I know, thought that is not necessarily relevant. If you would not mind saying a word to him, I would be grateful. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. I'll make sure to do so. ~ Troy (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche

Thanks for the information on the Arbcom ruling, I guess. Are you suggesting or implying that I may be in violation of any of those rules? I certainly am trying to add only well-sourced material, and I hope that is within the rules. Any accusation of "advocacy or propaganda" would surely seem to be beyond the pale, given the small number of contributions there I have made. Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say that I am adding "material from LaRouche," by which I think you mean the article Bretton Woods II. However, the argument there seems to be about the citation from Corriere della Sera, which according to the Wikipedia article is the most influential paper in Italy, and is not published by LaRouche. It does refer to LaRouche as a leading proponent and possibly the originator of the Bretton Woods II idea, which is, after all, the subject of the article. So I am at a loss to understand what is wrong with adding it. In the quoted part of your message on my talk page, it says that "Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification." Could you instruct me as to how I could go about doing that? --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing a single edit as evidence of a "pattern," which seems a bit of stretch. However, I do wish to comply with the regulations here. Could you please tell me how to refer this "case of difficulty" "directly to the Committee for clarification"? --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am still having a problem seeing what was wrong with my edits in this case, I am asking you for a third time how to go to the Committee for clarification. --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain what is unclear to me. I am asking you how to go to the committee for clarification. I am not asking you to repeat your personal views on the matter, because I think they may be colored by your very strong personal feelings about LaRouche, which can be seen in your talk page comments. I want to know the location of a page here at Wikipedia where I may ask the members of the Committee that is mentioned in your post on my talk page -- the Arbitration Committee? -- whether they think that there was anything improper about my edits to Bretton Woods II. Let me repeat, I am asking you how to contact the committee, to ask its members for clarification. --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it that, even though you placed a notice on my talk page that says "Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification," you are unwilling to tell me how to do so. Never mind then, I'll get someone else to tell me. --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement, redlink at FAC

The FAC nom is a redlink, both on the template on its Talk, and on Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list. Later, Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:William Weld-cropped.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:William Weld-cropped.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC) --Cirt (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you'll have to find another image for that guy. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Rawat-related articles

Back in May, the ArbCom commended you for showing voluntary restraint and for following a self-imposed restriction due to your COI, even when that wasn't strictly required. It appears that you are no longer practicing that restraint, and are editing Rawat-related articles in a manner that is not circumspect. Your recent edits to Rawat-related content seem aggressive and contentious. One of the reasons we have a conflict of interest guideline is to help conflicted editors steer clear of areas where they have difficulty remaining neutral. Have your recent edits related to Rawat been neutral-- equally favoring all viewpoints? Have you been "writing for the enemy"? If not, then you can see the problem for yourself. Perhaps this is a good time to renew your previous self-imposed restriction. What do you think? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do I think? I think that you are as unbiased as I am, and I say that based in my observation of your editing and collaboration style. Maybe you need to stay clear of editing these articles yourself? What do you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance includes a number of suggestions for complying with the guideline on COI. Are you willing to follow those suggestions? If not, what steps are you willing to take to avoid COI problems? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you?

Assume good faith, the user is likely trying to work for the betterment of the encyclopedia, even if they have a conflict of interest.
Treat the user's suggestion on its merits, rather than trying to assess the conflict of interest itself.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm willing to follow those suggestions on any topics where I have a conflict of interest. Are you willing to follow them? If not, why not? You've said that you "will continue to be aware of the need to behave in a circumspect manner on these articles, and welcome close scrutiny on my contributions moving forward." You're behavior no longer appears circumspect, and you appear to be rebuffing scrutiny of your edits. Is this statement no longer valid? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the essay again. You missed the point, and by the look of it, as it is evident in the RS/N, you keep bringing this issue up rather than address my comments on their merits. Once you start behaving in a manner that is becoming to a long time editor of this project, and reduce your animosity against me and others, it will be much easier for me to reconsider my circumspection. And please do not cross-post. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the harassment and the accusations. Go and do something useful instead. Thanks for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche criminal trials FA

Congrats on the FA! You really deserve this in spades. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You did all the work pulling that article together and keeping a really good attitude at FAC. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry allegations

In this edit you accuse me of some sort of sockpuppetry, but you haven't supplied any evidence for this, other than your secret "analysis". Can you either retract your accusation, or supply some evidence that I may refute? Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]