User talk:Will Beback/archive37

Minor Edit Reflex

You are right, I'm checking at every edit the minor edit box, maybe because of myself perception on minor edits, and now I understand that I'm not right. As a 'selfmade' reflex I did not noticed about this fact till now. thank you. --TudorTulok (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek: "liberal" in lead sentence

Hi, I just added a section on the Talk page for Newsweek re: your revert of my edit. See below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Newsweek#characterization_as_.22liberal.22_in_lead_sentence -Grick(^{talk to me!}) 03:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to ratchet back the tone

It's clear you feel strongly. Let's try to disagree without being disagreeable. David in DC (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment...

Perhaps you could head over to add a third opinion to a dispute. I reverted several edits to Lake Forest Plaza that, quite frankly, I felt to be racist and unconstructive. The user who placed them, 97.114.34.128, has responded on my talk page and I am attempting to sort things out with them. But, I am wary of this turning into a battle between two highly biased parties. So, if you could weigh in on the matter, I would very much appreciate it. Cheers! Monkey Bounce (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good move. The whole section was unsourced. We were squabbling over fool's gold. lol. I learned a little something there. Thanks for your very speedy attention. Cheers! Monkey Bounce (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I-210

I noticed you posted something on User talk:I-210 only to have him undo your note to him. This has happened several times to me. I've posted 3 messages only to have him revert all of them. If you look at the page history, its not a new occurrence. Killiondude (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. –xeno (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your AN/I revert

Your revert doesn't seem to square with the edit summary ("rvv") here. Did that get tangled up with that odd page-blanking or something? Tonywalton ^Talk 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's easily done. I managed to make a right bog-up on the Reference Desk the other day! Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 14:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Hey! Could you please move Peace and Friendship Stadium SEF to the already existed page Peace and Friendship Stadium? The latter is the name of the stadium, SEF stands for its Greek name. - Sthenel (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done history merge complete. –xeno (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Platonov

The gentleman in question is one of premier Russian promoters of blood libel, a friend of David Duke etc. Someone persistently removes citations of his antisemitic activities. Would you take a look at it?Lute88 (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. --PBS (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disproportionate and off-putting

Do you have any idea how you come across and how off-putting that is? Fist you tell me that I am making "contentious edits". Then you accuse me of plagiarism, when all I did was to add a sentence that was properly cited to a book. Then you write in my home page incomprehensible three letter acronyms and warnings and tell me that I am aggressive with my edits. Finally, you delete the sentence I added two times, even after I made the changes you asked for. Are you familiar with the concept of "mirror imaging"? If not, you may be more familiar with the colloquial Pot calling the kettle black. Pergamino (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protest Warrior

Since you asked, I as a chapter leader of the organization have heard nothing from its national leadership in over a year. As much as I hate to indulge Xavier's bile-spewing, I agree that his assessment is correct, though by no more than happy coincidence, as he has nothing to base that assessment on. Rogue 9 (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on Abigail Adams

Hello. On March 12 you protected Abigail Adams for one month for excessive vandalism. The day after the protection expired, it was viciously vandalized again. Could you reset a longer protection? Regards, — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 15:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side-channel communication

Regarding this response, I think it is important in cases like this to direct battling editors into the pre-existing, formal dispute-resolution processes, rather than encourage them to rush to places like ANI seeking summary judgements (even speculative ones). If Collect did wrong, it will be made plain at ANEW, and he or she will likely be much more accepting of whatever sanctions are decided upon by the community (as embodied by ANEW) than he or she will be of sanctions originating from one or two admins at ANI responding to a thread started by someone he or she dislikes in what could very well be seen as an attempt at forum shopping. It's important to reserve judgement here and instead simply try to channel the editors down the more orderly avenues of dispute resolution, where they will find, lo and behold, that the process does work and need not be leapfrogged at the first sign of trouble. --Dynaflow babble 02:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good to know. I misinterpreted your intent in that response. --Dynaflow babble 03:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neoconservatism

Introman is a complainant against me -- but I think you might wish to count his reverts over the past two days in Neoconservatism as it seems to be somewhere around 8? Collect (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

I'm fairly confident that 1 and especially 2 did constitute vandalism. In the California instance the user TruthIIPower (who, to be frank, I am fairly certain is User:Spotfixer) reverted my edit, deleting a legitimate tag and reintroduced unsourced material that had been tagged as such since December of last year without adding a source. In the Vermont instance TruthIIPower also reverted my edit reinserting highly partisan POV, unsourced material and he or she also deleted several legitimate tags and topped it off with the edit summary "neutral now". After I rolled that back TruthIIPower reverted my edit again and soon after User:Czolgolz reverted the page back to my original edit. When the issue was brought to the talk page other editors unanimously (though the discussion has been limited) supported my edit. TruthIIPower has also been attempting to edit the Iowa page against consensus regarding the same issue. I see no good faith attempts to improve this encyclopedia by the user, only partisanship. I'll try to be more careful at leaving summaries and using the rollback feature in the future but this was vandalism.

VDARE

Sorry, I was mistaken and should have to read the diffs more carefully, I've undone my edit. -- Wnjr (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Covington

Will -

Why did you delete all the sections of the Northwest Constitution I put in under Harold Covington. Some of this needs to be included to show his racist, anti-semitic nature. What portion do you think is reasonable? - Dann Daniel D. Dobson 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dann Dobson (talk • contribs)

AfD nomination of California College of Music

An article that you have been involved in editing, California College of Music, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California College of Music. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. user:j (aka justen) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Smith Act

Hi, Will. In response to your revert on the Category Americans convicted under the Smith Act, I wrote

"Will, there is a clear difference between criminals – those arrested for actual crimes – and those arrested for political crimes declared Unconstitutional by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. None of the Communists convicted under the Smith Act had actually advocated armed rebellion against the United States – their convictions rested on tendentious interpretation of passages from Karl Marx and Lenin, as well as testimony from "witnesses" who were anti-communist government agents paid to join the Communist Party and other groups by the FBI.(Cf. Marable, Manning. Race, Reform, and Rebellion: The second Reconstruction in Black America, 1945-1990. 2nd Ed. University Press of Mississippi, 1991 - page 29.) All of these people, as historians now agree, were convicted without due process – the very same sort of legal convictions that were passed by the government-run courts in the Soviet Union during the Great Purge (note that Wiki lists those victims of Stalinism who were convicted and executed on trumped-up charges of espionage for France, Britain, and Germany as victims of Soviet repressions, and not "convicted French spies", etc. The problem with your reasoning here is that the "American criminals" category would include Prudence Crandall, who was held in jail for teaching African Americans to read in violation of a Carolina statue, would also be defined here as a criminals. So would,in all likelihood, Susan B. Anthony, who attempted to vote in contravention of state statutes prohibiting women's suffrage. We could also call people who fought Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany "German criminals." This is beyond absurd."

We could also include runaway slaves as American criminals.

I'd appreciate your feedback at the talk page – I hope some kind of consensus here is possible – we should, at least for consistency, make up our mind together as to who fits the standard of criminality and who does not.

Best, 166.203.190.27 (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do add Weimar insurrectionist Adolf to the German criminals category. That seems more clear-cut. I would've taken care of that before tackling ACLU activist Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. 166.203.190.27 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR/Prem Rawat 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Momento (talk · contribs) and Rumiton (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year. The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to revert limitations for one year. Several users are admonished for their conduct in the case and all parties and other interested editors are encouraged to restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat. Also, should Jossi (talk · contribs) return to Wikipedia to edit Prem Rawat articles, he is required to contact the Arbitration Committee beforehand. These remedies are in addition to, and do not replace, the remedies passed in RFAR/Prem Rawat.

For the Committee. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Mediation

Following the closure of this arbitration and as a result of the following remedy:

User:Momento is banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year

The mediation case, Prem_Rawat-Balyogeshwar, will be closed. If you feel there is a need for the case to remain open, please leave a message on my talk page within 48 hours of this message being left. If after this time you feel there is a need for mediation, either post a messgae on my talk page, or email me through the wiki interface.

For the Mediation Committee

Seddσn ^talk 01:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Swim Briefs

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Swim Briefs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

a unnecessary caps variant redirect - only Swim briefs needs to exist. see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Swimming#Swim_.28search_autocomplete_cleanup.29

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. JCutter ^{{ talk to me }} 01:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I have been told by the admin who removed this prod tag that this notification template (the default provided by Twinkle) was inappropriate to use, and I would like to apologize if there was any confusion created of offense perceived. I was only referring to the capital "B" version of briefs, as I think having doubles or triples of some items in the drop down suggestion list in the search box caused by items with unlikely capitalization or plural forms. I was not commenting on the Swim briefs article. I thought that was clear from the linked talk page, but I guess I need to be more careful with twinkle next time. Sorry for the trouble. JCutter ^{{ talk to me }} 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Irish cardinals

Hi. Although I recently edited the infobox for Nicholas Wiseman, someone else added him to Category:Irish cardinals. Thinking about things further, its stretching things a bit far to include him in that category simply because of his Anglo-Irish parents. As you’ll know, he was born in Spain and his career was in England. He should be removed from it. For the other cardinals, I added them to the category because they were born in Ireland, although their careers took place outside of Ireland. John J. Glennon, who was abp of St Louis, was not only born in Ireland, but also died there. It maybe that Keith Michael Patrick O'Brien, who is technically Irish, has spent most of his life in Scotland and shouldn’t really be considered to be an Irish cardinal. If you wish to remove some or all them, leaving only the cardinals whose career took place in Ireland, I don’t have any objection. Scrivener-uki (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk pages

Hi Will. You'll no doubt notice, and I hope you don't mind, that I've just moved all the talk-page archives for your old username to this username. The reason behind this is that as they were they were just floating around ownerless. The problem though is that User talk:Willmcw doesn't appear to be archived anywhere and I'm not entirely sure what to do with it. Any thoughts/preferences?--Jac16888 ^Talk 10:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you're mistaken. User talk:Willmcw does not belong to any user, the account is not registered--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision history of Kabbalah Centre

User:Rabbibartzadok has linked the Kabbalah Center article to an original work he has written. It has nothing to do with the article's subject and acts to promote personal theories. Ka'Jong is unsure how or what to tell the user. Ka'Jong did undo the edit. Ka'Jong hoped you might message him a "be good" message. Ka'Jong (Ka'Talk) 18:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ka'Jong thanks and salutes you. Ka'Jong (Ka'Talk)18:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geert Wilders

Could you please protect this page again? It's as much to stop me cross the WP:3RR policy as everyone else and it would help to force continuation of the discussion, which is currently left with my every point going un argued because of the freedom gained when the protected period ended. Thankyou, and apolgies for my own excessive reverts, I'm sure I am not being helpful when not encouraging discussion. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Again please? Not a single argument was put forward (seriously, I'm not just calling inadequate, there wasn't a single edit) during the protection or since it. On top of the lack of attempts at discussion, my last two previous points and the overriding physical facts and sources, have yet to change and editors in the opposing mindset have taken to attack me with irrelevant comments about minor speling mistakes and lies about my motivation. I would like to see the page protected indefinetly until there is a consensus. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The World Savior.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:The World Savior.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This is for your tireless contributions and work on the Los Angeles‎ article. . Keep up the good work!- --Michael (Talk) 00:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victims of political repression

This is to notify you that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]