User talk:Will Beback/archive48

Intervention

Hi! Could you please do something with the Template:UEFA Euro winners? There is only one editor so far who insists on his version and reverts all the other editors; he started an edit war that I was also (wrongly) involved in, but I don't want to do it anymore. I've aked a Third opinion but nobody has answered yet. I've started a discussion in the talk page but this user has not anwered. Could you help? Thanks! - Sthenel (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today, in Macedonians (Greeks), User:Alex Makedon has started to make some dubious and unexplained edits, which I cannot revert all the time. I asked for help and the answer was that I broke the 3-revert rule, although at least the first of my four edits was not a reversion. If you look at his talk page, you'll see that this user has been accused of suckpuppetry and has been blocked several times in the past for his edits in Macedonia-related articles. What's next? - Sthenel (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Canvassing apparently. See Wikipedia:Ani#Dubious_edits. WP:DR was recommended. Toddst1 (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of the ice axe

Thanks for your feedback, Will. Glad you noticed. Jim Heaphy (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NRM essay/guideline

Will, thinking about your concerns – one way to help address the problems around our NRM articles might be to write an essay covering the most important dos and don'ts, and try to have it promoted to guideline status later on.

I imagine such an essay might cover things like the following:

Historical overview of past problems (in generic terms, i.e. without naming and shaming editors and movements; just number of arbitration cases, types of outcome etc.)
Review of sourcing standards, with particular emphasis on the following:
- Encourage the use of reliably published third-party sources (scholars, press, etc.)
- Discourage the use of movement primary sources, except as referenced by third-party sources
- Discourage the use of movement and countermovement websites as sources
- Copyright issues concerning press articles hosted on movement and countermovement websites (convenience links)
Review of due weight issues: prominent topics in self-published sources (movement and countermovement) may not be prominent in third-party sources
Potential abuse of Wikipedia for movement and countermovement advocacy
Advice for editors on COI issues
Religious tolerance; religious discrimination, real and imagined

If successful, we could add a link to the Guideline to the talk pages of problematic NRM articles; it would provide some better ground rules and might help editors of NRM topics orient themselves, especially SPAs who are contributing naively without much understanding of site principles.

Would you be interested in collaborating on something like this? Durova has in the past expressed an interest in finding ways to address problems in this area as well; perhaps she might have some ideas too (I'll drop her a note, and John Carter as well).

The biggest counterargument against the idea that I can see is WP:CREEP. (And that writing it might be a lot of work.) Thoughts? --JN 466 14:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea so far. One thing that might work as well, beyond guidelines, would be to create an MoS for NRMs (I love acronyms, don't you?) Judaism has done that, and having something like that available might be helpful here as well. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draft here if you're interested: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion/New_religious_movements_work_group/Manual_of_Style Cheers, --JN 466 03:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ME discussion

Hi, Will. I really appreciated your sincere and clearly articulated post yesterday or the day before in the discussion characterizing the larger issue. And I think you can see from Olive's post that she did, too -- even agreeing to delete the study. I think part of what we appreciated was the sense in your post that we're working together to try to resolve this. I want to follow up on your comments and see if we can come up with a solution to the larger issue you raised. (I'm trying very hard to limit myself to working on Wikipedia other than very early in the morning because I have deadlines, so I haven't checked to see if there's been further discussion regarding that since I was on earlier today. If nothing transpires, then I'll start a thread tomorrow or Monday.) Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Will. I really enjoyed your apt analogies. TimidGuy (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OUTING discussion

Will, could you stop using the name he's getting all up in arms about in the very same discussion?--Chaser (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi is the first editor to have mentioned "X" on Wikipedia, writing an entire article about the personality. He fought to have the article kept when it was nominated for deletion, twice. I really think he's being extremely hypocritical to file complaints about other editors for connecting him to that personality when he's admitted it himself in the past. There are 3 million articles on Wikipedia, yet he keeps coming back to those with which he has an apparent COI. Folks have tried more discrete ways of discussing the problem but he rebuffs them all. I think this problem is entirely of his own creation and he's blocking any resolution. It's not helping Wikipedia. Will Beback talk 23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really disagree with any of what you say, but given that there is an oversight request outstanding or about to be made (and even though I expect it to be denied), it seems that the course of least drama would be simply not to use "X" in the ANI thread. That's why I'm asking.--Chaser (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ranchos of California

Thanks for you support from wiki day 1. Emargie (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not uninvolved

There are, like, a thousand admins. You don't need to do this. You are intimately involved in the subject matter, having actively quashed every mention of Bamabenek on WP for the past 3 years. Clearly, this article should not be unprotected, but you ought to let someone uninvolved handle this request to avoid the appearance of improproiety. Have you considered voluntarily placing yourself on article probation from certain topics? Please stop by my talk page if you would like to receive further mentorship. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary notes

Hi Will, Nice copy edits on the MSAE article. I notice in your edits summaries you sometimes put the letters "ce". Just for future reference, what does this stand for? Thanks, -- — Kbob • Talk • 23:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good, thanks for the glossary link. Good to know we have a universal standard for edit summary abrevs.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to watch

Jeffmaylortx (talk · contribs) whose edits seem to involved Jewish subjects and anything he sees as to the left. Southern Poverty Law Center and Franz Boas are good examples. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as well .. a user you communicated w/before, but who has now made two more egregious blp edits ... User:69.201.166.168.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's always something to do around here. Will Beback talk 10:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have a thing about adding 'Jewish' to biographies. I'm wondering about an ANI report. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may affect COI and Sockpuppet conflicts now being resolved for Transcendental Meditation. A cooling-off period would be wonderful, since drama has taken priority over article improvements. Perhaps you can obtain strong page protections for all TM-related articles during the Dramaout so none of us can edit them? David Spector 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald L. K. Smith

Hi, the entry at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#December_16.2C_2009 seems malformed - proposal for no change. Does it need some attention? PamD (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article work

We don't always see eye to eye on things, but still, I wanted to thank you for all of the good work you've done on the TM related articles. I've noticed and very much appreciate, your efforts. (olive (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I second the thanks. David Spector 19:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Mary Bono Mack

Were there 435 members on the House Judiciary Committee? 70.181.171.159 (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Ralph

Hi Will, and good holidays to you. I'll get to the references soon on the Jim Bevel page. Have you heard from James Ralph regarding the concerns you had? Tofu turkey and Silk Egg Nog to you and yours, Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm not surprised. Will do references soon, but not today, many miles to go and gifts to buy before I sleep. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a long answer to this, and when I tried to post it 'edit conflict' came up and it was totally lost. Any way to retrieve something like that? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did the back arrow, but it wasn't there, just before writing the above. I'll continue it on the Bevel talk page tomorrow, can you maybe archive the present page (I've never done that, there are many computer tricks I haven't learned as yet) before that, it's getting a bit long. Thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on the Bevel talk page. This, by the way, is the first anniversary of Bevel's death, although he was not buried for ten days. Well, the holiday season arrives further into our presence daily, and again, good wishes for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And happy Fesitvus. Did you read my comment on the Bevel talk page? The paper in question would be the source of some of the most important information on the page, and is a summary of many years of research enlarging upon an already reliable source, the article in the Garrow book. Only when you have a few minutes, Christmas approaches. Thanks again, Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just courtesy

I believe it would have been a common courtesy that I would have expected from any neutral administrator to have notified the other editors on this article of this nomination. Or perhaps, hopefully, I'm missing the notification.[1] (olive (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Ok thanks. I guess we're even. :o) Its unfortunate that only one editor was aware of this move. I think there have been in the past discussion as to whether TM or TM movement was the "mother article", and other editors might have wanted input. Still, not your fault. (olive (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I would have preferred that Transcendental Meditation had been chosen as the category name, since this would probably have been MMY's view if he had had to decide. Too late now; it's okay. David Spector 19:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 22:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On City of Bogo, Cebu & City of Carcar, Cebu

I had difficulties moving those original articles to their shortest names as it was supposed to be (i.e. Bogo City & Carcar City). I also noticed that the Bogo talk page wasn't moved as well, whereas that talk page should've been moved too? Is there a way where the missing talk page would be integrated to the new Bogo article? Reyrefran (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed on Haagen Dazs

Hi, Lentower and I have some kind of irreconcilable differences here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:H%C3%A4agen-Dazs#local_management_mistake_not_encyclopedic . I suspect the issue boils down to the extent to which the controversy is a non-routine news event. From my perspective, I appear to absolutely right. However, I realize that I am new to Wikipedia and so room for misunderstanding is there. At this point, the dispute there seems to have got stuck and I don't see us moving towards consensus. Also, the discussion on whether to have the section is now many times larger than the section itself - and it's going nowhere. As a result, I suspect both Lentower and I are merely wasting our time there in a fruitless dispute. Do you think you could weigh in again on the issue again? Wwmargera (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba

Hello Will, you might like to look in on this page and learn how the subject's immaculately conceived birth was described by his mother and confirmed by the subject himself. It is kind of humorous, but I think the article really needs a RS kick in the butt. You will notice Andries hovering in the background, wringing his hands, but he is banned from the article and can't do anything. I don't have the time myself right now to really do it justice. Rumiton (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, given the recurrent sourcing problems in the Sathya Sai Baba article, we could compose a prominent, coloured WP:Editnotice for it, similar to this one, that quotes a few relevant lines from WP sourcing policy, eg:

"Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline demands that articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary-source material for themselves.
Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources, such as the websites of the Sai Baba movement or its critics.

I can't do it myself, as I don't have the required admin rights. But if you agree it might be useful, would you be so kind as to implement something along these lines?

Happy Christmas to you, Will. --JN 466 18:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Event page wikilink

[2] There are no rules regarding how notable a topic needs to be to be listed on the date pages, only that it have its own article in Wikipedia, which this event does. Are you saying that you are willing and able to go through all 365 days and remove all event anniversaries that, in your opinion, aren't notable enough? Cla68 (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason that there aren't more events listed, is not because of the question of notability, but because most people don't bother to do it. I always list the dates of the articles I write, even the on the more minor battles. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone bring up notability for listing event dates. So, tell me why again, if something is notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia, why it isn't notable enough to be listed in the event date page? Again, as an admin responsible for site maintenance, are you willing and able to go through every single day and make sure that there aren't any topics listed which don't meet your definition of notability? If so, better get busy. Cla68 (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's a ridiculous argument to make. And it may be that we need to make more specifric guidelines, but having an article isn't (so far as I'm concerned) enough reason for it to be on an event page. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is up for deletion[3], yet Cla68 has been wikilinking it to at least a half dozen articles, in addition to the date wikilinking. Most of those dates were removed by myself and other editors. I think it's more prudent to wait until the AfD is decided. I agree about the date delinking even if this article survives AfD. If we had a date to link to every event in every article, we'd have 50,000 entries for every day on the calendar. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up proposal on Sathya Sai Baba article

Hi Will,

I appreciate the clean up effort started by Rumiton. The article will definitely benefit from clean up proposal. The clean up has already started. There was a section called "Political Row" - which was not notable enough and hence was removed as part of the clean up effort. I have been involved in this article since Jan 2009. I will like to address a few things here.

I saw the links posted in the talk page regarding the sourcing. The first section which uses the Primary sources mainly is the Biography and Beliefs and Practices of devotees section. This discussion about the usage of primary source in this article was already discussed in the reliable source board here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Reliable_Internet_Sources_for_Information_on_Sathya_Sai_Baba.

Please see GRBerry response: One other use to which official, but not devotional, sites can be used is to cite quotations from official documents that are posted on the site. An example of this in the UCC article is the section "Statements of doctrine and beliefs" contains a quotation from the organization's "Constitution and Bylaws", which is cited to that very document as hosted by the organization. To the extent that it is appropriate to cite such a primary source, the official site is the best possible host of an official document.

This is a religious article. There is a basic difference between religious article and other BLP articles in wikipedia. As I mentioned in the above discussion for instance please look at other religious articles like the "United_Church_of_Christ" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ. This has used references to all their official websites. Even may other religious topics use their official website links.

The reason is that if we go with the Wikipedia rule that the article can use only third-party, published sources like newspapers then we won't be able to have even a Biography section in this article nor any other sections such as their beliefs etc as you will not find these information in a newspaper or third party sources. As per the RS discussion and resolution the 5 official websites could be allowed to be used in the article appropriately in a neutral way.

www.sathyasai.org The original site for the Sathya Sai Organisation (1999-).
www.srisathyasai.org.in The International Sai Organisation.
www.sssbpt.org The Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust (recently renamed the Sri Sathya Sai Sadhana Trust Publications Division).
www.radiosai.org Radio Sai Global Harmony.
www.saicast.org Sai Global Harmony and the International Sai Organisation (for Streaming Videos).

I agree that we can get rid of other devotional websites sources which are not official such as www.saibaba.ws, www.saibabofindia.com, and sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com.

Another issue in the article which needs to be corrected other than sourcing is the style of writing in the Biography section. I will work with the other editors and see how this section could be re-written to be more encyclopedic and neutral in tone with out advocating any point of view.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Powers?

Will, just curious, how is it that you appeared on my new article Nancy Lonsdorf within an hour of its creation? Do you have super powers like ESPN for example?-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN has super powers? Woonpton (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK Will, good to know about the ESPN. I knew it was either that or your doctor prescribed transcendental medication.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description of David Irving as a Holocaust denier

Hi Will,

I see you've been involved in a discussion on Talk:Jeremy Hammond recently. I'd appreciate it if you could give your view here: Talk:Jeremy Hammond#Description of David Irving as a Holocaust denier.

Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dyk problem

Hi, in your dyk submission (here), I can not find the sourced hook in the article. Can you help me out? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bevan Morris

On December 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bevan Morris, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New TM Editor

We have a new active editor on the TM talk page today. Just came out of nowhere and has made several comments. No info on the user page, TM article only. Sock puppet? --BwB (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your comment about Olive and Timid had to do with this new editor. I just wanted to bring this new editor to your attention as an administrator. As you rightly say, we will see how things develop. Thanks for your attention on this. --BwB (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]