User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive4

• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive1
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive2
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive3

Mediation in Pitts. Trib-Review

I am sorry not to have responded to you earlier, but frankly trying to research this dispute makes my head spin.

I suppose mediation would be a decent next step. However, your assertion that the user has made legal threats against you and the Wiki itself would almost require Arbitration, to enforce a ban for the duration of potential legal action. I'd almost say the case should be split, with the Pittsburgh issue going to Mediation and the legal threat issue going to Arbitration -- except that a successful Arbitration would make the Mediation theoretically irrelevant. But maybe we could ignore the legal threat issue for the time being. If we can reliably contact the anon, we can at least alert him to the fact that making legal threats is a bannable offense.

Another next step here might be to attempt Negotiation, which is something I'm trying to push and to my knowledge has not been done in a formal capacity. This would be like Mediation without a mediator. I think this would help mainly because I personally find attempting to follow things on the PT-R talk page impossible. Another alternative would be informal mediation, a form of mediation which would bypass the RFM process (which has been notoriously lacking) and use a disinterested third party as mediator.

If we can reliably contact the anon, I think either negotiation or informal mediation would be a fair next step. If that rapidly falls apart we can move on.

I could use a few things -- One is a link or links to any legal threats the anon has made. And I could also use an explanation of your view of this dispute(s) between you and the anon re PT-R.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 00:32, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

With all having been said, I'm a bit pessimistic about the ability to resolve a dispute with this user unless s/he is at least willing to follow WP communication norms. I'd like to try to appeal to the user to meet us on this level and hope for a committed response. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 01:01, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for the slew of material. Can you provide foundation/evidence/something to back up the items the anon contends with? Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 01:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

The situation is that some previous editor added a line that the P T-R had printed gossip alleging Heinz Kerry was a lesbian. The Anon kept removing it and Gamaliel kept restoring it. I asked Gamaliel for a source, found it, and after some editing got the article to match the facts, which were that the P T-R had hinted (elliptically) that her husband, Kerry, had fooled around with another woman, not that that Heinz Kerry herself had fooled around with another woman. So the Anon is correct that the earlier information was inaccurate. You can see for yourself how far back in the history the dispute went, but we got it fixed fairly quickly once he actually explained why he was deleting it. That didn't stop him from referring to it for weeks afterwards.

Best of luck. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:16, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Our friend User:155.84.57.253

Hi Willmcw, care to contribute to Heather Has Two Mommies? It seems out friend wants to spread his POV. —Christiaan 00:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. A real renaissance man, Comic Books, Star Trek, Ethnic and Racial slurs and stereotypes. --Paraphelion 04:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Background

Charming. IP resolves to Auckland, NZ, so yes, it would seem so. Sad. SlimVirgin 08:37, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out (if you hadn't realised) that User:Molloy is the same as the Molloy that posts on there, he is also a member of the NF.

Thanks. Yes, that's what I'd figured. As a member of the organization he brings an obvious bias to editing related articles. I suppose that may be better than a hidden bias. In any case, I believe we've created the best reference material on the NZNF available on the web and it continues to improve. Thanks for your efforts. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Jokes

I was laughing as I deleted it. :) DanKeshet 19:09, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

List of purported hate groups

I wish you hadn't done that... yet. ^^; A large reason for the creation of the page is so that we could move certain ill-founded allegations out of the main Hate group article and into List of purported hate groups. We've had enough trouble with people who really like those allegations and think (or purport to think) "if this NRM insists that the ex-members who criticize it are a hate group, well, gosh-darn it, not only is that incredibly credible (despite no other source considering them a hate group) but it has to go in the hate group article itself!" These people liked their accusation so much that they were resistant to the notion that the specific accusation "X says Y is a hate group" maybe didn't belong in the article about what a hate group in general is. Can you imagine what kind of complaining they're going to make about censorship if they're told "Well, we were going to move your allegations since they don't belong here, but we're not going to move them because the place they were getting moved to has higher standards now?" -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand that type of issue. It seems like the hate groups should all be in the list of purported hate groups, rather than the hate groups article itself. As it was, I only dropped one - the empty category of anti-cult groups. If it's important to have that or other unsourced hate groups then we could create a subsection for alleged hate groups that do not appear on any source list. Let me take another look at it after dinner and see if there's a way to bridge the gap. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:16, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Please let me know if you have any plans for getting the unsourced and unilluminating allegations out of Hate group. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't have plans to do so, but if it needs work, I can take a look. -Willmcw 21:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

You could save me some time by pointing out the unsourced and unilluminating allegations that you are already aware of. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:52, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Good edit

Good edit on the cheese-monkey thing. Guess I shoulda thought to do that. —Christiaan 22:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

spelling

You're quite welcome! Accurate "spelling" is essential to our project. Best, Antandrus 21:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Southern Manifesto

I have no obejection to Southern Manifessto being moved to Wikisource provided 1 of 2 alternatives is made:

(1) 'Note: Senators Lyndon Johnson of Texas and Estes Kefauver and Albert Gore of Tennessee were the only Southern senators who refused to sign' which does not occur in original source document is removed as extraneous, or

(2) the above is placed at the end as a 'Note' with the inclusion that no Republicans Senators signed the document

Minor edits

You recently left a comment on my talk page saying that I had inappropriately labelled some of my edits as 'minor'. Could you point out a few examples? I can't find any where I made a substantive change and marked it as minor. El Duderino 20:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"call a spade a spade"

You know, I have a suspicion there might be something in that. —Christiaan 22:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Editing trick

Thanks for pointing that trick out. It really makes editing that article easier. :-) /sɪzlæk˺/ 01:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PURPA

Sorry about that, i really should have been more careful about plagiarism and also read the instructions before i edited it a second time. Bonus Onus 04:32, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

Sorry man, there must have been an edit conflict or a misunderstanding. My comments were aimed at Earl Turner. I completely support your reverting him and I'm trying to help. I do think that even Nazis should get their views into Wikipedia (although I in no way sympathise with them) but not by trying to break our rules or by subterfuge. He has to go the proper route: battle it out in discussion on the talk page. Dr Zen 09:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personal water craft

thanks for your additions to the above article re pollution. Pedant 08:43, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

I noticed that over at Talk:Ann Coulter that you were involved in a previous attempt to remove this anomaly whereby the Ann Coulter article duplicates Wikiquote's role. I'm pushing for replacing the entire quotes section with a paragraph describing her career of making very 'notable' statements and mentioning a few of her most famous quotes in passing. It looks like it may be an uphill battle as the replacement paragraph has not been enthusiastically received. Perhaps you might have some input? --Bletch

Categories on User:FACTS commented out

Hey gang - This looks like a worthwhile project. One request- in your talk-page versions of articles, can you please format the categories so they are not "live"? You can do so by just dropping a bracket. Otherwise the talk pages appear in the category listings. When the drafts are brought into the main article space, it'll be a snap to re-activate the categories. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:46, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Done ---Rednblu | Talk 00:18, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Another way to do that is put a colon after the two opening brackets but before the "Category". This has the additional advantage that what would be the category tag becomes instead a link to the category page: [[:Category:Linux]] becomes Category:Linux. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, even better. Good suggestion. -Willmcw 01:30, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Cult

Thanks for the nice words. I appreciate your work too. Tom Haws 06:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Order of Canada

Hi, its my brother who is going thru the bio pages and adding the OC letters. I have told him to stop doing it but he wont :)

sorry.

What is the deal?

Your accussations are unfounded and unwarranted, and your comments about wasting time can be applied to you as well. You are wasting everybody's time by going against consensus made on that article. See my arguments at Talk:list of purported cults. --Zappaz 01:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Funny, but I just stopped by to thank you for the time you are putting in trying to improve the article. I guess it depends on how you look at it. In any case, thanks. Tom Haws 05:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks just the same. -Willmcw 05:36, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate

I always told people what I thought and tried to be honest :-) Good to see I wasn't making a total goose out of myself! Keep on going strong with Wikipedia and I'll be watching the site and what happens with interest. I might even keep updating WP:Media. Anyway, all the best! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry too...

I've been away for a while and didn't realize the final fate of the Cosmotheism article. Thanks for fixing that. BCorr|Брайен 22:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

about Randy Rhoads

I wrote about Randy.(Is my English strange?)Since I'm a Japanese,I can't understand English so much.I'm sorry to make a mistake.I wrote Santa Monica as both ""born in"" and ""buried in"".Actually,he is buried in San Bernardino,isn't he?It's my mistake.

from 61.26.83.139

Havoc

I am a strong supporter of being bold in editing, but your recent actions on the Cult related articles is causing havoc. You need to slow way down and allow consensus to be built. Before you joined the fry and started working on these articles, me and other editors have spent considerably amount of time in building consensus, adding text and providing citacions and biblio, while NPOV'ing what is clearly a highly controversial subject.

So I kindly request that you stop creating havoc on these articles and join a common effort rather than attempting to do this on your own. Take it easy...

Thanks. --Zappaz 06:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I see a different situation - a tangle of articles that duplicate each other, many with obvious, even blatant, POV slants, and several POV forks. I have not removed any sourced information. On the contrary, I have put many hours into sourcing articles. The Cult topic needs editing. I hope you'll help rather than hinder. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Agree that it needs work.... (show me a controversial article that does not...), but kindly slow down and allow me and others to contribute. Regarding POV forks, I don;t see them (please point them out),. And yes, anti-cult activists when they do not like an article because it is "too NPOV" for them, they spawn an new article, e.g. Opposition agains cults and new religious movements. Your help in removing these POV forks will be appreciated. --Zappaz 14:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Just ... wow. Zappaz complaining about "anti-cult activists" creating POV forks because it is "too NPOV"... I think I might go deaf from the pot shouting through the megaphone about how black the kettle is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can see that you persist in following my edits. I am honored. Welcome back and hope you are feeling better. Maybe you can give us a hand on the List of purported cults. --Zappaz 21:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And thanks for bringing text over from Debunking of the anti-cult movement myths, and trying to NPOV it. Whoever wrote that seems to have been making a one-sided argument. Undoubtedly a poor writer, relatively speaking ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:46, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Having a POV does not make one a poor writer. For most work, having a POV is beneficial. The movie reviews that are the most fun to read (and write, I'm sure) are the ones which really rip into their subject. Writing an encyclopedia is an exercise in biting one's tongue (ouch), in holding back the passionate writing, in choosing the workmanlike prose in favor of the beautiful turn of a phrase if doing so brings greater accuracy and fairness. Stop being such a good writer, Ed. ;) Cheers, -Willmcw 21:47, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Human

If you have any interest in stretching your diplomatic/NPOV skills to their limits, I've just put up a Request for Comment regarding Human. There's an ongoing dispute regarding the introduction, and how scientific or spiritual/religious it ought to be. I've written up a summary of the issue together with a suggestion for a compromise introduction (which the spiritual side does not agree with) here [1]. But if you don't have time, no worries, and I don't blame you. SlimVirgin 02:49, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I take offense

First offense

I take offense on your attitude toward my contributions to WP. Editing is a collaborative process and you act often times very unilateraly, not giving anyone else a chance to put two sentences together. --Zappaz 00:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Second offense

You accuse me of vandalizing your page? I have done nothing of the kind.... you must be confused. Please remove your accusation from my talk page. An apology is expected. --Zappaz 16:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Third offense

I take offense on your attitude toward my collaboration on the List of purported cults. Let me make something clear to you Wil: Your attitude will not make me go away, quite the contrary. I will continue collaborating on that article with you and other editors, even if my collaboration is narrowed to be a counterbalance to your POV. That, in istelf will be a good thing for the article. --Zappaz 17:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the record

Despite our differences we have found a way to work together. Being able to do that with someone that clearly has an opposing point of view in these controversial articles, gives me hope that it is indeed possible to work together despite our differences. My hope I can achieve the same with other editors! Thanks for your patience. --Zappaz 04:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Resistance Manifesto

I HOPE I've caught every version of it. The Wikipedia search doesn't care about case any more, so it's hard to get to particular cased versions of an article. RickK 05:18, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

-ists

I see what you mean — good point. Sorry not to have cottoned on earlier (probably the heat of argument steaming up my glasses). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rasta

Can you let the rasta page know if/when you remove them from the purported cults article. Thanks for keeping us informed. --SqueakBox 02:38, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

It will certainly be removed if no one finds a source for the allegation. I'll try to remember. -Willmcw 02:41, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey Will, this is thank you for supporting me in my nomination. I appreciate it very much; and I'm also grateful to you for the example you set around here regarding patience and NPOV. I've learned a lot from watching you edit and negotiate, and I mean that very sincerely. You're an excellent theorist of neutrality.  ;-) SlimVirgin 04:53, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Gee, I don't know if my theories are working so well. Thanks for the nice note anyway! -Willmcw 06:39, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Another thank you -- from a user you don't know

I noticed your barnstar congratulating you on defending Wikipedia from La Rouche propoganda. I'd just like to thank you for your tireless efforts there -- keep up the good work. (P.S. Very random, very unimportant: his last name may mean "the hive" -- ruche means hive in modern French) --Zantastik 08:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The effort against the LaRouche propagandist involved many editors, including Wikipedia's newest administrator, user:SlimVirgin. You can help if you want -- I see that you're multilingual and Wikipedias in other languages may have articles that have been written to follow the LaRouche line. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:01, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship vote

I nominated Sesel for adminship; if you are interested you can vote at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Sesel. Guettarda 21:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making the nomination. I certainly will support it, as I think Sesel has been a good editor and would be a good administrator. I'll wait to vote until after he has officially accepted the nomination. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

He accepted on his Talk page (and I assume he will on the vote page soon). Guettarda 22:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SEPP Unification Church?

What is this about? From your splattering the Category across articles, I think you're working from some list. There is nothing relevant in the article. (SEWilco 09:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC))

03:05 Science & Environmental Policy Project (diff; hist) . . Willmcw (Talk) (+[[Category:Unification Church)

I made that edit because an article, Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, says that the Science & Environmental Policy Project was created as affiliate of a Unification Church think tank, the WIVPP. Someone should add that fact to the SEPP article. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

That fact used to be in the SEPP article. It is false. (SEWilco 12:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC))

If you say so. Cheers, -Willmcw 12:21, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think it depends on what you mean by "affiliate". There is certainly a link: Singer went to a meeting of the International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences (see ICUS?), which the entire scholarly and scientific world knows was founded and continues to be financed and run by members of the Unification Church. Shucks, you can link Al Sharpton to the church, too.

A link indicates some sort of relationship, even a fleeting involvement (like, gave a speech or attended an event).

Generally, though, affiliation implies a closer, more official tie. Like WBZ-TV (Channel 4) was an affiliate of NBC. Some TV stations are affiliated with a network (retaining a semblance of independence); some are even owned by the network.

There's also the question of why someone wants to assert an "affiliation". Is it to discredit the scientist? "If he's on Moon's payroll, he must by a kook (or corrupt, or just an idiot)."

Which leads to the question of "How much money can an organization take from a POV-pushing enterprise, before Wikipedia can or must say that the enterprise is controlling the organization? If Exxon gives money to an environmentalist group which fights global warming, does that mean (a) Exxon endorses the global warming theory; or (b) that environmentalist group can't be trusted because their in the pay of the oil industry? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:54, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is the question we are answering. Adding an article to a category is, admittedly, a general statement of association between the article's subject and the category. But it does not follow that a categorizing group controls a categorized group. In any case, I simply added the SEPP as part of a wholesale categorization effort. I freely acknowledge that others have evaluated the situation better. No problem. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:48, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

A bibliography

If you don't want to rely on Internet sources, here's a nice bibliography I just found (ironically, I found it on the web ;-):

http://science.gcc.edu/reli/kemeny/new_page_238.htm

Cheers. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:21, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow, it's quite a list. -Willmcw 11:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Category talk:Professionals by nationality

You left a pretty incisive comment on there a while back. I felt uneasy about Category:Professionals by nationality myself, but reading what you said tipped the balance and there is now a formal proposition for it to be moved to Category:Occupations by nationality at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#April 2. Thought you might want to check it out, given that I've quoted you! :) --VivaEmilyDavies 17:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paul Vogel

Phew! My first block of anything more than 24 hours... I checked back in the block-log, and found that the last time that that IP address was blocked (for the same reason) it was for a month, so I decided to follow precedent. I'm still slightly nervous in case that was too much (or too little). What a delightful character. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NAMBLA

Thanks for your comment. I will defer withdrawing from the article and see what success you have. I wish you luck. Like most of these people, Corax is persistent, cunning and dishonest.Adam 01:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I'd advise you to re-acquaint yourself with the No personal attacks policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to censor my posts. I'll take my chances with the personal attacks policy. Adam 07:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio matter,Stephan Kinsella

Hi Willmcw, I've only recently been working the copyvio page and am still learning, Infrogmation probably knows a lot more than me about copyright problems.

If I understand it right, User:DickClarkMises wrote (or copied) this article. Then, on 8 April, the subject of the article, NS Kinsella identified himself and started editing (as user:24.175.17.57), and User:216.216.209.2 on the talk page). A copyvio notice was then placed by you with a reference url (the url seems to be off line at the moment).

My take on the matter is that NS Kinsella released the material per the GFDL by virtue of his editing wikipedia, see Copyrights#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations. So whatever he added is GFDL, regardless of the license on his website. This goes for the entire article, since he has removed the copyvio notice (assuming he's not DickClarkMises).

It's confusing because DickClarkMises started the article and apparently violated NS Kinsella's copyright. But as soon as Kinsella removed the copyvio notice, he released whatever was his (including what DickClarkMises copied from the Kinsella website).

I would remove the copyvio notice, and note on the talk page that NS Kinsella releases everything thats there per the GFDL, by virtue of his removing the earlier copyvio notice. I'm not sure if we require a trackable email from the author in these cases. --Duk 03:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful analysis. I had been under the impression that a {copyvio} notice was supposed to stay in place until removed by an administrator. If removal by the copyright owner, followed by editing by him, is sufficient to clearly release the material under the GFDL then I suppose that takes care of the permission. I presume that it also applies to the photograph, which was released by the initial editor as PD but would be at least GFDL under these circumstances. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:44, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

PS, the section you linked to, Copyright#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations, apparently no longer exists in that article. -Willmcw 03:46, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the correct link is Wikipedia:Copyright#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations.

On another note, I admire your patience. Its really amazing how abusive this guy was, considering you were protecting and looking out for his copyright. And considering that he was editing anonymously under two different ip's and not signing his name. He also broke the three revert rule, with the fourth revert under his second ip. (your reverts don't count towards the 3RR because they were addressing his vandalism). --Duk 04:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ROTFLOL, there are tears coming out of my eyes and my sides are aching with laughter. This is the funniest thing I've seen in days! Thanks for showing me :) Duk 23:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NAMBLA again

It is not "imprecise language." It is clearly a deliberate falsification and cannot be anything else. Adam 07:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The most useful thing an American contributor can do is to find out if the Curkey v NAMBLA court case is still running in Boston, and if it has concluded what the outcome was. The evidence presented in that case is probably the best source for information on NAMBLA's current status and activities. Adam 07:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears as if user:Katefan0 might have a better courthouse connection, as I see she has added some info from court papers. The local ACLU listed it in their legal docket as of 2003-2004. I can't find any references yet from the last 12 months. -Willmcw 21:53, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody's said "thank you", yet, but I wandered onto the NAMBLA article article from the village pump, and I think you're doing an excellent job mediating the current controversies. I'm too new to have figured out the whole "barnstar" thing, but you definitely deserve one. Soundguy99 03:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Fair use images

I believe the images I have uploaded are fair use because:

• They do not hamper any commercial sales.
• Are used for informational purposes.
• They are copyrighted.

→ JarlaxleArtemis 20:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: The items listed below are examples of what fair use images can be; the images don't have to be any of the following:

• Unique historical images which we cannot reproduce by other means
• Samples of music, sufficient only to illustrate the point
• Book and CD album covers
• Corporate logos
• Quotations
• Screen shots

→ JarlaxleArtemis 20:20, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

JA - thanks for your replies - I've replied on your talk page to keep the discussion in one place. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:24, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's a need for any images on Wikipedia. The images I've added are symbols of dieties and fictional organizations. Others are images of fantasy creatures. They add clarity to the articles, and the images of fantasy creatures show the readers what the creatures actually look like. After all, one cannot simply go to the zoo in order to see them. → JarlaxleArtemis 20:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Here is some stuff from the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ article:

Under U.S. copyright law, the primary things to consider when asking if something is fair use (set forth in Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107) are:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

   Is it a for profit competitor or not? Is it for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research? Is the use transformative (of a different nature to the original publication)?

2. The nature of the copyrighted work;

   Is it a highly original creative work with lots of novel ideas or a relatively unoriginal work or listing of facts? Is the work published (to a non-restricted audience)? If not, fair use is much less likely.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

   How much of the original work are you copying? Are you copying more or less than the minimum required for your purpose? The more you exceed this minimum, the less likely the use is to be fair. Are you reducing the quality or originality, perhaps by using a reduced size version?

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

   Does this use hurt or help the original author's ability to sell it? Did they intend to or were they trying to make the work widely republished (as with a press release)? Are you making it easy to find and buy the work if a viewer is interested in doing so?

→ JarlaxleArtemis 20:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Reducing the quality of the images would reduce the quality of the articles. Anyway, I don't think that it is necessary to reduce the quality of the images. After all, the concept of fair use is very broad and general. → JarlaxleArtemis 21:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

New Zealand National Front

Bolton is out again. Also, the Oz National Front branches in Perth and Melb. didn't start until early 2005. The Sydney one was started in late 2004 though... they shut down after the kitchen, in which they could not stand the heat, got too hot.

I hope someday we can get a summary of the Bolton comings/goings. I understand that some branches in OZ started in 2005, but the groundwork began in 2004, which is why, for simplicity, I wrote "late 2004". If you can add more details please do. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sydney branch started in 04... This Darpism entry summarises it all, really: http://isitwrongtowishonspacehardware.blogspot.com/2005_02_20_isitwrongtowishonspacehardware_archive.html#110916467034606683

Oh... and the Sydney branch is defunct now. Lachy is still with the WPCA, Darren has joined up with the PYL.

Thanks for the update, that's helpful. The blogs and forums and so on are good for background, but even a great one like DARP is still just a blog. The best sources are newspapers, NZTV, magazines, so if you see anything like that then it'd be great to add their material. I haven't seen any coverage, even in DARP, of the Bolton matter. Anyway, it's a solid article. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:52, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Coverage of the Bolton thing was in Friday's post on Darpism.... http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3222897a11,00.html

Also, have you seen the TV1 piece on Jim Saleam's visit? http://cam.bluexo.net/news.avi

Islamofascism

Pokes work, though perhaps not always quickly... --- Charles Stewart 08:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I take full responsibility for the move: I proposed it, and I really should have known what would happen, since I have been involved in a fair amount of tiresomeness around the politics of Islam. --- Charles Stewart 11:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

fair use

I replied at User talk:JarlaxleArtemis. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 12:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

not that it's a surprise...

but 192.104.181.229 has basically admitted to being 192.104.181.227 as well... after all, if .227 was a separate person, .229 wouldn't have replied in the first person to a message left for .227. I'm tempted to go back and see how many reverts 227/9 racked up in 24 hours... -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No surprise at all. But at least he's talking - it's hard to find consensus with someone who reverts without comment. Thanks for sticking with it. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:01, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Bebe.png

I didn't upload Image:Bebe.png. I just took away the GFDL tag. I didn't add the fair use tag, either. As for the images I did upload, I've got it covered. → JarlaxleArtemis 01:33, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Good, because you've got a lot of work to do fixing a lot of images. -Willmcw 01:34, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Na, it's not that much work. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:32, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Judging by your gallery of images, I'd have thought it would be. But I'm not you. Anyway, thanks for addressing it. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:35, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Response

I felt a response was more appropriate here than on the Tribunal Talk page seeing "personal motivations" is getting far afeild of the issues which I beleive are fairly well represented there. I enjoy very much our rhetorical interchanges and you seem to an overly attentive student. Frankly personal motivations, yours, mine, whoevers don't really interest me, so I just except everybody's as is, coming to the discussion. The motivation I am working in behalf of is Solzhenitsyn questioning Russell Tribunal's motives with, his now infamous quote, "doesn't this material suit your purposes.

But I am curious where "vulgarity" comes from, cause if that is directed at me personally I certainly wish to repent of that error. Feel free to let me know if when and where it may have occurred.

I noticed you where quite active on many classical composer pages. You should see the piece I wrote on the Wilhelm Furtwangler talk page. Perhaps you and I could collaborate on a definition of [[apolitical]. Much thanks. --nobs

P.S. When you are on the losing end of an arguement I know it doesn't pay to obscure issues with personal motivations, etc; been there, done that.

I think you may have confused me with another editor. My only contributions to the Russell Tribunal talk page was in reference to the Nobel Prizes, the discussion of which seemed quite civil and non-controversial. There was certainly no vulgarity that I recall. I'd be happy to collaborate with you in the future, however definitions belong in Wiktionary. Good contribution to the Furtwangler talk page, btw. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:47, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Duggan

Yes, I was very pleased about that. When I first glanced at it, I thought in fact that she had used our article as a source in her European Parliament speech, though at second glance it seems not. However, still not bad. We're becoming respectable (as hard as we try not to be). ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:54, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

hi williamcw

hello, u told me that i harass user:ken Bogan. But he is a sexual harasser and personally assaulted/beat up my girl friend. he is an attacker, a real harasser. i simply got some revenge i shouldn't have gotten. Amigo de compton 06:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What? u dont even care that he might be dangerous or should be watched? Amigo de compton 06:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Which pictures? The Dungeons & Dragons ones? I have sent a letter to Wizards of the Coast, Inc., asking for their permission. → JarlaxleArtemis 04:23, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the other ones. Anticheers, → JarlaxleArtemis 02:24, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Russell Tribunal

I had/have some questions about your work at Russell Tribunal. Please contact me at my talk page. KC9CQJ 05:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you fire up your IRC client real quick and jump into the #Wikipedia channel? KC9CQJ 05:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC). BTW, that was quick!

Fair enough. You added to my statement, so you know what I'm up to. What do you think? KC9CQJ 06:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was, what's your take on the issue(s) there? KC9CQJ 06:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's all I needed. Thanks. KC9CQJ 06:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Willmc:Here are three proposals for an edit to your recent contribution on the Tribunal page:

(1) ...formally calling itself International War Crimes Tribunal...

(2) International War Crimes Tribunal

(3) The group called itself Intertnational War Crimes Tribunal though it was unsanctioned by any government and had no prosecutorial power...

I'd like to get a consensus rather than an edit war; I may be able to research some of the purported sources into my timetable over the coming months and will of course, always work to achieve a general concensus of meaning. Thx. nobs

Nobs, your #1 seems fine. #2 is weird, since it is not the Nuremburg tribunal. #3 is fine too, though perhaps heavy-handed and I thought that its status was already clear. Anyway, I just added it because the formal name ought to be in there somehow. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:56, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have a rhetorical question in need of an Administrators advice:

If User X referred to User Y as "that honky User Y"

would he more likely be

(A) qualified to be a Judge at the Russell Tribunal, or

(B) be banned from Wikipedia? nobs

I don't know what you're talking about. -Willmcw 05:19, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia

WP:SPOKEN Barnstar

You've got a pretty good speaking voice (relative to others, at least :)). I suggest giving up your current career and devoting yourself entirely to Spoken Wikipedia. --brian0918™ 10:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I second that. Very well done recording and very pleasing to the ear. Thank you! Demi ^T/_C 18:39, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

• Thanks. I take requests. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:08, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I just listened to the file "History of the world" now. You have a good, not-too-accented voice entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. I hope you record many times more. --81.146.40.59 17:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For being the most prolific Spoken Wikipedian (I count 14 articles), and having a good speaking voice (despite the strong accent that 81.146.40.59 doesn't seem to hear!) I hereby award you the WP:SPOKEN Barnstar. Very well done indeed. — Chameleon 14:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Extra-curricular activities

"No, I'm not worried in the slightest about editors raping other editors online." LOL!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

There are so many things we can worry about that it is necessary to prioritize. Wikipedia rape is really far down the list. But, you never know... Be safe. Avoid dimly-lit articles and disreputable talk pages. -Willmcw 23:07, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I won't be posting here again then ...  ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Oppenheimer reading

I went through and cleaned up your Robert Oppenheimer reading, deleting any odd pauses or mistakes, to get it nice and neat for the public on April 22. --brian0918™ 01:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, for future reference, please place the spoken template on the top of the article's talk page, as well as at the bottom of the article page. For an example, see Talk:Timpani. --brian0918™ 02:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, for future reference, "GNU" is pronounced with a hard G, then "new"... "gnoo", like saying "agony" but "agonoo". Saying "G N U" isn't incorrect, but you know how computer nerds get over minor details... --brian0918™ 06:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I very much appreciate any and all pronunciation help. In many cases, it would be possible to correct them in the recording and re-upload the file. And since "GNU" is at the end of every recording, I'd sure like to get it right. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

If you re-record the end bit, I can incorporate it into the file (getting rid of the noise, etc). The only other mistake I noticed in Robert Oppenheimer was when you pronounced "spectroscopy" as "spectroh-scaw-pee" instead of "spect-raw-scuppy".

Oh, and your voice is going to be on the main page of Wikipedia on Friday.  :) brian0918™ 17:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can try submitting the high quality ogg with the corrections, and I'll try putting them in. I made a number of changes to the original, taking out about 35 seconds of pauses and other stuff (no words). I just got Audacity today, so I'm learning as well. --brian0918™ 21:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greek pronunciation

OK, so you're not Greek, but can you help a poor editor who never studied the language in pronunciation? I'm helping with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia and am reading the article on Poetry. It contains three Greek words, poietis (the one who creates), poiesis (the act of creation), and poiema (the thing created). I would guess I'd pronounce them something like "poy-eh'-sis" with the accent on the second syllable. Is that anywhere near correct? Two other words that look tricky are in this sentence, " For example, in Anglo-Saxon a poet is a scop (shaper or maker) and in Scots makar. I assume scop is pronounced as if in modern English, and makar would be "Mack-car". Any help is appreciated. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, in modern Greek, the three words all start with the sound 'pee'; there are different ways of pronouncing ancient Greek, but something like 'poy' is probably about right. As for the stress, again the modern Greek pronunciation of the ancient words is: pee-i-'TIS, 'PEE-i-sis, and 'PEE-i-ma. I think that it's the same stress pattern for the 'poy' pronunciation.

I don't know about 'scop' (I'd guess that you're right), but the Scots is 'MÆker (the last syllable being schwa). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thakns much! -Willmcw 22:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ann Coulter image

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so I'm not so sure how some of the tags are used. The image in question, Image:Ann coulter.jpg, is a screenshot off of time.com which I cropped to make it look like a regular portrait. Does this still qualify as a screenshot? I'm not really sure.

--Mb1000 22:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppenheimer update

Ok, I've spliced in your corrections. Note that the original ending statement used the word "is" when it should've used "are". (this sound file and all text in the article are licensed under...). I fixed it in this file (more Frankenaudio), and corrected the text on the project page. --brian0918™ 23:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charles Ives

I noticed your next spoken article choice, and am putting up a request for it to be featured on the Main Page. You'll probably still have a week or two, at the very least. --brian0918™ 15:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cool. It's ready. I was glad to have an article without any hard words! Thanks for your work on this project. Cheers, -Willmcw 17:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

One problem with the article that may keep it off the main page is the short lead section, which probably needs another sentence or two. I'll try adding a couple; rerecording the intro when that is done isn't necessary, but you can if you want to. --brian0918™ 17:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it might be alright as is. I'll submit the request and see what happens. --brian0918™ 17:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re-recording the intro would be no trouble. Cheers, -Willmcw 17:31, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Would you happen to have the original version of the audio without the noise removal? I might try messing around with that. --brian0918™ 18:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I saved it after the noise removal. I used the lowest setting in Audacity. It and the "normalization" seem to impart a hollow sound. -Willmcw 18:36, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

You mean the setting on the Less side or on the More side? It's just that your version had a lot of chirping in it. I've attempted to filter out as much of that as I could. Are you sure you're using the noise removal correctly? You're supposed to select a few seconds of silence, click "get noise profile", then select the entire thing and drag the bar a few to the left and click Remove noise. --brian0918™ 21:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can hear the chirping in the silences if I turn the sound way up, but is it audible to you at normal volumes? I've been using the least "Less" setting, after first sampling a few seconds of silence. I thought that maybe deleting sections would put them out-of-phase and disrupt the noise filtering, but that doesn't seem to tbe the case. Higher settings get rid of the chirping better, but the overall sound-quality is much lower. Maybe you can find the "sweet spot." I'm trying to cut the noise level, but I may have to find away of recording in another room. Thanks for your help. -Willmcw 21:38, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I do have the un-filtered version of "England expects..." which I can convert to high quality OGG if you want to play with it. -Willmcw 18:48, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. --brian0918™ 21:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's uploading now, overwriting the media:Corrections.ogg, should be done in a minute. (about 12.5 mb). -Willmcw 21:38, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

War elephants

Thanks for doing another article. We've changed the instructions since your last addition. It's explained at WP:WSW. Basically, we created a Wikipedia:Spoken articles page, where you list the article under the same subject that it's listed under on Wikipedia:Featured articles. On the audio file's Image: page, you add the Spoken audio entry template. --brian0918™ 05:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So we don't have to fill in the "Completed recordings" section of WP:WSW anymore? Or fill in the Ogg template? Cool, this'll be easier. Say, if you have a chance listen to the image:war_elephants.ogg and let me know if the chirping seems less. I moved the noisy computer farther away from the microphone, and ran the noise filter twice. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:32, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think the noise filter is the problem. The chirping is digital blips being added by the noise filter as it tries to remove noise. Do you have the original unfiltered version? I can try my hand at it. --brian0918™ 05:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll post it as image:corrections.ogg again. Do you have a better noise filter? I did notice that Audacity's seemed to work better (but not well enough) with a longer period of silence. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:54, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've been using Audacity's, but it seems to come out better than when you do it, though I'm pretty sure we're doing the same thing. Maybe in the future you can leave like 5 seconds of silence in a certain part, to be deleted after the noise has been filtered. --brian0918™ 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is what I did for the noise removal: I opened your Corrections.ogg in Audacity, selected the empty space from about 2:17 to 2:19, went to Noise Removal, then clicked Get Noise Profile. Then I selected the entire sound file, went to Noise Removal, and set the bar at 4 notches from the left side, clicked Remove Noise. Under File, Preferences, the Ogg export quality is set at 4. I then exported it as an OGG. Can you try to duplicate this? Compare your version to mine. If you turn up the audio, there's a lot of high pitched chirping in yours, and very little in my version. Do you hear it? --brian0918™ 17:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguous media terms

RE: An article called news trade (a stub)...I had placed what I called an "attention tag" on it. Correctly, you moved it to front page, it was good to have a second affirmative opinion.

The page introduces a specious concept, invented by the author.

There is no "news trade" as he defines it. The article takes any number of random types of talents with a connection to information driven programs (including sports, lifestyle) and conflating that with journalism taking, the husband term "news," and giving it a shotgun wedding to the wife, "trade." You have then, the "news trade" family. Who knows what offspring that will yield? I have another good word for it, "news trade," newspeak. Like such castigatingly stupid controvery arguments -- "liberal media," "conservative media" --"news trade" serves no purpose but to make the public suspicious of its free press for all the wrong reasons.

Lastly, I want to be clear on this point. I have nothing personal against the authors of the article, in fact, they have had great comments and contributions, been good to work with and can do excellent work. I've seen it... Calicocat 04:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should nominate it for a VfD. Either it'll be deleted, or other editors may get interested and move it to a better title. -Willmcw 04:45, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Good advice, thanks. Calicocat 20:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The importance of the comma

As is seen in the difference between "Will fix," and "Will, fix."  ;-p SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I also feel I should add that if you'd prefer I didn't get involved in that page, please feel free to say so, and that goes for reverting my edits too. A quick glance at the archives today indicates games being played, and I suspect you have a handle on them, which I don't, so I'll be guided by you. (The pompousness reminds me of you-know-who.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:00, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your participation is most welcome, as always. Your fresh perspective and your focus on the end-result are helpful in keeping us on track. Let's help guide each other. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:65.103.217.86

It's no problem; I'm happy to pitch in. I agree—I hate blocking anyone; I much prefer discussion. I don't think he intends to disrupt. Hope he can understand our policies on this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1755 Lisbon earthquake

This is uncanny. Just as I was finally able to download the right OGG software, and just as I had finished the first minute or so of your reading Charles Ives (which is still playing as I type this), and just as I prepared myself to write a note thanking you for introducing me to Wikipedia (remember the comments on Malibu, regarding the tile works? my very first edit in December?), and just as I was contemplating the proper etiquette of inviting someone to read my earthquake article with an eye to (possibly) recording it, I clicked on a new screen and noticed a new message. From you! So I guess this is meant to be.

I'm flattered. I think the Lisbon article is a great choice, since the 250th anniversary is coming up on November 1st. And you are a terrific reader -- very impressive. As for pronunciation, if you can hold off a couple days, let me write a note to my online friend Muriel Gottrop to check a few things. I'm not a Portuguese speaker, unfortunately. (The only pronunciation I'm sure of is Algarve, which is two syllables, not three.)

Thanks again for this wonderful gesture. Isn't Wikipedia fun? Sandover 09:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS: Are you familiar with the Thomas Hart Benton portrait of Stanton MacDonald Wright?

I'll update you on more pronunciations as I find them, but I did remember that Pombal is pronounced POOM-ball. All the o's in Portuguese are actually ooohs... Good night, and thanks again for all your good deeds. Sandover 10:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It could be poom-BALL, or poom-ball (equal stress); I really don't know for sure. I updated my proposed pronunciations on my discussion page, but please don't rely on my speculations. I wrote a note to Muriel Gottrop and hope she can give pronunciation tips for you if you need them.

I'm so pleased you are making this a "talking" article out of 1755 Lisbon earthquake, you can't know! I am always grateful when people acknowledge the special needs of the visually impaired.

Incidentally, I heard your excellent recording of Poetry as well. I wondered, in a vain frame of mind, if you might also be familiar with my entry on James Merrill, which is another pet project of mine in (early) evolution. Over the next few months, I'm planning to flesh out both that entry and The Changing Light at Sandover, which I hope will rise in time to the quality of Lost in Translation (poem). If you could perform a copy edit on the latter, or perhaps give me feedback on it, I would be most appreciative. My intention was to create an entry that could serve as an online explication for a relatively smart high school audience. How does my explication read to someone unfamiliar with the work, I wonder? The "Lost in Translation" entry doesn't seem to have caught the interest of copy editors, at least not yet (and I haven't solicited help). But you seem (possibly) sympathetic. Please, no obligation — it may not at all be to your taste! All best and thanks again — Sandover 18:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those sound like great projects. I look forward to reading the articles and will make any contributions that I can. Thanks for mentioning them. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Just jumping in after Sandover's note. I'm so glad you chose this article to read - i cant wait to hear it. What software can i use?? About pronounciation: i dont know official symbols, but let me try.

• Tagus river - you can say this however you like, because its English. In Portuguese the river is Tejo. (j as in joint)
• Algarve (All-gar'-vee) (writes Sandover: should be AL-garve with two syllables, and an emphasis on first, short 'a' as in the American nickname Al)

Palace of Ajuda (Ah-jew'-dah) - this seems ok

• Duke of Aveiro (Ah'-veh-roh) or (Ah-vie'-roh) - I would say it more like this: AH-vei-roh. The ei sound in vei is like in hey!
• Távora family. (Tah-vore'-ah) (writes Sandover: a long 'o' sound, with emphasis on first syllable? TAH-vooh-ruh?) - I would say: TAH-voo-rah. Voo like Boo!
• Prime Minister Sebastião de Melo (day mellow) (writes Sandover: not to be catty, but be sure to put the nasal "meow" in Sebastião) - this ão sound is very difficult for non native speakers. My father speaks Portuguese for 40 years and still doesnt pronounce it correctly. I wouldnt worry too much, but the meow-nasal is a good tip. de is not day; is more like the me in melancholic - imagine delancholic and remove lancholic.

Marquis of Pombal (Pome-ball') (writes Sandover: I think this should be Poom-BALL though not 100% sure yet if accent is on second syllable or if the two syllables are fairly equally stressed) - Pom-BAL. The Pomb is like Bomb; al is very open.

This is huge fun! I hope you have more of this to ask! muriel@pt 10:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perfect. This is tremendous help. Thank you so much. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

What a delight, hearing the article! You've done a wonderful job. I appreciate your note, and indeed you have invited a couple of corrections from me on pronunciation — mostly in German, actually, and not Portuguese. (This is just a quick note — I will have to get into this later today or perhaps tomorrow, if you don't mind.) Also, hearing the article spoken, I felt it necessary to make a minor (grammatical) change in the text at the beginning of the philosophy section (see my latest edit). I hope it's not too much trouble to change this. Is it a surgical procedure?

And if its fairly easy to nip and tuck, how much of a perfectionist are you? I was very impressed by how well you 'faked' a lot of the Portuguese, but I think there are a number of possible improvements. I wonder if Murielpt will chime in. While personally, I don't mind the way you've morphed 'Tagus' – though I would probably have used a 'j' sound in there in English – I do think you should be saying Poombal and Poombaline, with the long 'o' sound. How hard would it be to change all those?

In the absence of other common examples of these words being pronounced, Wikipedia will stand, for better or for worse, as the standard pronounciation for all these terms. I think we can do better — we definitely should talk these things out.

Thanks for your comments on James Merrill. He was an extraordinarily fine reader of his own poetry, perhaps the finest reader among poets. If you are a connoisseur of the spoken word and are fond of poetry, he is a "must buy." Merrill recorded "Lost in Translation" brilliantly in 1986. The title of that 1986 audio cassette is Reflected Houses, and it can still be found from several online sources (use Google).

Thanks again for the recording. I was attracted to 1755 Lisbon earthquake in late January, and was struck by the way it read like a succinct suspense thriller (even as it cycled through a variety of differing perspectives on the event). The article was expanded after its first FA nomination a couple months ago. But despite the changes and many improvements since, that terse thriller quality is still present. Bravo — Sandover 02:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure about Pomball? Muriel's comment above made it seem that it was pronounced like "bomb", with a short "o". The Tagus River I punted on, since it's an English word - apparently the Portuguese is Tejo. I could pronounce it as "Tajus" instead. If you'd like, you might try recording specific words and sending me the file. I could then use it as the guide. I'm not a connoisseur, but I do enjoy a good poem well read. Thanks for the tip. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:02, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Motivation for requests on the Spoken Wikipedia

You asked me about the motivation for me to put so many requests on the Spoken Wikipedia in these terms:

"May I ask how you happened to pick those articles? Do you have a personal interest in listening to them, or do you simply feel that they would be good articles to make available to others?"

I do have a personal interest in articles like Commonwealth of Nations and European Union, and both of the city articles which come from that (also South Africa would be good as a country article.

Most of the topics, particularly in the world of Economics, are topics an audience ought to be familiar with (or could be made more familiar/interested in). So there was an altrustic/informational element. There was an obvious gap in the 'already spoken' which I hoped you would set out to fill. This applied in the same way with geography and law. This informed many of my choices where there are good substansive featured articles on many subjects. This may meld, for instance, I do have a personal interest in Fractal, all the sports and games (perhaps especially Paper Rock and Scissors and the Space Elevator.

About Soda can stove, what chance is there you can make separate audio descriptions of the diagrams/pictures?

The War articles I thought were more for the good than for personal interest, in particular the articles about the First World War.

--EuropracBHIT 03:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC).

You asked me:

'I mean, do you personally want to listen to them, either due to an inability to read printed material (visual impairment) or due to an enjoyment in listening to spoken articles? Or are these articles that you think others would be interested in?'

Not a permanent or disabling visual impairment. Sometimes my screen goes funny (pink) and sound is much less likely to do that. Also it's listening to them off the Internet. Speaking of senses, I do tend to listen much better than see, particularly with long pieces of information, with things like headaches and such. I was thinking also of other people with visual impairments and/or learning disabilities, like the demographic covered by the Radio for the Print Handicapped, as well as children and students. I do like very much to listen, and I'm sure many others would be interested too, and learn a lot. It also helps me crystallise my mind voice and hear it in gestalt/whole, rather than in part which I tend to do when I read (and thus miss out vital information). Also having them Spoken like this is relatively 'not noisy'. My Dad also is not a very fast or a very good reader of encyclopedia articles, and also the whole 'senior citizen' factor needs to be considered, particularly with an aging population in the developed world, such as covers much of the English Wikipedia.

In summation, I am thinking of:

• the very young
• the very old
• those with disabilities/handicaps/impairments for any and every reason (from dyslexia to central auditory processing disorder to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder)
• those who take English on as an additional language and might need listening practice for academic, business or personal purposes

and

• those who are not familiar with computers and the Internet and thus want a take-home product without the distractions of graphics and multimedia. (Those with very old {pre-1995} computers come in here, and also those with laptops/Palm Pilots).

And having thought of (and thus spoken for) all these people, I do myself. My own interest is probably wanting something more objective than talk shows and music, wanting to really learn something through my ears, and being able to choose the input from a wide range of choices - really a method of computer-assisted learning - and yet not have to commit myself to a particular programme and twiddle around with my radio or television.

As a sideline: which articles did you consider 'not logical' choices for the spoken Wikipedia on my part?

Thank you for this opportunity:

--EuropracBHIT 05:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Pandeism vfd

Please consider changing the basis for your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pandeism from "original research" to "non-notable." I believe I have adduced sufficient referential evidence to show that this article was not "original research," but simply an exposition on a philosophy which, although real, lacks enough adherents/proponents to be notable enough for inclusion. I apologize for having overestimated the importance of this topic. It was, after all, one of my first posts, when I was new to Wikipedia and not yet familiar with the criteria for notability. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 04:39, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• Your points are certainly fair. With respect to the "spiritual pandeism" stuff, I did not write anything in that section. Someone else dumped it in, and I left it alone because I thought they might know something I didn't. With respect to the rest, the article is based on the concept enunciated in the opening paragraph, as it was taught to me in a humanities class in the Spring of 1996 (titled "The History of Ideas"), by Professor Ramon Mendoza. In retrospect, this may have been the professor's own idea, but he did not approach these lectures any differently than he approached his lectures on pantheism or deism. This was not an exercise in armchair philosophy on my part, nor does it even express my own beliefs - just something that an old professor described as fitting neatly into a continuum of belief systems. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 06:07, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but at the time I wrote it, I was operating under the assumption that it was not coined by the professor (based on the way he taught it), but that he was merely passing it on. It would be just as iffy to credit the professor with a theory that I don't know for a fact was his, and unfortunately he is no longer in the FIU Philosophy department.[2] In retrospect, it would probably be better to redirect the term to pantheism, as most of the non-wiki-mirror references on the web use this term to mean that one (and it's an easy spelling/construction error to make). -- 8^D BD2412^gab 06:24, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
    • Yes. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 09:11, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• Definitely not coined by the prof. I just found conclusive evidence of the use of the term "Pandeism" dating back to 1833 [3], being used by Godfrey Higgins, a follower of John Toland, the creator of pantheism.[4]. The term is used in a book written by Higgins called the Anacalypsis. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 10:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • Please note that the article has now been rewritten in its entirety, and is now verifiably sourced. Thank you. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 21:43, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

NZNF Photos

Dear Willmcw,

We have lots of pretty pictures of National Front types in their nazi get-ups... What's the go on putting those up on the article...

Love,

FightDemBack 07:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanx for the advice... especially the last part. My concern with this article has been that it presents far too rosy a picture of a very violent group, and that someone reading it could be misled into believing the NF is something that it's not. But yes, Good Encyclopedia must come first... after all, there are plenty of other places to mess with Molloy's pretty little head. FightDemBack 11:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not know if it is just me, but I think that one user, Molloy, changed the copyright on us to suit his purpose. I also think that it is odd going from a legal counsul to webmaster. I know something is fishy about that, but I hope that if this user still giving you problems with the photos, you can use the ones I posted last night. (I am surprised Molloy wanted to keep that photo of Kyle in his "Nazi Get-up," instead of using a tame photo of him in a business suit.) Zscout370 (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I got bored and found some more: [5] and [6]. It said that Jason Malloy (User:Malloy) on here is indeed the webmaster of the NZNF: "Well, there's not really much point in trying to conceal your identity from the likes of Darp when three emails and a phone call to Wellington tells me that the person hiding behind this Balaclava is the NZNF's very own IT Geek, Jason Molloy. See him pictured here at last years Wellington route." (From the first link). If you want more, just let me know, please. Zscout370 (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanx for the words of encouragement inre: Redwatch. Cheers. FightDemBack 11:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spoken articles on main page

Can you let me know ahead of time that one of the spoken articles is going to be on the main page. That way I can prepare a short intro audio to be linked directly from the main page as a "Listen" link. I've been busy lately and haven't had a chance to keep up with the Spoken Wikipedia project, which has really taken off recently. Sorry about not getting intro audio for your current main page article. --brian0918™ 20:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I haven't actually been recording new intros, just been chopping up the article's recording to fit the main page intro. --brian0918™ 21:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VFD voting

Hi,

Normally, the admin closing the process will assess the quality of votes, rather than the status of the voter, or simply the number of votes.

• Votes with reasons (especially in relation to WP policy) are given more credence than those without. It is acceptable for later voters, however, to say “agree with x,” rather than repeat what has already been said.
• They will look at the legitimacy of the votes. All of the ‘keep’ votes on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella are from socks (probably one person voting through a different IP address). These socks are obvious because they do not conform to WP conventions, and three of them are practically identical (“I vote for keep…”), without user accounts. The timing of their votes also suggests that it is the same person. The sockpuppet could vote another twenty times; I would be very surprised if they would fool an admin.

I would insert the word delete in you original nomination just to be on the safe side. Hope this helps. The JPS 21:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the pattern on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shockers is familiar. The JPS 22:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes. Still, I'm less surprised to see that behavior from fans of a hockey team than from fans of a libertarian lawyer. On the other hand, they may not be so different. Thanks for your efforts to keep the process clean. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:37, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Protection

No problem. I'm currently reviewing the request. There are so many large edits that I'm having trouble figuring out what the argument is really about. Perhaps I'll leave it to an admin with more time on their hands. BrokenSegue 23:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Main page audio

Yeah, I'll do it, but you might want to remind me before the article goes on the main page. (to see what articles will be on the main page, go to Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article and click on the various dates in the calendar.) --brian0918™ 08:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Willmcw

It was really good to see your name in support of my RfA, Willmcw. Thank you so much for voting myself as the latest Wikipedia administrator! El_C 00:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Hey Will. I'm requesting your expert mediation skills at Talk:Bisexuality. I myself went there from a recent RfC. There basically is a dispute over whether and how much of Kinsey's theories on bisexual prevalence should be included. Most of the consensus seems to be to include SOMETHING on it (with pertinent criticisms), but one very truculent editor is crusading against including anything at all. It's gotten so bad that someone protected the page earlier today. Anyway, for what it's worth, thought I'd see if you're interested in weighing in. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:26, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for helping move things along! (she says with hopeful affect) · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:51, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your fair and intelligent comments and edits

Will, I want to thank you for your many intelligent and fair edits and comments that you make on guru and cult-related articles and their talk pages. Thanks Andries 08:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. As long as we end up with better articles then I'm happy. And thanks for sticking with the process despite a sometimes difficult editing climate. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:25, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Use of "conspiracy theory" in article titles

There's a debate (and vote) going on at several articles regarding the proper titles; in particular, certain editors want to remove the words "conspiracy theory" from any of them. If you're interested, you'll find the relevant talk (and votes) at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, Talk:9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, and Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I see you've already commented at one. Well, the other Talk: pages would benefit from your insights as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

September 11, researchers

9/11 conspiracy theories has been involved in extensive discussions over its title. Please take a sec and say why you think that your proposed title is preferable. Thank, -Willmcw 10:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry about the oversight. Please note, a merge with the related article has now been approved, which meant the merge needed to get off on the right foot. In the wake of 9/11, the preemptive 2003 Iraq war and the War on terror, which - recent revelations indicate - has been bungled by FBI hiring predicated upon neocon ideology rather than competency on Middle East issues, were premised on the now disproven Saddam Hussein / Osama bin Laden conspiracy theory. Supporters of the George W. Bush administration's actions related to the September 11, 2001 attacks are unlikely to appreciate the label 'conspiracy theory' for their debunked theories, and neither would those who have investigated the possiblity that the Bush administration deliberately invited a new Pearl Harbor in accordance with the lobbying campaign waged by neocons, PNAC in particular. Ombudsman 17:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

League of the South

Your source for those claims is the League of the South website at www.dixienet.org. You are cherry picking. Please revert back to how you found it.

Response at talk:League of the South. -Willmcw 01:05, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

"Theories of conspiracies." You'll be dining out on that one for years. ;-)

I wanted to ask you whether you would like to be nominated for adminship. I only recently realized that you're not already, though I assume you've been asked before. I'd be very happy to nominate you if you'd like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Will, I would strongly support your candidature for adminship because you have a moderating influence on extremely controversial issues like guru, cults, list of purported cults etc. Andries 07:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your kind thoughts. I'm thinking about it. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, too cruel obviously. I only offered in order to be unpleasant. ;-) Seriously, there's no rush, and if you'd like to wait for a more established admin to nominate you, that's fine too (and might make sense), so no worries either way. You'd romp home though, just in case you doubt that. People like and respect you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:31, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Categories on user pages

Would you mind deactivating the categories on your user pages? In particular, User:Coolcat/P142 has a number of "live" categories that result in your page appearing in lists of articles. Categories can easily be deactivated by dropping a bracket or by adding a colon in front of the word "category". Thanks, -Willmcw 09:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

My most sincere apologies, I wasnt paying attention to categories. Fixed. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments requested

Our neo-eugenicist friend is making more noise at Talk:Eugenics. I assume he, like all of the other of his sort which periodically show up and demand that the page be about the wonderful and glorious future of human modification (and of course all of that stuff in the past is far distant and was never really eugenics anyway), will eventually realize that there is little space for POV pushing around here, but in the meantime your reasoned thoughts would be appreciated. --Fastfission 16:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Matrixism vandal

Hi! You're one of the editors I've noticed reverting "Matrixism" linkspamming, so I thought you might be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#April_25. Matrixism currently redirects to New religious movement, and this has been used as a justification for linkspamming in the past. I believe an overwhelming vote to delete Matrixism will demonstrate a community consensus against the linkspamming, deterring further vandalism. Thanks for your help. — Phil Welch 19:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Queen Anne (spoken)

"Talk of the devil!" I was just about to sing your praises too Willmcw - keep up the good work with the spoken articles. Thanks Craigy 21:55, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Tags on Work Pages

Thanks for the note regarding my work pages and the "tags." I've altered them on my page. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware it would annoy anyone to have them stashed there. WBardwin 03:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't the editor's pages have the most POV in the whole encyclopedia? At least mine do! Maybe we all need a tag. WBardwin 06:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it's ok to have a POV on your talk page. Maybe there shold be a tag to alert editors to a user page sorely lacking in POV. {{NOPOV}} Probably the sign of an dangerously neutral mind. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:24, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

LOPOV might be okay though; or POV-lite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:36, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation for Francis Petre

I have replied on my talk page. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 07:12, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well done on the audio - the pronunciations were all pretty good. Thanks for being such a dedicated and constructive Wikipedian. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 01:09, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

thanks

is my talk page on your watchlist or something? :P porges 23:36, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hate group

Could you check recent contribution by anon: Hate_group#.22Hate_group.22_as_a_characterization? Seems to me to be a white supremacist apologetics and non-NPOV. Thank you, --Zappaz 20:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I've got it on my to-do list. The same IP logged some other questionable edits, one of which I reverted last week. Thanks for noticing it. -Willmcw 23:00, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

No problem. And my compliments to your work on the article. Bold of you to do so extensive changes to a Featured Article. But I like them very much, so no objections here ;-) And if you're done and feeling restless you can move on to the Vietnam War. That monster of an article could really need your magic touch. In case you'd like a real challenge ;-) Shanes 08:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Survey on Prefixed-Styles

Since you are one of the people currently voting a "First and only choice" I am hoping to encourage you to vote a full set of preferences in the ongoing survey before May 14, in order to prevent a deadlock which will result in no consensus. Whig 12:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Help needed at Guru

I have tried to mediate at talk:guru, but now find myself in danger of losing my temper with Andries. Your input as an administrator who is neutral in the dispute would be greatly appreciated. Mkweise 17:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. However I'm going to stay on the sidelines. Keep your cool. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:58, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sheila Jackson Lee

Hey Will, I see that you had a runin with User:Rangerdude over this article. I actually ran across it by accident, beign a political junkie from Houston myself, and would like to tackle the article's NPOV balance. I agree with your assessments on the talk page. I have added a fair bit of bio information to the article, but I don't think that's enough. It's still 50% bio (with some REAL criticism) and 50% of these cheap shots. I hesitate to tackle trimming the cheap shots myself because I've been involved in a fairly public conflict with Rangerdude over a totally unrelated topic and I don't want him to think I'm doing this just to antagonize him (I'm not). Anyway, I saw you washed your hands of it, but just thought I'd let you know that I've done some work to it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dennis King

Beats me. I believe the statement is true, but not sure why it belongs in the text. I was in the Zippies. It was 30 years ago. So what? But I have no idea who is deleting the text and they should at least engage in a discussion, so re-inserting pending discussion seems entirely reasonable to me. --Cberlet 23:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

Yom Kippur War Please take a look. The same old problem. --Dogtag 02:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Zionism

Would you care to re-insert that image on the Zionist article, your last version was perfect. Other editors & admins will have a more respect for your contribution than they do for mine. - Molloy

So I guess you were trying to improve on perfection when you edited it. Without the source for the cartoon we can't properly interpret its meaning. Barring other information I'd assume that the person under the Israeli Army helmest is an Israeli soldier. The fellow in the Arab dress is probably an Arab civilian, and possibly a Palestinian. If it's a Palestinian then the cartoon could be a comment on the Intifada. That's why the source matters. If it turns out to be directly relevant to zioninsm, then I'd put it back. -Willmcw 03:16, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Here is where I sourced the Image: [7]. I think the filename (UN-Zionist.jpg) proves the character in the cartoon is depicting zionism. Overall, I think the image would be a welcome addition to the Zionism article, giving balance to the already Pro-Zionist standpoint that is saturated all throughout the current edition. Cheers. - Molloy

That page looks like a random collection of images, so I'm afraid it doesn't help us at all. It looks like it came from a magazine or newspaper. -Willmcw 03:45, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have tagged the image as Fair Use, as discussed here. I really don't think where the image came from is relevant, what is, is that the image clearly depicts the effects of Zionism in the middle east. - Molloy

The "where" is relevant because the cartoon appears to me to be a comment on UN favoritism in the Middle East. If the original context was an article on Zionism then it would be different. -Willmcw 04:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

The cartoon image can't stay without a source; merely tagging such an image fairuse dosen't make it so, and citing someone's (who clearly is not the author) personal album certainly does not qualify. El_C 09:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I will try to do some more digging today and see what I can do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Incidentally, I contested Shark_Palestine_Caricature.jpg for the same reason until I managed to track down the Iranian.com link that explicitly lists its source as unknown. El_C 01:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone and Davenbelle

Hi! Trey Stone has Requested Arbitration with me:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle/Evidence

You are mentioned in evidence that I have presented and I'm bringing this to your attention. Comments and evidence of your own are welcome.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 01:07, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Great job!

Nice work on the refactor of the Attack on Pearl Harbor article. :) --mav 00:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

As if you don't have enough already ...

...on your plate, here's something else: If you're interested, there's a dispute that has been listed on RfC at Talk:Perverted-Justice.com and so far I'm the only person who's come calling. I'm afraid my one lone opinion against two very entrenched opinions is not going to make terribly much difference... and beyond that, there are several issues that I've never dealt with before personally. (For instance, the webmasters of this site have created a special page for people who visit from the Wikipedia page. I find this curious and I'm not entirely sure how best to deal with it). Anyway, FWIW! · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:57, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, we just keep meeting in the most charming places. ;) -Willmcw 00:11, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

No kidding... maybe next, we can graduate to autofellatio. =) · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Will, I appreciate that. I haven't finished quite yet. There's still the criticism and references sections to do, but it won't be too much longer. If you and Kate end up anywhere else very interesting, I hope you'll give me a shout. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

An old friend, perhaps

FYI [8] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:17, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Hale

Thanks for letting me know; Everyking's edit had obscured that. On another front, it appears another Kevin MacDonald fan has shown up, you might want to look at his edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Question on POV tactics

Will -- a question for you. I just recently visited the Houston Chronicle article as a curiosity, and noticed that the "controversy" section was far longer than any other section of the article. Curious, I looked at the page history and was not at all surprised to find it was Rangerdude's handiwork. I would love to see this balanced, but I really don't think I can get involved in this one since I used to work at the Chronicle myself and know many people who still work there. But the article as it stands is horribly slanted. My question in general is -- is there anything that can be done about obvious POV warriors like Rangerdude? He responds in general that he has sourced certain criticisms that get included, and in some ways that's true... but the sheer number of these things that he has included in this article and others like SHeila Jackson Lee are improperly weighed, in my opinion. So while things he adds may be sourced in many cases, there's still a weighted bias. And of course he has no interest in adding the other information. When POV gets called, he just says "why don't you add other stuff then?" (In fact, it appears as if someone did try to add other information, but he reverted it as not sourced. It wasn't, but it would've been easy to do so if he were of a mind [9]. It seems to me that this is no less being a POV warrior than adding unsourced slanted information. But it's the first time I've dealt with anything of this fashion, so I'm not exactly sure how to handle it. Particularly since I feel it only proper to recuse myself from the article in general. Any wisdom appreciated. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. In terms of circulation, the Chronicle is the 7th largest paper in the country, or was last time I checked the specific statistics. It's an enormous paper with a large reach -- after all, Houston's the 4th largest city in the nation. You're right, I think I could reasonably be unbiased with the article despite my own involvement with the paper. But, knowing Rangerdude's MO, he would no doubt make it an issue anyway. I just took a look at the edit history and I see you're already into it with him. He has a very frustrating style of coming to "consensus," as I experienced on the page Jim Robinson, where he repeatedly mischaracterized statements I made despite my correcting his misassumptions and asking him to stop. You may find it useful to refer to this, from WP:NPOV: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties and, ESPECIALLY this: The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Maybe it would help to list this on RFC, because Rangerdude will turn it into an edit war if he hasn't already. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I decided to step in after all, particularly when I saw the end graf of the light rail section that grossly misreprsented the Chronicle's involvement with the TTM stuff. Made a fair bit of changes to that section today. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

ILGA

Hi Willmcw,

I am looking for some additional advice and help with the ILGA article. After a lengthy discussion with User:Lmno asking for evidence only tenous links between the groups that founded the ILGA (SMG and CHE) and pedophile groups could be found. I also believe that this section is original research given the lack of supporting sources for it. Given this, I removed the sections in question. However, Lmno has subsequently re-added them without properly responding to my concerns. I declined to re-delete them and start an edit war but, if you can decipher the various comments and remarks, I would appreciate your input in this. --Axon 21:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Linking photos

Hi Willmcw. Are you comfortable linking photographs which have been clearly labeled a copyvio? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen any mention of copyvio. The issue cited by the editor who removed the photos was lack of a mention in the article, which wasn't correct. If there's a copyvio problem then I'll take it out again. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the discussion of the copyvio. -Willmcw 23:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

He's uploaded it from some site asserting "fair use". He has not secured GFDL for any of his images. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Among all the possible anti-zionism illustrations possible, I'd say the Neturei Karta photos would be the least objectionable. It is certainly far better than that cartoon. If the only reason to object is the copyright status, then this one might be worth requesting permission to use. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:35, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The issue is actually two-fold. To begin with, the section in question doesn't discuss that kind of anti-Zionism, so it's not relevant; if anything, it would belong in the relevant section of the Anti-Zionism article. Second, there is the copyright issue. If he could find a GFDL version of the picture it would probably be a good thing to put in the anti-Zionism article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

A word of warning about permission. It has been decided, and endorsed by Jimbo (in fact, I believe originally decided by him), that all photographs tagged permission and uploaded after a certain date will be deleted. I believe the cut-off point was May 19. This has to do with the licence to redistribute our contents, though I can't say further than that, as I don't understand it. All I know is that if you put the permission tag on an image, a big red hand appears not too longer afterwards on the image page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jay, that section of the article seems to deal with Neturei Karta and similar Jewish anti-zionism. I don't know why there's a anti-Zionism section in the Zionism article plus an anti-Zionism article. (I don't especially want to know,either.) But the "Jewish responses to Zionism" section in Anti-zionism doesn't mention Neturei Karta, so Zionism appears to be the more relvant article. I looked around the http://www.nkuk.org/ site and didn't find this exact photo, but there are many others that are similar. I expect that there's a reasonable chance of obtaining full GFDL permission from them to use it or a similar picture. -Willmcw 00:12, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

The Anti-Zionism article mentions Neturei Karta now. ;-) If you can get one, go for it, it would be a good idea to have the picture. However, I'm not keen on hypocrite Nazis inserting photographs, particuarly when Jimbo just said last week on Wikien-l that all these kinds of photos are going to be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh, there it is! I certainly agree with you about the poster (I doubt that he read the Signpost), but it's the content that we're ultimately interested in. I think that a Neturei Karta could fill the niche that would otherwise be filled by a less NPOV image. Regarding the new image policy, I understand that it affects those that have been uploaded with "non-commercial use only" licenses. Neither "fair use" nor "GFDL" uses are covered, from what I saw. Seeing how eager the Neturei Karta appear to be for promotion, I imagine they'd be willing and eager to have one of their photos included. -Willmcw 00:40, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a relevant image too, and if you can get them to agree, I think it would be a great inclusion in Anti-Zionism. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I've submitted a request for GFDL use through their website. We'll see. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

They granted "full permission" to my request for GFDL. Their letter is posted on the image's talk page. Image talk:Zionism protest1.jpg. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Good work - I'll insert it in the anti-Zionism article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

White privilege

Thanks for clearing up the white privilege mess. Actually, it'd have been better if the anon had used the Move command. It's the cut-and-paste ability that causes the problem. (That, and well-intentioned editors like me who try to help but makes matters worse). Cheers, -Willmcw 04:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

No sweat, and thanks for starting the cleanup. I should learn to read history. Toodle-bit, Cleduc 05:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Neofascism_and_religion

I am proposing a redirect from several endlessly contentious pages to a new page: Neofascism_and_religion. The three pages directly affected are Islamofascism, Islamic fascism, and Christian fascism. Any help you can give would be appreciated. :-) I am also posting this to several other folks. --Cberlet 17:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia

I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate. Adam 23:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

My proposed policy position is this:

• That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:

1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy

2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia

3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.

• That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
• Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, sorry about the delay, I had problems with my computer. Regarding Fortress Blakeley, a friend of a friend gave me the text and told me he'd follow it up with more details. He didn't give any sources other than the ones on the article. Why, is there a problem? How come the article isn't there anymore? Wellmann 13:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry about that, I didn't know it was a hoax. This acquaintance of mine (his name is Jake Bell) just requested me to post it since, he said, it had been rejected a few times before. He said it might have been because of an argument he was having with some users, but at least now I know it's becuase it was a hoax. He even told me to use it as my first article so that I could get respect right away! Imagine that... Concerning this Kaschner person, I do not know him, but it sure is strange that he was defending my article. Maybe he was the original writer, is there a way to check? Very Sorry again about the disturbance. Cheers too, Wellmann 21:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Whatever harm was done has now been fixed. Please be more careful in you future contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:59, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Government of Australia

I've added in a detailed rebuttal for Skyring's claims on the Talk:Government of Australia page. You might want to take a look. Slán. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 14:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Famous White supremacists

Thank you, Willmcw. I always thought that we needed this kind of section in the article, and that's why I've started it. As long as we have people like you, me and other great editors giving their contributions, Wikipedia is the best useful and readeable source on the web. :-)--Gramaic 00:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Unification Church

Thanks for your note. You are quite right in principle that I should provide more links. Some of what I wrote is simply what I know from direct experience, so that makes it a little difficult. Note that I did change some parts in ways that made them more positive toward the church (e.g the Master Speaks section), although most of my changes would have had the opposite effect. I will find a way to incorporate more citations.

Zell Miller Bad Edit

According to you (I certainly take you at your word [update -- you were 100% correct]) I seem to have badly bungled an edit of Zell Miller. My apologies. Having some severe connection problems recently (perhaps one shouldn't edit under those circumstances!) Trying to track back what happened, though might have to wait a bit for connection to stabilize. Please understand I'd never deliberately destructively delete most of an article, and if I did indeed do so [I seem to have, doh!] you and the community have my apologies [and you do]. Thanks for your polite message on the matter. Holmwood 08:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

ack

Thanks for your friendly note. Always glad to help out. I hadn't heard of McPherson before; he looks like an interesting character. I am going to take a look at those interviews mentioned in the article.... Oops, looks like the Nation one isn't online -- what a pity. All the best, -- Viajero | Talk 11:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Skyring RfA

Hi, thanks for your offer, I was going to work on the evidence on the coming weekend, with 6 archives just on government of Australia it's going to take a while. I think the best way to present it, other than just referring the ArbCom to the archives is to find each occassion where skyring tried to introduce something wacky and who disagreed. We need to check republic as well, cause I think he was making a nuisence of himself there too. The most improtant thing to show is that he is a disruptive editor that edits against concensus. --nixie 22:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've provided evidence for the two articles I know of (Government of Australia and Republic) if you know of any more could you tell me or add the evidence yourself. --nixie 02:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:TitleDisputed

There aren't that many real Wikipedia WP:RULES on templates. There are, of course, the various guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Templates, and m:Templates. There is also some uncodified tradition in the TFD voting, as well as regular 'ad hoc' decision-making, and the very occasional VFD-like vote-stuffing. There are, however, some general Wikipedia guidelines that are applicable to the voting at TFD, such as m:Instruction creep, which might apply to Template:TitleDisputed. You might also be able to argue that the template itself was NOT WP:NPOV, or that it was unnecessary because of the already existing {{NPOV}}. You might also be able to argue that the template creator was using it to make a WP:POINT.

I will say that the fact that the person has been adding the template to BOTH the Article and Talk pages is overdoing it. In general, there appears to be a growing number of editors who feel such warning templates should only be on the Talk pages, although I wouldn't say that it has reached consensus levels yet.

As I just found out from looking at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, there have been several new "Cleanup"-style tags that have been created since I looked at the page, I am willing to bet that most were created without any consensus. This sort of ad-hoc template creation seems to be occurring more frequently as the Wikipedia becomes more popular, but without an organized Template WikiProject to ride herd over new templates (like the Stub-sorting WikiProject does just for stub templates), this will remain an ongoing problem.

My question for you, since I probably won't have any spare time to do any more investigation of the matter for the next few days, is how much of a consensus is there against the addition of this particular template on the Talk pages for the articles where it has been added. I know that there was a survey going on about using the phrase "conspiracy theory" in Wikipedia article titles, but I didn't have any opinion or stake in the debate, so I haven't followed it at all. BlankVerse ∅ 02:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Schlieffen Plan

Yes, well, school intervened. The best laid plans indeed! I've been working on a draft article over at User:Mackensen/Schlieffen Plan, but I'm a ways from completion. If you'd like to take the tag off that would be fine. Mackensen (talk) 01:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Willmcw from anon

Thanks for posting your thoughts on a recent topic to which I had also posted. I agree that I can be more polite and will endeavour to do so in the future. However, I have posted an additional reply explaining why I felt fairly intemperate about the whole thing.

Thanks

Thanks, Will. Hard to believe! Sign of a misspent youth, I think. I've put that image on my watchlist by the way; thanks for keeping an eye on it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:55, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Re: User talk:68.10.35.153

Seems to have been a busy boy in the couple of days since his arrival (with this address anway). And you sure got his attention.  ;-) hydnjo talk 20:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bill White + Related Bios

Please do more research before criticizing my bios and/or referring them to delete. Not only do you cite ridiculous and non-credible sources, but you appear totally ignorant of well known public information about major recent historical events (such as Iran-Contra).

You are entitled to your point of view but you are not entitled to delete factual information because it casts subjects you are interested in in a light you find uncomfortable.

Apostasy problems

Hi Will, I think the article on apostasy in NRMs and cults has some serious problems that I do not know how to solve quickly. Any help and suggestions are welcome. Thanks.

1. Many opposing POVs instead of facts that make the article very uninformative. (I have to admit that I pushed my POV too because I find it very upsetting that some scholars make negative generalizations about a very diverse group of people to which I belong) Andries 01:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. The article does not contain the gist of David Bromley's work but selective quotes to support a POV. The gist of Bromley's work on the subject is the social influence exerted on apostates and the interpretation of facts by apostates. I read a summary of Bromley's work elsewhere and I also emailed with Bromley about the subject but I don't know enough about the subject to improve the article. Andries 01:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. I think the article should treat the question when and in what respect are apostates (un-)reliable. Andries 07:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William White

Hi Will, I've been away from Wikipedia for a couple of days, and am just getting caught back up. I plan to take a look at the issue in the next 3 or 4 hours if at all possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

I see you've spotted our new friend. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/LaRouche-Riemann Method and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Triple Curve. I also added some comments to your incident report on WP:AN/I. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Third opinion in Al Qunaytirah

Hi, I am in need of a neutral editor to chime in on a revert war prone article due to the aggressiveness of one editor. I would like your third opinion on the subject as I am at an empasse. Thanks in advance,

Guy Montag 22:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, if you have a moment I wouldn't mind you taking a look at Talk:Terrorism as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche etc

Hi Will, thanks for your note, and for letting me know about the Bill White situation. I've rewritten the intro, and hope to continue with the rest of it, but feel free to jump in if you disagree with any edits. I agree with your move to the new page, by the way. White/Baxter is already saying he's going to ask that my account be suspended. I see the Power of Human Reason listened to the power of human reason and gave up. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I know I waited with bated breath for Bill to mention it on his webpage so I'd have an excuse to start congregating. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

William White

My personal view is that mediation can never be done too early. You say he issued threats. Can you link to some diffs on those? --Mgm

Bill White (activist)

Hi Will, I'm just about done with this, apart from maybe the odd tweak. All the major claims are sourced, although the sources aren't always brilliant, but the best I could find; and sometimes I had to link to third-party websites as the original articles weren't online (or, more accurately, I couldn't find them). My only concern is that it's too long for a relatively minor figure, though as I read through the sources, I began to wonder whether he is minor. Also, if we leave anything out, he will only edit war over it. However, I'll be guided by you regarding what's appropriate in terms of length and detail. Another concern I had was whether to state in the first sentence that the website is far right and anti-Semitic. It might be better to drop the labels and allow the reader to decide for themselves, though White didn't seem to object to the labels, as I see he picked them up in one of his own versions. Anyway, feel free to be bold too, and let me know what you think when you have a minute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:19, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ha, I'm a "Wikijew", huh? That was funny, thanks. Everyking 15:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle mediation

I've heard you were involved in a content dispute on this page, so I'm asking you if you'd be willing to talk about your views on the matter to help mediation. Please indicate if you are willing to do so and promise the follow these rules.

1. You won't edit the article while mediation is ongoing. Suspected sockpuppeting should be reported to me personally for investigation.
2. No comments aimed at the other party or their edits should contain loaded language that can be construed as offensive or otherwise hurtful.
3. Mediation should be done in good faith without regard for previous editing behavior.
4. Comments should be made about the other person's edits and not them as a person. If possible you should try to bring sources to the table which I can review.
5. If, somewhere along the way, you think there's a possibility to reach an agreement on any of the disputed points, let it be known as soon as you can.

Please respond on my talk page as soon as you can. -- Mgm|^(talk) 18:49, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Immigration

Hi Wil - I feel better having the page be moved from "Illegal immigrant" to "illegal immigration". (I think "Illegal immigrant" was originally the "Illegal immigration" to begin with.) In any case, I began to restore the Illegal immigration page. Perhaps I will just focus on the "illegal immigration" page, and eventually the "illegal immigrant page" can either be deleted or more focused on the use of its terminology. Thanks, Guppy 16:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting link

Hello Will. Look at this thread I found at Skadi. Make sure you read posts 14 and 17. Regards, --Gramaic 07:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that really is funny.

• "Editors" at wikipedia declare Skadi to be a "White Supremacist" website.
  • But the banner says Germanic Cultural, Racial, and Spiritual Preservation.

Yeah, uh huh. Just take a look at the forums: "Racial Classifications", "Physical Anthropology", "The Jewish Question", "Strategic Intelligence", "Cosmotheism", "Imperium Europa", or the threads: 'Nordicist vs Southern European', 'The Biological Superiority Of The Nordic Race', 'Question about an Italian subrace'. Et cetera. I think this one is categorized correctly. Good work. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

HC

Hey Will, I finally pulled together my info for the mediation page. It was a lot, so took me a while; finally got a minute today. Unfortunately, Mgml seems to have acceeded to Rangerdude's request to leave the article open for editing by involved parties. I briefly thought about refusing to go along with that, but then we'd be back at square one and that does nobody any good. As you mentioned on Mgml's talk page, the article is still being added to and edited a good bit; I complained about that on the mediation page, but not sure how much good it's going to do. If you're so inclined, your comments on the mediation page most welcome. Happy Monday! · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:39, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

Then please stop engaging in behavior that strongly resembles wiki-stalking. Following other editors around wikipedia to intentionally challenge, disrupt, and deconstruct every edit they make on virtually every article regardless of the content is extremely poor etiquette, especially when most of the said edits are petty changes or challenges made without merit or proper background. You have demonstrably engaged in behavior of this type towards me for a long time and have, of recent, increased its intensity in a manner that is deconstructive and disruptive to the general purpose of wikipedia. An occasional encounter on common topics of interest is one thing, but nobody made you policeman or gave you the right to unilaterally screen and deconstruct the work of all editors you disagree with politically. Rangerdude 09:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are, however, extensive policies and guidelines requiring etiquette and civility. Stalking other editors around wikipedia for no other purpose than to deconstruct, disrupt, annoy, and unnecessarily complicate valid and sound additions to the articles on this forum expresses neither, thus I will continue to object to your behavior and call it exactly what it is so long as you persist in your etiquette violations. Rangerdude 16:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC

Dittos; while I admire User:Willmcw's crusade to rid the world of neo-fascists, every one who doesn't share his POV is a not necessarily a neo-fascist. Thank you.Nobs01 14:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I have never accused any editor of being a neo-fascist. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the context was not in subjects' verbalization, it is displayed in the subjects' actions. Nobs01 20:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How many subjects are we talking about? Hmm. Seems like a case of wikiparanoia. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw: As a valued contributor to wikipedia, and "one of our best editors", could you please explain (1) how an English language primary source document [10] on the bio page of Wilhelm Furtwangler was reverted, and (2) how it recieved the classification as a "larouche link"[11]. Thank you . Nobs01 14:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nobs, probably because it's the website of a LaRouchie. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:27, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Slim; but when one clicks on the Homepage [12] yes there is a quote from La Rouche (none political, as I can see in context), then from there it leads to this site [13] owned by "Davidsbündler", who appears to be a 19th century musicoligist; no reference to La Raouche there. I don't beleive any of this material was reviewed in its proper context before it was reverted. Perhaps a reconsideration is in order. Thanks again. Nobs01 14:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I very carefully reviewed the entire website at the time. I believe "Davidsbündler" may be another name for a banned Wikipedia editor named "Herschelkrustofsky". Also, quite a number of LaRouche's theories concern music and some are just as unusual as his political views. The ArbCom made a decision that the LaRouche theories were being pushed into all kinds of articles. Finally, I don't know that I'm such a good editor. The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that, with all of us working together, even mediocre editors like me can contribute a product that is better than the sum of its editors. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:07, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Very good; two part question (1) Is there any larouche political content other than quote at the bottom of the homepage (2) what is the basis for beleiving "Davidsbündler" is the banned user in question. Thnks. Nobs01 19:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Thanks, -Willmcw 19:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so you don't have to answer the second part. But the first part, I would like to make a plea for this information to be reconsidered. This is extremely rare prose quotation translated into English by the man, whom knowledgable souces will attest, is perhaps the greatest symphonic Conductor who ever lived (surpassing the conducting talents of Wagner, Richard Strauss, Mahler, Ravel, Georg Solti, and host of others). By knowledgable sources, I am referring to persons who where alive to here interpretations by all those mentioned. Nobs01 19:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Upon further reviewing the matter at your suggestion, the link does appear valuable enough to overcome the peripheral issues. I've re-added it to the article. Thanks for checking my edits. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I won't forget (historians have long memories). Nobs01 20:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar.

I appreciate it. :) Sincerely,  Short Verses  ^(talk) 15:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

List of purported cults

As per the edit on the International Churches of Christ status in the List of purported cults. Some of the critical sources have indicated a shift in their attitude toward what remains of the ICOC or have become inactive in their criticsms. That being said, it may need some more time before this trend becomes more obvious and concrete. Your edit should stand as is. Thanks for the correction.

Pspadaro 19:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I've already asked Andrevan if he would be willing to do it, since I am sure he's got no other mediations to deal with. A list of other mediators can be found on WP:MC. By the way, I might be taking on the role, but I wasn't chair yet, the last time I checked. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Are you still interested in Mediation? Andre (talk) 20:01, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am very much interested. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:03, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Default checkmark for minor edits removed. Thanks

Dear Willm,
          Thanks much for the heads-up on resetting my default editing options. Done.

Scott P.

Wagner

Question to an experienced editor: I would be curious as to where an essay by Edward Said (Palestinian Arab) about Daniel Barenboim (Argentinian Jew) about a controversial anti-Semite Richard Wagner (who may himself have been Jewish) and was the the favorite composer of Adolf Hitler should go? Better to know by Edward Said, Le Monde diplomatique Should it go on the Wagner page, the Barenboim page, or Said page, or elsewhere. The general question is, where does material like this fit in Wikipedia, without the editor being branded neo-fascist. The article references that 25 July 2001 the Knesset committee on culture and education “urged Israel’s cultural bodies to boycott the conductor ... for performing music by Hitler’s favourite composer at Israel’s premier cultural event until he apologises” so this is controversial. Thanks. Nobs01 21:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Said's essays are thought-provoking. I'm not sure I understand your question. Where should an essay go? It doesn't need to go anywhere. It is already in a location - Le Monde. If there is some point that Said makes which you feel is worth mentioning in some article, then do so. IIRC this was one of Said's more famous essays and so a mention in his bio might be worthwile, it should at least be included in a listing of his works. I don't think it has much relevance to Hitler. The essay itself doesn't seem to bring much to Wagner. It is probably be worth adding some mention to Barenboim, particularly since that is where the matter is mostly dealt with. I don't know what the editors of those articles will think. Said is always controversial. -Willmcw 21:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

PS - I don't understand this comment of yours which apparently concerns me. [14] Are you accusing me of hacking your blog? Can you explain? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The suspect who hacked my blog was a one-armed man last seen running from the grassy knoll and now is reported to be in the contrail business. Or else it was the GRU or Chinese Er bu. We got that much narrowed down.Nobs01 21:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So how do I fit in? -Willmcw 21:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

PS: Regarding a prospective cult for you...

Dear Willm,
          After taking your advice on resetting my editing defaults, I thought I would see what your interests are. I noticed you seem to have some interest in cults. I am a former cult member of the Elan Vital cult, and also what I consider to be the former cult member of one organization that few regard as a cult, the Society of Jesus, or better known as the Jesuits.

          Obviously my view that the Jesuits are a cult is quite personal, and could never be widely accepted in today's world, but that's another story, and mostly beside my reason for writing this note for you. The reason that I write this is to suggest that you might consider adding the Endeavor Academy onto the list of purported cults.

• Steven Hassan and Rick Ross list them as a cult.
• The 48 Hours TV program did an exposé on them.
• A great number of web pages can be found as authored by disgruntled former followers.

          If you wanted, I would suggest they could be added under the decreasing consensus header, and if you agree, I would be happy to add them.

Thanks,

Scott P. 21:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The criteria that we've agreed upon for List of purported cults is based purely on the use of the term by various outside parties. If the Jesuits have been called a cult by one of the sources that we've listed, or a similar source, then it may be added to the appropriate "cohort". However, please note that the editors of the article have previously agreed to omit Rick Ross as a source, and to only use Hassan when he has actually called a group a "cult" (as opposed to simply putting them on his list of groups of concern). "48 Hours" would probably qualify if we can find a transcript or accessible video. However if they are conducting an interview and some disgruntled fomer member calls it a cult then that wouldn't qualify - it is the ex-member calling the group a cult. On the other hand, if the narrator says something like, "Here is an interview with an ex-member of the cult..." then that would be an example of the program calling the Jesuits a cult and that is what we're looking for. I know this must sound awfully tricky, but this criteria has transformed a very contentious article into one that is stable and NPOV. Let me know if I can help. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:50, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Willm,

Thanks for listing some of the carefully constructed guidelines that have been developed for that page. After carefully them, I have a question about what I would call a "grey area" that they haven't quite answered. I reread the 48 hours website, and apparently while the narrator has no qualms about repeating Rick Ross' claim that Enedavor Academy (EA) is a cult, he withholds his own comment to this effect. How does this rate according to the criteria? If I am correct in my guess that EA doesn't qualify as a cult according to the criteria listed, I will be happy to remove them from the listing as per your pending advice (I've already added them).

Thanks,

Scott P. 18:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I searched around and found a different source, which clearly calls them a "cult," and changed it. One tip with Ross - while we don't accept him calling a group a cult, he does have many press clippings on his website of other people calling groups cults and those are fair game. The source I used for EA is also posted on his site. If EA is called a cult by a national newspaper then we could move it to the higher level of consensus. BTW, Chuck Anderson, Leader of Endeavor Academy is an odd name for an article. I left a note on the talk page about it. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

On a similar note: what sort of source would CourtTV be? They've been known to directly call some groups cults. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We've used them as a source for one group, Rajneesh/OSHO. We didn't have to decide which cohort they belonged to since that group already had other sources. I'm not sure whether it has a reputation of a mainstream media service, but if it does then if would be included in the highest level. -Willmcw 02:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Shocking Shockley

I read the review of the Plotz book in the NY Times last weekend, I believe; it was mostly favorable, though it criticized him for his tone in some of it, I believe. I generally stay away from the X and intelligence pages though I've complained on Sex and intelligence that it did a poor job of representing that there is actually a debate on this with the scientific and social scientific community. These sort of topics attract the worst kind of POV pushers, unfortunately, who have a lot more free time than the more centrist people (I think of myself as fairly centrist in these things, anyway, but I may be deluding myself. I find portraying everything from a historical point of view keeps things in proper perspective, but of course I'm extremely biased to favoring that as a way of viewing the world). I'll keep up with the Shockley page though I don't know a whole lot of details about him -- just that he made a real habit (and name for himself) as a Nobelist who was also an avowed and outspoken racist in an era that didn't appreciate such things. By the way, I saw your name on [list]; I would completely support your effort if you wanted to make a go in this direction (I am on there too, but I'm not interested myself). --Fastfission 06:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar ;-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you an admin or just someone abusive?

Okay don't vandalize or try to control my talk page. Also I did not add inappopriate pictures to articles. One was a train and I put a picture of a train. Another was a bicyclist and I added a picture of a bicycle. THAT IS NOT VANDALISM STUPID! Adding a picture of a penis to either would be vandalism. Screwing around with someone's talk page like you did mine was vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism. If you are not an admin I will report you to one for what you did. Poetatoe 23:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is apparent that you are the sockpuppet of user:Thodin, who is apparently mad because I rewrote his copyvio additions to an article. Please do not vandalize Wikipedia to prove a point. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Eli Siegel

See remarks on Talk:Eli Siegel#Siegel's death. …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 00:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome

I hope it helps some. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:33, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Critical information about Prem Rawat and copyright

• Discussion moved to Talk:Prem Rawat#Critical information about Prem Rawat and copyright -Willmcw 05:39, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nomination

Hey Will, it would be my privilege (and yes, you'll be my first). Let me know if there's anything in particular you'd like me to say, or not say, in your write-up. I'll drop you a note when you're "live". SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you're on. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willmcw. All you have to do is answer the questions and sign to accept the nomination. If there's anything you don't like about the write-up, or would like me to add, let me know - or you can add it yourself if you'd prefer. I said you'd been here for eight months, which I hope is correct, based on your user page, which goes back to October 2004. Good luck! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

"not opposing" your adminship? That's a funny way of putting it. Were you expecting me to oppose it, or were you just being humerous? :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gay Village/Long Beach

I reverted you edit of Gay village. You should read what User:GK wrote on the talk page. I live near Long Beach, and I can tell you that there is only one major gay business in Belmont Shore, Ripples (and it isn't even in the main touristy part of Belmont Shore). Most of the gay-oriented and gay-owned businesses are along the Broadway Corridor (Broadway Blvd.) plus a stretch of mostly funky resale shops along 4th St., both between downtown and Belmont Shore. You can see on the following link that almost all the gay bars are along Broadway [15], although that list misses the many gay-owned, but not necessarily gay-oriented businesses along 4th St. The Lesbian-oriented bars, however, are more spread out. The Que Sera Sera (Where Melissa Ethridge got her start) is on 7th St., and the Executive Lounge is on PCH. (FYI: The local gay business association is the Long Beach Community Business Network, but their website is not easily searchable [16].) You could probably call the Long Beach gay village area the Broadway Corridor, but as far as I know it's just an informal designation and is not an official LB City designation. BlankVerse ∅ 11:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More bears in the woods

FYI, Craig Isherwood and Australian LaRouche Youth Movement, now a redirect, both created by Sci.notes (talk · contribs). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

See also http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche "La posición de LaRouche como economista y sus éxitos excepcionales como pronosticador de largo plazo resultan de sus descubrimientos originales de principio físico." -Willmcw 20:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

writing history in Wikipedia

Hello,

I’m a historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including people writing history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz at gmu dot edu

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up - two of the four were relatives, so there'd be a precedent... ;) Guettarda 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CfD:Controversial books

Could you give some input here? I think this category is not as POV or nebulous as some do, but I suspect it is because they do not have a very good understanding of what it is supposed to mean. Category:Controversial books]. --Fastfission 04:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'heads-up' re: original research.

Dear Willm,
          I think I can now see how interviewing a publisher could in some ways end up creating conflicts of interest. Obviously on the other hand, if done right, it could result in improving an article too. In my case, all of the information provided by the publisher was corroborated by already published sources that could be found elsewhere, except for their claim that 1.7 million copies of the book have been sold to date. Numerous published listings exist that there have been over 1 million copies sold, however, nowhere could I find corroborating documentation regarding the 1.7 million figure. As a result, I have reworded the article to only reflect only that more than a million copies have been sold to date, and will await the publication of the 1.7 million figure elsewhere, before including it in the article. Thanks for your good suggestion and kind encouragement.


                                        Take care,

                                        Scott P. 19:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mountain making

I saw your note at the talk page on this article. I think the content is garbage; what do you think about a nice redirect to mountain? Joyous 19:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I suspect it's a neologism, and not even notable. I did just leave a note on the talk page of the original editor. He appears active, so let's wait a day or so and see if there's a response. Thanks for suggesting that. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Poll at Talk:Terrorism

I've put together a little poll at Talk:Terrorism regarding the "lone wolf" section. Your input would be appreciated. Thx. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hollyweird

No objection at all to moving H'wood. I agree it should be at Hwood, LA, CA, but I didn't want to be the one to cause the ruckus. :) Thanks. jengod 20:16, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for the response. I actually don't have any complaints with how immigration reduction turned out but on the other hand thought the last round of wikilink reverts after I tried to balance out the POV in the immigration reform article was sort of petty - on both our parts :) I don't know what this thing with Rangerdude is and it's none of my business, and I did refrain from casting an 'oppose' vote as I think your contribution to Wikipedia has been prolific and high quality overall. But we do have a history off Wikipedia...Sierra Club 2004 BOD election related. I know that's not supposed to count for anything on Wikipedia so I'm trying not to, honest :) I'm just going to leave the vote 'neutral' for now. Sorry. Kaibabsquirrel 01:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't think we can be said to have a "history off Wikipedia", since I have no dea of who you are off of Wikipedia. All I can tell is that you were on the opposite side of the pro/anti SUSPS divide. Anyway, no big deal. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

admin

Hi Will, thanks for the compliment, and I assure you the feeling is mutual. I for one believe you are superbly suited to the job, and I hope you stick around for a long time. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?

It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup.

- Eric 19:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neuroscience

Thanks for asking me to review the articles from User:Synaptidude, User:GBDimple and User:Purkinje. From the few articles I've seen, it looks like they've added some useful content, if a bit clumsily. I don't know anything about the article you say is a hoax. In dealing with these editors, you might want to talk to User:Diberri too. He's an admin, neuroscientist, and a good guy. Synaptidude seems to have already had some fairly positive interaction with him. Sayeth 15:24, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Pensacola Christian College

I was just wondering why you are so interested in PCC, do you know anyone that attends there or do you research all colleges like that. Some of my friends attend there, and I used to go there and I was just wondering ...Flgook 03:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd never heard of it before, that I recall. I had done some editing on Bob Jones University, and someone asked a question about posting the list of rules at Pensacola Christian College. I've become involved in editing because it is an unusual institution and the article is also unusual. Though vastly different, there are some echoes of questions editors had about the hospitality business of UCLA. It seemed to one editor to be especially notable, so we did some research. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the info about categories. I had thought about that myself, but I wasn't sure what the official policy was. I'll look out for that in the future. --Cswrye 23:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

NEW

Hi, my name is Erik Nikel, and I was wondering if you could give me some tips about this. Thanks

User page vandalism

An anon user asked me to chastize someone for personal attacks, they refered me to one IP but used another to edit my talk page. The anon is involved in the PCC conflict and the IP that they used to refer me to their talk today, vandalized your user page on the 25th. I usually assume good faith in such matters, however I find it too coincidental for my tastes not to notify them and you of my suspicions. -JCarriker 04:05, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There's definitely something odd. I'll keep my eyes open. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:22, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Animated GIF

Hey Will. I did not know that the animated gif posed some problems. Had I known that the graphic emoticons were a problem, I wouldn't even think of putting them up.--Gramaic 28 June 2005 04:22 (UTC)

Vanguard News Network

Hi Will. I started this new article that's about the White supremacist website. I've seen your contributions on the article of Stormfront and thought that you will find this article interesting, and expand it a little bit more. Regards, --Gramaic 28 June 2005 09:04 (UTC)

Liberty Dollar

I don't believe in nonprofit organizations that meddle with money. So I am inclined to think that this is an elaborate scam. But I don't want to run around and warn morons to keep their hands off snake oil, because this is useless. I am only keeping my watch to remove really misleading statements about the nature of money in general.

There is a very simple proof that this is scam. Money is nothing but mediator in the market, and the amount of money in circulation is nefined not the amount of gold/silver/platinum/uranium in the country, but basically by the amount of goods produced, which is orders of magnitude larger. So LD has no chance to go statewise. Also, I seriously doubt that feds will sell all their gold to NORFED. I have several ideas how this LD may work as a pyramid scheme, starting from the most primitive one: to declare bancrupcy when inflation reaches a convenient level, rather than to perform the promised renomination of LD. mikka (t) 28 June 2005 15:48 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 28 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)

I just thought I'd add my congratulations too, Will. Sorry I didn't get round to voting (I did mean too - honest :-). Keep up the good work. Craigy (talk) June 28, 2005 16:44 (UTC)

Flush with power, how will you first flex your muscles? Taking down the global telephone network? Bending the trade of Vegemite to your will? (Do Kiwis like that foul stuff too?) Or maybe, reverting a vandal? =) · Katefan0^(scribble) June 28, 2005 18:55 (UTC)

Hey you, enjoy, and use it for the good. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) June 28, 2005 19:10 (UTC)

Congratulations on your well-deserved demotion. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 28 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Congratulations! Guettarda 28 June 2005 20:45 (UTC)

Congratulations Will. I know that Wikipedia will be much better, know that you're an administrator. I wish the very best luck for you! :-) Regards, --Gramaic 29 June 2005 00:03 (UTC)

Congrats, Will, keep the good work, and remember that I can always say "Hey, but I voted for you!" ;-) --Zappaz 29 June 2005 00:52 (UTC)

Duuuude! Like, totally congratulations! HKT 29 June 2005 01:07 (UTC)

I think I have the honor of receving Will's first "no personal attacks" warning (a badge I shall always wear proudly ;-) [17] -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 20:39 (UTC)

Congrats - glad the vote was for keep ;) Grutness...wha? 30 June 2005 01:41 (UTC)

Congratulations, Willmcw! Above all else, have fun as an Admin, and remember, humor is the best medicine. Ombudsman 30 June 2005 05:19 (UTC)

Congrats. It's refreshing to see hard work like yours rewarded. Halidecyphon 1 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)

excuse me for stepping in

I corrected myself 13 minutes later (when you're looking at multiple Wikpedia pages using a tabbed browser like Firefox, sometimes there is a lag time in correcting oneself). I'm wondering if both the San Jacinto Peak and San Jacinto Mountains articles shouldn't be merged together along with some info on the two parks—at least until there is enough info added to really support individual articles. (P.S. Congrats.) BlankVerse ∅ 29 June 2005 08:03 (UTC)

L.A. Wiki Meetup

Thanks for offering to help host the first L.A. Wiki Meetup! I was worried no one else would cover for me if I got hit by a bus on the way there : ) I guess the main host responsibilities to take care of (since I've chosen to try to pull this off without MEETUP.COM) are:

• to keep the Meetup page updated with the latest info
• to contact the venues BEFORE voting closes to see if they're cool with it
• to confirm with the venues AFTER voting closes.
• to get there early and grab us more-than-enough seating in a cozy corner, if possible
• to bring a sign to sit outside the venue (or, if nothing more, write WIKI on a piece of paper and hold it up now and then).
• to start a round of self-introductions
• perhaps to bring some "Hello my name is" stickers, or maybe some namecards for people to sit on the table in front of them.

- Eric 30 June 2005 10:11 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I would definitely be there were it not for an out-of-town obligation. Please let me know of any subsequent meetings — and if perhaps we might meet otherwise. All best! Sandover 30 June 2005 18:29 (UTC)

Block tabs

Will, I don't know whether you're aware of, or already have, the block tabs option set up. These were written by Korath and are very useful. When you go to any user or talk page, provided they have been set up, you'll see the words "block" and "blocklog" at the top of the page to the right of "watch". The block tab allows you to block the user, and the blocklog tab shows you when s/he was last blocked, which means you can avoid block conflicts. Here are the instructions Knowledge Seeker wrote on my talk page, though I've put your name instead of mine in the link: "[Y]ou have to be using the (default) <monobook.css skin; if you've changed it in your preferences this won't work. So here's what you do: go to User:Korath/blockip.js (which is linked from User:Korath/Potentially useful stuff in case you want to find it again. Click to edit it, and copy the whole text. Then go to User:Willmcw/monobook.js, edit it, and paste the code in there. Save it and you're done! You'll have to do a full reload to clear your browser's cache, using control-shift-R. Otherwise, it'll be there when you restart your browser anyway ... Knowledge Seeker দ 23:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker will help you if you have any difficulties, and Fuzheado has just installed it too, so he might also be able to help. Asking me will be close to pointless. I can repeat the words, but I'm not entirely sure what I'm saying.  ;-) Okay, I just previewed this post, and I see the link with your name in it is coming up red, which may mean you're not using the monobook skin. You may want to consider changing, as these tabs are very useful, but it's up to you of course. SlimVirgin ^(talk) June 30, 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Please check CARM pages history...slandering in history

To Willwmc and Irmgard: List here a link to your talk. Hyperbole is lying in the history of CARM. Tom, Peggy, Interested Party, will give you our phone numbers to discuss the edits, and we told you they were slandererss on the aarm board and is why we were originally using only Interested Parties to sign. Now we ask that you remove the false accusations from the history edits of hyperbole, as we will give you our phone numbers and IP numbers and ask to speak with you on the phone in order to PROVE he is lying and that the three of us do live in New Jersey. Which is why we are editing with IP's and not signing on, he accuses all three of us constantly. Peggy00:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matt_Slick" Here is my email diane13dj@yahoo.com. If you emai, I will give you the three telephone numbers to Tom, Peggy/Diane, Interested Party. I want no further accusations from hyperbole, enough is enough.00:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_Apologetics_and_Research_Ministry"