User talk:Will Beback/archive35

AfD nomination of James Eric Davidson

An article that you have been involved in editing, James Eric Davidson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Eric Davidson. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Banned editor

Hi Will. The part you just removed on Cynthia McKinney contained some material I had added. The banned user put it all together in one section to make it easier to erase it, I think, as you can see from his (since deleted) comment on talk. Cheers. IronDuke 17:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility

If you will take a closer look at my edit summary that you didn't like[1], I think you will see that it was a response to an almost identical edit summary by Dking. I think you must have missed it, because I don't see a similar note from you on Dking's talk page. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image questions

The images I have tried to upload were deleted. I have permission from the company to use them, so how do I upload them so they are not deleted this time? I have completed adding updates to the page and it is ready for your review. Thank you LAIntern (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat section of People who have been pied article

Hi Mr. Beback, I wanted to ask you why you consider the book "Peace Is Possible" by Andrea Cagan to be an unreliable source of information re: Prem Rawat. Do you consider all of the information contained in the book to be unreliable or just parts of it? Have you read the book yourself or are you just going on hearsay? If you have gone over the book in detail, did you find some parts that were objectionable or unreliable and some parts that may be reliable? As I see it, there are many parts of the book that are in fact reliable sources of information. Could you please detail the areas in the book that you consider questionable? I would much appreciate a response since you reverted my corrections to the PR section of the People who have been pied without giving a detailed explanation. Thanks so much, Gadadhara (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look here: [2]. The book seems to be self-published and thus not a reliable source. dougweller (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop harassing me

Edits like this[3], in which you move or remove text while leaving the source, are very harmful in that they scramble the citations. In this case you make it appear that a source is being used for something that it doesn't necessarily say. I've brought this problem to your attention before. Please be more careful. If you cannot edit properly then please ask others to do so on your behalf. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I left the source because it is the source of the previous sentence as well. Unless, of course, it isn't then that will be sloppy editing on your behalf.Momento (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

According to whom is Lewis the source for the previous sentence? The material in that sentence is verifiable in many sources, but Lewis does not assert that Mata Ji was a leader of the Indian branch, unlike other sources. If you think that sentence is controversial please raise the issue separately. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

According to you. You put it in as per [4] Here it is - "Meanwhile Maharaj Ji was coming of age and taking greater responsibility within the movement. A month after the festival he turned 16 and the following May he received court permission to marry, making him an emancipated minor. The marriage, to a Californian follower nine years his senior, along with his move to take control of the DLM led to a rift within the family that resulted in the movement being split between a Western branch, led by Maharaj Ji, and an Indian branch, run by his mother and Bal Bhagwan Ji. By the end of the decade, the U.S. branch had lost an estimated 80% of its membership.[186]" So not only is you editing sloppy, you accuse others of doing it. Fix it and stop harassing me.Momento (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Complain against user Van helsing

This user is stalking me thru the entire Wikipedia erasing all my writings without a legitimate reason. Please stop him sabotaging Wikipedia or protect these sites against vandalism. --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 15:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)

Semitransgenic's article talk post deleting and 4RR edit warring

Semitransgenic is an editor you have previously warned (20:01, 24 January 2008 No personal attacks).
Today he had an article talk page ownership fit and deleted 8+ of my posts. His only complaint was about my light reformatting of his many new sections into a consolidated discussion section. His sections became subsections, a perfectly normal discussion procedure. (I also removed empty subsections newbie-titled "Further comments")
Semitransgenic seems to be a talented but green UK high school kid with an opinion of his own abilities higher than he has yet mastered -- including reading comprehension and critical thinking. He seems uninterested in doing archive homework to avoid wasting the time of other editors. The overall attitude I get from him, is 'my way or highway'.
He is new and unfamiliar with Space music, a stable article. He refuses to read the prior debates, yet is bent on making massive changes at the detail level. His insisted changes are mostly based on several interlocking meta-sourcing issues, which are too obscure for him to have had experience with.
When I made reasonable requests for him to read the archives and discuss at Talk:Space music, his response misunderstood my expressed positions, and was too hostile for further risky personal discussion on my talk page. No doubt he will complain about that, but more of his out-of-the-box defiant hostility is not useful on my talk page.
He is constantly showing off by throwing around WP shortcuts, but he obviously doesn't know what he's shortcutting when he claimed in an edit summary that he would take me to WP:DRV (deletion review). Then he wanted me to go WP:DV, but of course that's for disputes, not frank guiderule-breaking.
On the grounds of defending my 8+ posts I've reverted a third time, and Semitransgenic has gone over the top to 4RR. To add insult to injury he then laid a vandalism template on my user page.
Semitransgenic isn't going to let me educate him. Can you inform him that section and header reformatting which focuses a scattered discussion is ok without his advance permission, massive post deletions are absolutely unacceptable, and that 4RR deserves a vacation from Wikipedia? Milo 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The above comments need to be viewed in their correct context; there have been ongoing content and policy-related problems with the Space music article for more than 2 years.

Motivated by longstanding unresolved ownership issues relating to that article, Milo has actively blocked numerous previous attempts at correcting this situation by engaging in overtly tendentious editing.

Sneering condescension, assertions of having "unique perspective and knowledge" of the subject, attempted intimidation, implicit and explicit threats, personal attacks and incessant filibustering are all recurrent characteristics of Milomedes' behaviour in this regard. There are also strong suspicions that sockpuppet abuse may also be part of the equation. This approach has largely succeeded in driving away virtally every editor who has tried to make a positive contribution to the article.

Semitransgenic's latest attempt to address the article's many WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE issues is the most cogent and well-considered approach that I have yet witnessed.

Milo's response - in attempting to subtly disrupt the process and provoke an imprudent reaction from Semitransgenic that allow's Milomedes to claim to be the subject of abuse - when in fact he is the perpetrator of it and other disruptive activity - is an established pattern of behaviour that has long been noted by a number of editors and admins. --Gene_poole (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gene. For once you weren't involved in any of this, and I hoped you would be smart enough to stay out of it. But here you are, in for a penny and pound, again trying to falsely trash my reputation.

So you want to discuss context? Remember that you opened Pandora's box.

...assertions of having "unique perspective and knowledge"... Let's do a verification check on that quote you've attributed to me: where's the diff? Oh, yeah – there isn't any because I didn't write that. (What you wrote about me was "unique interpretations and perspectives" (Talk:Space music/Archive 2), so I'd say you're projecting what you think, not what I said.)

Personal attacks? Why don't we link to your three attack section/pages on me and many other editors? Oh, yeah – NewYorkBrad told you that you would be permanently departing WP if you kept the two biggest of them up. You archived the little one on me a few days ago, but it's still visible by Google search.

Tendentious? You're so tendentious that you have to be forced to do things that normal editors simply concede, like remove the first attack page on WP, and then not create a second one on the external web.

When you are losing a debate you distract with off-topic personal remarks, like upsetting the game board because you're losing. You rarely let anyone else get the last word, to the point of making absurd final denials when your back is to the wall:

Ok, interesting that you've proved yourself wrong about mine being a single-purpose acount. ... Milo 09:28, 16 October 2007

I'm glad that you accept that the evidence shows you to be a single purpose account. ... --Gene_poole 09:33, 16 October 2007[5] [LOL]

Sockpuppet? You're still pushing that old sockpuppet charge you fabricated about me and several other editors that checkuser dismissed long ago? Oh, yeah – no one believes it.

You were caught with a sockpuppet and Warner said you lied about it. [6] Bureaucrat Taxman didn't find you credible either[7]. My experience with you is that everything significant that you say needs to be verified before acting on it.

Intimidation? You wrote a legal threat to intimidate another editor to gain ownership of an article about your show business rival, Hearts of Space.[8]. Also I spent hours making many good faith copy edits there and you simply reverted all of them with an edit summary of "revert vandalism"[9].

Threats? After being confronted by NewYorkBrad, you had to wheedle your way out of the British English legal threat you issued[10].

Your impressive block log You were blocked during most of last month, October 2008, for sending a borderline threatening email to an admin. This action hints at your need for professional help with anger management.

Subtly disrupt the process These long-standing calumnies by you are the direct result of one thing: your non-profit commercial conflict-of-interest in the contemplative radio music production business. You want to promote your 3-station Ultima Thule radio show, in order to reduce the influence of the 200-some station Hearts of Space radio show, both of which are available globally by web archives. You want control of the Space music article to promote replacement of the contemplative spacemusic term with the contemplative ambient term, even though spacemusic is subtly not ambient. (Spacemusic is mostly free of dark ambient music that makes ambient untrustworthy for headphone listening). Control of the Space music article's definition of spacemusic as a mere type of ambient helps direct listeners to your show and your Australian public radio station 2MBS. 2MBS makes commercial income from auxillary sales of used goods and CDs, including at least one new CD that you produced on your own commercial music label – just like the rival Hearts of Space music label. It's round about, but you clearly have a non-profit-yet-commercial conflict-of-interest. For years you have blatently violated the Wikipedia WP:COI guiderule to help keep your ambient music show production on the air.

And it's not just me. You've falsely attacked me many times like right now, but you actually loathsome-disease libeled Parsifal, one of the healthiest and most well-balanced editors I've met at Wikipedia. Libeling him was not only illegal – but how utterly contemptible you were to do such a disgusting thing to another human being!

Perpetrator? Semitransgenic deleted eight of my article-engaged posts while edit-warring four times, and you claim I'm the perpetrator?

No – I'm not the perpetrator. Your many false claims about me are not believable, not credible, motivated by showbiz ego greed, and reveal too much of the dark side of music.

I do like one of things in your Milo attack section, the part where you say I've apocalyptically cast myself with the forces of light. I'm opposed to apocalyptic fundamentalist belief systems, so I don't think like that. But I was raised as a Christian, popular culture retains that idea in the Star Wars movies, and I'm one of a number of good people I've met who are attracted to space music – so maybe that's one of my built-in memes. Thanks for the insight. Milo 15:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Filibustering, personal attacks and lying are not going to get you anywhere this time around Milo. Time to face the music. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Space music comment repsonse

Hi Will, I'm sorry but I don't understand why said user saw it fit to reformat my contributions. If you can show me in the guidelines where it states that an editor is entitled to edit another's contributions, without consultation, and in the manner said user did, I will gladly revert. Please note also that the user was informed of my intention to deal with the items on a point for point basis, I also suggested that the user add their own section if they found the outline was not to their liking. User engaged in WP:DIS and consequently WP:VANDAL. You'll have to forgive me but I have no intention of wasting time appeasing someone who have already shown a great reluctance to address serious WP:SYN and WP:OR issues over a two year period, I'm also not going to waste time playing wiki-games running around the bush with this. If there are issues that cannot be resolved on the talk page they will be taken to the appropriate notice boards in due course. Thanks for your input. Best. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset at all, I simply will not muck about with editors who really just want to ignore guidelines because they interfere with particular WP:POV based WP:OR drives. I know it's terribly unfashionable to point it out, but this is an encyclopedia, not the United Nations, I really do not agree with a policy of appeasement when it comes to a situation where an editor flatly refuses to engage at a level that gives serious consideration to policy: failure to do so evidences failure to consider the importance of the encyclopedia as a whole. I think mediation might be a little premature, unless you are telling me I cannot continue picking through the article in an effort to present contentious content for considered and constructive discussion? Is that offensive or something? Semitransgenic (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, will do it now. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, but I am prepared to try and find a middle way on this if the other editors involved will commit to policy led content vetting, I really have no interest in taking sides but do believe the article has some very basic OR SYN and NPOV issues that can be easily addressed, beginning with a WP:RSN posting for the contentious primary source that a great deal of the article is based upon, how does that sound to you? Semitransgenic (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK well perhaps we can wait a few days and see what the other editors bring to the table on this and then try and move forward, I can discontinue the content review until there is more feedback on the talk page. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Will, just to clarify, you posted your last comment on the talk page while I was writing the one you see there now. Still prepared to offer another chance, if it fails will do as you suggest. Semitransgenic (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Complain against user Wdl1961

Please stop user:Wdl1961 erasing my part at two stroke engine He came 1 day after the trouble with Van helsing startet to Wikipedia. Thanks --Inventor 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)

[edit]

self promo to inventor you got great ideas but do not put them in wrong places. it is impolite.keep doing it is rude .Wdl1961 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don’t sell anything, ergo there is no "self promo". There are several "proposed engines", even with an extra site. It would be non-neutral if all are allowed but only this one not.

I have a small paragraph only. See also the discussion above. And please be polite - and stay away. Thanks --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 20:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Two-stroke_engine" it aint a two stroke . during wwll i never met a pushy german in holland or germany . -----------------Wdl1961 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Stab-in-the-back legend

The edit looks ok to me. — goethean ॐ 01:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note about NNDB. It seemed to be a nice career summary. I didn't notice any inaccuracies, but I don't know much more about it. Won't add any more. Thanks. ObjectivityAlways (talk)

Copyedit request

Yeah, I've been filling some holes in coverage of U.S. chem/bio weapons. I could probably do a copyedit for you in the next couple days, if I forget just give me a bump, I check my talk page even on days I don't edit. --IvoShandor (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And what an odd topic. Should be interesting to read. --IvoShandor (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully you see this way up here. Sorry I haven't gotten to your article yet, I will get to it tonight or tomorrow night, promise. Hopefully, it won't encumber you at FAC. --IvoShandor (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're tellin' me! I work overnight so I plan to tend to some of your article this morning and the rest later tonight. --IvoShandor (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Request at WP:TFAR

I put in my support and a serious request for you at TFAR. My feeling is that getting everything in the open about LaRouchite POV pushing/harrassment is the best way to go on this. Some people might not like the drama involved though, which is of course their right. Smallbones (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

wrong image,white pride has nothing to do with neo nazi groups.Get ur facts right plz

The picture of the neo nazi's is not representative of the article, it is generally accepted that European American Pride and white power are separate issues. Therefore, the article photo is a violation of NPV.Thanks!!!!!!--Taulant23 (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Andorra

I appreciate your clarification regarding Andorra and WWI, and you were quite right; apologies for being careless in this regard. You were also correct regarding my automatic edit preferences, though I've no idea how that happened. Old age can be a terrible thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanman (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep to topic

I tried to keep the cites to relevant material, so please keep that sandbox to the topic, otherwise its purpose gets muddled and is not useful to other editors. You can add more material to Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars if you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• The sources collected in Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of cover the role that GMJ/PR played in his organizations, and how those writers referred to those organizations. There is a dispute over whther he was the "head" or "leaders" or was just a wise man with no organizational role. That's a clear and defined purpose. Note the criteria that you edited: "Sources that discuss Prem Rawat/ Guru Maharaji as the leader, charismatic leader, or spiritual head of a cult, sect, or new religious movement." The material you deleted concerns his role as a leader. Any material that seems off topic can be ignored when we sit down to summarize the matter. Considering that you added a whole section that doesn't even mention the subject, I'm surprised to see you complaining. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed also the large section from Melton about the scientific and popular distinctions. What I trimmed was not related to the subject. Please check it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's see where the sources take us. Rather than simply supporting a sentence that says, "X sources called the person a 'cult leader'", it appears that there are substantial sources that deal with the nature of the subject's leadership role, and how that changed over time. It's still within the criteria of "Sources that discuss Prem Rawat/ Guru Maharaji as the leader, charismatic leader, or spiritual head of a cult, sect, or new religious movement." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. If you insist. I am adding more material to other sources in that page, rather than just a summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Loyola Law School encyclopedic citation

I added a citation from a periodical, rather than a blog, per your request. More here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Loyola_Law_School#Citation_for_study_on_career_placement --DelGoriam (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

what you think?

See if we can come in a neutral point of view.. [11]Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Bilingual Admin on the German Wikipedia

Try de:Benutzer:Duesentrieb. (I'm not an Admin on de.wikipedia.org) --ALE! (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW: User Willimczik was blocked on the German Wikipedia. See: de:Benutzer Diskussion:Willimczik. --ALE! (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Cloverleaf interchange

Thanks for the note, however, I already know abotut he existing article. I plan to write my own version of hte article in my userspace then replace the original article with my improved version. Of course, i will take a lot of work and it is nowehre near compelte yet, but hopefully it will be somtime. Thanks again!--Serviam (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patton123 (talk • contribs)

Duel des Mignons

Hi, sorry for this late answer, I seldom come to en-wikipedia. As a matter of fact, this article is an extract from Les Mignons. If my memory doesn't fail me, I must have started it with the hope that someone might expand it, but also to link it with the existing articles in French and German (en-wp is used as a reference for interwikis). But if you think that the page should be redirected, feel free to do so, my edits are scarce here. Cheers. --Jibi44 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Ps : The pictures on your user page are amazing !

History of Los Angeles

I hate to disappoint you, but my source was an article that my organization, the National Lawyers Guild, had created as part of its convention materials for 1989, then updated in 2002. We did not footnote our article and they were drawn from many multifarious sources, such as Carey McWilliams' histories of California.Italo Svevo (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Alex...

It is also posible that he uses user:Bogdangiusca. I am not at all sure, but both accounts are editing the same narrow topic, Austrian pancake etymology, in the same way, an unusual topic. If this is not the case than I really apologize to B:.

PS wonderful user page!! Warrington (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you are rigt. Thanks for your help.

Warrington (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't call it simple, but breast taking and beautiful. Yes, I realised that Future Perfect at Sunrise' has a weakness for this editor, by his edits on the article in question. Also, I have to admit, I find a bit confusing how rules are followed on disruptive editors. Some (also valuable) editors are blocked for much less, while A. who has about 6 accounts and is extremely uncivil is backed up. Warrington (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Breast Takingly Beautiful Userpage Award
		Barnstar for excellence in user-paginess.

Warrington (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:98.14.221.68

Hi, if you believe this guy is a sock could you block him or start a check user case. He has been stalking another editor for some time now. — Realist² 13:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. — Realist² 15:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert S. Baker Santa Monica History

I was correcting the typo Robert A. Baker to Robert S. Baker for Robert Symington Baker (1826 – 1894). But now the WP link is incorrect (another Robert S. Baker).

http://www.bakercemetery.com/California/RSB.html

 Emargie (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Wikipendant

User talk:Wikipendant is claiming ignorance of being a sockpuppet. I have reviewed the two accounts you link him to, and I cannot see the edits that led to the conclusion that he was a sockpuppet. Could you please provide diffs or an explanation of how you arrived at that conclusion so that other admins could respond intelligently to his unblock request? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Hi Will. I've answered your Arbcom questions; let me know if anything is unclear. Best, fish&karate 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Beef

1. Thank you for the compliment! The additional edits to the Popeseye steak article were great!
2. Regarding Scotch beef, I do agree it deserves a stand-alone article, instead of the current redirect to [[[Scotland]]. I have business and personal issues that will keep me involved for the rest of daylight today, but I'll put Scotch beef on my list of Wiki things to do tonight.

Cheers, --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Where do you stand?

Where do you stand in regard of comments such as this and this? Will you fill a WP:AE report, or is that not enough disruption for you to be considered a violation of the article/talk page probation? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

CU

You can sat what you like, you can cloud the issue as much as you like, but nothing is going to deflect me from pointing that those three performed an ilicit checkuser, while on a pointless fishing trip for their own purposes and curiousity, at least I hope it was pointless (I'm just the person whose privacy these strange people violated so I doubt I will ver bve told, that is probably being banded about elsewhere,the last time Gerard checkuserd me/Ladt C he discussed it on IRC - presumably you approve of that?) Nothing less than their firing will saitsfy or silence me. Giano (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This accusation turned out to be entirely false. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi - the images I uploaded on the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf page were deleted. They are professional photos taken by the company, I work for the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf's PR firm and the company has given us permission to use these photos. Do I need to forward written permission to use the photos to Wikipedia to prove my usage rights? Thanks LAIntern (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		You haven't quite earned it yet, so this is something of an act of faith... Ty 07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I know you didn't do it for my amusement...

...but your user name is great. :) I did see the log showing the adding of the flag... but nothing much since. I plan to pull one of the Pearl histories this weekend and see if I can hack out some of the tour guide/bad novel stuff and insert a reference or 30. But I have a lot of good intentions. *blink* All the best. :) sinneed (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification

I removed part of your comment in order to expedite the removal of an off topic conversation. In addition, there is no reason to make that point personal.--Tznkai (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Will Beback

I am back to ask a short question. Will you help me to ansver one question? Is there any limitation on how many images one should use in one article? ( I was reding and reading everywhere but I can not find any ansvers.)

Warrington (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a good page you recomended. One more question. Since my first question Alex appeared on my talk page once again. Do I have to go on discussing what happened with him or can I just ignore him? (I do not feel quite confortable with the discussion he initiated, but I do not want to be ignorant either, and I do not know how to handle this in a proper way.) What shall I do? Sorry to bother you about this.

Warrington (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, this is terrible. I just read what A. was writing about me when he was arguing against the block on his talkpage (part now removed). I did not read it before because i felt I better stay out of this matter and let others deal with it. I am shocked, shocked to find out what kind of things he wrote there. really feel that I need to defend myself against all that untrue stuff he stated about me... I hope you didn t belive it!

Warrington (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Millennium '73

I just wanted to drop a brief note to you about my opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73. I want to be very clear that my opposition has nothing to do with the balance of positive v. negative information in the article. The sources say what the sources say about the event, including a heavy emphasis on the "failure" of the event and the extreme financial toll it took on the organization. My concerns do bear some relation to NPOV, in the sense that we should be principally be relying on modern sources and drawing our sense of balance/importance from them. However, there is no NPOV concern in presenting the negative information prevelant in the sources. Quite the contrary, NPOV demands that we present information predominant in the sources. In a few weeks, I would be happy to help address the issues I raised. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to bring them up. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page messages (reply copied from User talk:EqualRights)

Since EqualRights (talk · contribs) blanked his talk page and started a wikibreak [12], I am copying my reply here in case you missed it. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(My original message to EqualRights regarding his revert of 68.46.183.96`s talk page. Kralizec! (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

I have to disagree. Talk pages of IP accounts don't belong to anyone. Since we have no evidence that the same user is on an IP from one moment to the next, there is no way of knowing who is deleting the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC) (original post)

I used to feel the exact same way (and used to revert warning-deleters like no one's business), however when the issue was extensively discussed back in April at both WT:USER and WP:VPP, consensus was quite clear that policy does not differentiate between registered and anonymous editors (see Wikipedia talk:User page/Archive 4#Apparently IPs don't count as users and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 42#Wikipedia:User page and IP's for the full debate), and as such WP:DRRC and WP:USER were updated to explicitly reflect this. In penance for my earlier harassment of IPs who removed warnings from their own talk pages, I now leave friendly messages like the one above to try and help others avoid the same mistakes I did. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC) (original post)

LaRouche criminal trials

What is going on with this? I will help you maintain the article, if you desire. I wasn't sure whether to revert the other guy or not. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gay Culture in Russia

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks. Made it just that much more worth it. :] ElmerBront (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi :)

I notice you're kind of involved in the LaRouche articles here at Wiki. In spring 2002 a friend invited me to go to a LaRouch gathering (the meeting was held in some building north of Los Angeles, maybe in Pasadena or Eagle Rock, I'm not sure). I went just to check it out. I didn't like them or their teachings. They were very creepy, brainwashed people. I never went back after that first visit, although I gave them my phone number. They called several times and went so far as to appear at my driveway uninvited one day in 2002 to drive me to a meeting (I didn't go). I never saw them after that and they stopped calling after summer 2002. Last year a friend gave me a copy of "Is the Devil in your Laptop?" (a LaRouche publication from 2007) and I noticed that your User Name is mentioned on page 42:"In light of this ruling, User:Will_Beback proceeds to delete material not just having to do with LaRouche, but with Jose Rizal, Friedrich List, Henry Cary..." The sentence goes on. You may already know about this mention, maybe not :) LaRouche people give me the creeps, I recently encountered them (not the same members) again at the Third Street Promenade where they sometimes set up a stall. A from L.A. (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh so you've seen it :) Yes, they do believe that Wikipedia & Myspace, Facebook etc. are against their agenda. So not many of them edit here? That is surprising. They are a strange group, the "brainwashed" cultish aspect of them is quite noticeable. While I was there I was worried about drinking their water :) ... and the way they appeared at my driveway uninvited (they knew where I live because that one time when I went they dropped me off at home)---and their tranquilized demeanor reminded me of...extraterrestrials...:) A from L.A. (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin and Creationism...

You came in late on this, Will, but what people are after in the Palin article is this whole Jesus Pony concept that has become the source of derision around the Internet, i.e. that Palin believes man and dinosaurs coexisted about 5,000 years ago and such. If you scroll up to the top of the topic, you'll find the original hoax on that followed by the alleged (but now poisonous) source who claims he heard that directly from Palin, but also claims she later confided she no longer believed in Young Earth Creationism. Her actual act of governance (of including debate on creationism in school) has been in the article for a long time. Fcreid (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Cagan

You've tried very hard to eliminate the most comprehensive source on Rawat as a resource for the Prem Rawat article but without success. As a compromise we agreed that Cagan was fine for non-contentious material. Saying where Rawat traveled and spoke is not contentious and cannot be eliminated by you.Momento (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Democracy Alliance

For you to excise the quasi-scholarly Capital Research Center report on the Democracy Alliance makes no sense whatsoever. There is hardly any scholarship on the group. I have restored it. You are not the sole arbiter of truth. Syntacticus (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that the record reflects that Will Beback has previously admitted he is on a mission to purge all Capital Research Center research from Wikipedia. In striking out references, he wrote that Wikipedia is not a publishing arm of Capital Research Center. Of course it's not, and no one is trying to make it so. Should this dispute or other related disputes go to arbitration, this evidence will be raised. No admin, however high and mighty, is entitled to go on a vendetta against a particular source of information, especially when that source produces valuable reports on philanthropy and nonprofit political advocacy groups that cannot be found anywhere else. Admittedly, some of the Capital Research Center reports do have a point of view but not all of them. Each report must be judged on its own merits and not prejudged. (I do not use the opinionated articles.) Will Beback is not entitled to reflexively reject all reports from the Center. Syntacticus (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Reminder and suggestion

A reminder that all articles related to Prem Rawat are under ArbCom probation, and that it may be a good idea to take a break from editing these articles before you find yourself in trouble. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)