User talk:Will Beback/archive62

Use of book on 2nd Amendment in Totenberg article

Please consider looking over the discussion about use of the book The Great American Gun Debate by two criminologists in the Nina Totenberg article and giving your opinion on its use (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nina_Totenberg#Use_of_.22primary.22_sources_in_.27Controversies_and_criticism.27_section). Thanks. Drrll (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oakwood School (Tasmania)

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Oakwood School (Tasmania), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Oakwood School. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. VWBot (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Why now?

Any idea why all the PR articles are now suddenly aflutter with so much editing? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of opinion pieces as sources in BLPs

Please explain why it was OK to use an opinion piece by Jonathan Capehart from The Washington Post in the Michelle Bachman BLP, but you seemed to take the position that it was not OK (that it was using a primary source) to use an opinion piece by James Taranto from the much larger Wall Street Journal in the Nina Totenberg BLP. Drrll (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Angel's flight

Are you indicating here that you think Angel's flight is a sock? I came across this because of an ANI discussion mentioning Angel's flight.[1] You might want to comment there. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

fyi Jesanj (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Lolicon

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article following its nomination for reassessment. You are being notified as your have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Lolicon/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this? Do you think that I violated the canvassing rule here, I see it from various angles and can't decide, I did notify an editor who I had reason would support my position at the discussion, however, the primary purpose of my note was to let the editor know that there was currently a discussion regarding the types of edits he was making and suggest that he hold off on them till the discussion was done. You're an admin who's opinion I generally find very helpful so I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me your opinion. _WM^O 09:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There really isn't more than meets the eye as far as I can tell, I didn't contact anyone else about the move discussion, I just saw the edit which was in effect unilaterally doing what the move discussion was on in another discussion so I left that on the editor's talk page... then started questioning whether it was appropriate for me to cite the discussion in expressing my caution for the move.. _WM^O 09:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates

Makes sense, could you userfy the page for me in the meantime? - Haymaker (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. _WM^O 02:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Panathinaikos page moves

I moved the "Panathinaikos" page to "Panathinaikos AO" because this is the full name of the club. I also moved "Panathinaikos F.C." to "Panathinaikos FC" because as you can see it is "Panathinaikos BC" (without dots) for the basketball club and "Panathinaikos VC" (without dots) for the volleyball club. Please don't change them. -- Picker78 (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Bell controversy

Need help on talk page [2] Still recovering, TY for your concern. Not feeling great. My limited supply of patience is as exhausted as my body. TY! Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 14:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Nevermind. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 20:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Politicians/fraudsters

Just to say I was impressed by the points and arguments you raised on this issue. Keep up the good work.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Major

A preacher is mostly interested in the lord and all that, there are many facets of their preaching - they don't come out and go gay are bad - that is not going to be a major part of their teaching - also - how have you been here so long to add such a miss formed citation? Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's discuss the article on the article talk page.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would rather eat straw but I will give it a go, is it me or the article you are interested in? Sorry, I just can't deal with you right now, perhaps another day. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your response. I saw the article because of your BLPN posting. I've started a thread on the article talk page should you wish to comment.   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me consolidating this here, as I said, I have no energy to discuss with you at the moment. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Webcitation

I cannot publicly release the code yet due to bugs and stability issues, Ive got it doing a lot of cleanup along with the the webcitations. However it is fairly stable and works pretty good and I will continue to run it myself until such time as I deem it releasable. But I do understand the request that users want the ability to proactively archive links, to that end I have created a form tools:~betacommand/webcite.html which I take that list of articles and add to the top of my work queue. You actually have some good timing, I just contacted the organizers today about their throttling of access to their site that prevents any serious bot archiving. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right

You're right re my question about using ProQuest; I should have posted it here, rather than on the article's talk page. Didn't mean to clutter up your thread/section with off-topic stuff; sorry. Feel free to delete my question and your reply there, if you like, or move them here, deleting this post, or whatever you prefer, since their presence there might make it less likely that you'll get a substantive follow-up. No further questions at the moment, but I really appreciate your willingness to help. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Be more boring" - you got a Wikipolicy for that?

I've responded to your request on my own talkpage, Will: User_talk:Revera#Tone Have you copied Jim Wales in? —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

Never Be Clever

Title: Never Be Clever
Artist: Moulton and JoshuaZ
Composers: Justin Bieber, Jaden Smith, Nasri, Adam Messinger, and Barsoom Tork Associates
YouTube: Never Say Never — Justin Bieber and Jaden Smith

See I never thought that I could cause such ire.
I never thought I could spark your learning.
I never had desire to light a fire,
Until I reached the point of no returning.

And there's just no turning back,
When your brain's under attack,
Gonna give everything I have,
It's our destiny.

I will never be clever! (Yeah, that's right)
I will fight till forever! (So full of spite)
Whenever you block me now,
I will edit anyhow.
Kick it up,
Kick it up,
Kick it up,
Kick it up up up,
And never be clever.

I never thought I could eat your power.
I never thought that I could set you free.
I'm soft enough to tend the weakest flower.
And I'm the last to run a socking spree.

And there's just no turning back,
When your brain's under attack,
Gonna give everything I have,
Cause this is our destiny.

I will never be clever! (Yeah, that's right)
I will fight till forever! (So full of spite)
Whenever you block me now,
I will edit anyhow.
Kick it up,
Kick it up,
Kick it up,
Kick it up up up,
And never be clever.

Here we go!
Guess who?
Moulton and JZ!
I gotcha Yale bro.

I can handle him.
Up all night.
I can paddle him.

Now he's wikkid you see,
Scared of my spree.
And he's younger than me,
And longs to be free.
With banhammers a little bit bonkers you see.
And now he's on a parody with me!

I be trying a chill
They be trying to side with the thrill.
No pun intended, was stopped by the power of Will.

Like Luke with the Force, when push comes to shove.
Like Cobe with the 4th, ice water with crud.

I came in dead last, and yes
We're the wryest.
Like David and Goliath,
I'm smitten with compliance.
So now I got your attention at last,
I was doomed from the start
So these songs now come fast.

I will never be clever! (Yeah, that's right)
I will fight till forever! (So full of spite)
Whenever you block me now,
I will edit anyhow.
Kick it up,
Kick it up,
Kick it up,
Kick it up up up,
And never be clever.

I will never be clever! (Yeah, that's right)
I will fight till forever! (So full of spite)
Whenever you block me now,
I will edit anyhow.
Kick it up,
Kick it up,
Kick it up,
Kick it up up up,
And never be clever.

CopyClef 2011 Justin Bieber, Jaden Smith, Nasri, Adam Messinger, and Barsoom Tork Associates.
Resurrection Hackware. All songs abused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.242.67 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Emmett Till

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Emmett Till article.

This user helped promote Emmett Till to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Kenneth and Marielle Kronberg.jpg

Will, did you take this picture yourself or was it submitted? Kelly ^hi! 06:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:60 Sycolin Road Leesburg VA.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:60 Sycolin Road Leesburg VA.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 06:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Old Alexandria District Federal Courthouse.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Old Alexandria District Federal Courthouse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 06:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

File:VP Bush 1981.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:VP Bush 1981.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 06:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Oliver North 2 cropped.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oliver North 2 cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 06:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

NumbersUSA videos

Will, there should probably be a section on the videos, due to the significance of the original clips. The new "ChangeTheNumbers" website is mentioned though it is little more than a flash presentation of similar ideas as presented in the videos, only with an environmental perspective. The videos, however, are more noteworthy, with millions of views and what put NumbersUSA on the virtual map. The new "Gumballs" video picked up over 1 million views in 5 months. Want me to give it another pass? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacstephan (talk • contribs) 04:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen

Hello. You might not care to read this thread, and if so that is fine by me. But in case you're interested they've been cautioned against making sockpuppet accusations before here. Jesanj (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Angel Flight block evidence

So far no evidence has been presented in that ANI thread to justify a block on the grounds of being an HK sock. You mentioned that you had evidence that you would be willing to submit by email. Would you please email it to me? Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No new information allowed in this article?

I have made various contributions to the Rush Limbaugh Show article, and most of them have been deleted. Most recently I put in a paragraph about the Women Farding in Their Cars episode. I am an avid Rush Limbaugh listener, and believe that I have some good anecdotes to add. This was the first time I was able to figure out the citation method. I did it and it worked, and cited Rush Limbaugh's site reminiscing about the episode. My post was merely factual, and I don't wish to pump up Rush (he's pumped up and inflated enough already) but just relate some interesting points from the history of the show. I have listened since 1988 so I think I remember some interesting stuff.

Furthermore, I don't believe that every fact (sometimes more than one per sentence) must be cited. I know of very few encyclopedias that cite any sources whatsoever, so why does every nit-picking little fact have to be cited? Can a citation be non-internet? 12:39am Eastern time, 20 February 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.91.146 (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS and biographies

The Weston Price article is having problems that due to low response I am having a devil of a time trying to fix (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#MEDRS_and_Weston_Price_biography and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Weston_Price_and_Focal_infection_theory).

You stated that "WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere." and I have two practical questions. There are clear WP:NPOV issues and I think I may have found possible Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence problems with the Ingle Endodontics information as it is simply a reworking of the 2002 edition with no new information added.

My first question is just what are the limits to WP:MEDRS in a biography? Can one reference that mentions a person be used to make a modern medical claim that can be demonstrated to be at least misleading by other reliable sources that are more recent then the reprinted work original date still be used?

My second question is how does the "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years." apply to textbooks? Doesn't more recent information from later articles and textbooks overrule Ingle (especially if you use the 2002 date?-BruceGrubb (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles Koch

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_G._Koch&action=historysubmit&diff=415202254&oldid=415104079 is much better. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

I noticed a potential problem at an article while trying to bring up a source hotlinked in the footnote. When I clicked on it, it said "Session Timed Out" because what the editor had linked to was a search result. That wasn't the big problem. The big potential problem is that the URL showed the UserName and Account No of the person who had done the search. No idea if that's a big deal to the editor, and no idea if someone could hack into his or her account with that information. But, from an abundance of caution, I'm wondering if it is possible for an admin to go into an article and talkpage history and actually delete the posts which contain the potentially private information that was inadvertently revealed? Fladrif (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll forward the information. Fladrif (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Chinatown

Happy for you to make the edits, or even revert to former content if you think mine are out of place. Peter S Strempel 03:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstrempel (talk • contribs)

I offered a shorter synopsis on the basis of a notice on the page that invited exactly that, and the fact that the existing one includes grammatical errors, possibly for the sake of a rigidly chronological narrative sequencing that nevertheless appears not to assist with logical coherence. If it is your judgement that the existing synopsis should be edited, but not changed, I would suggest that's a job for the original author, or maybe you. I have no particular stake in my version, nor am I inclined to guess at what is likely to be considered 'better'. That's a job for the guardians of 'better'. Peter S Strempel 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstrempel (talk • contribs)

Question Regarding Edits to Interactive Intelligence wiki page

A recent whole page edit was made to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Intelligence. The edits were made by corporate representatives from Interactive Intelligence. The reason cited for the edits being undone was due to content being pulled from a web site. Not sure how to clear this up as the material is our own and from official company documents. In addition, not sure which item was causing the issue. Also, we cannot replace an outdated logo on the page as the requirements for uploading files are not met by myself nor my colleague Aaronfmartin who has helped edit the page as well. Any suggestions on how to clear these items up? Thank you. DeniseM31 23 February 2001 —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

comments on Overpopulation

I suppose I have to agree with you regarding the fact that we can't put original logic on wiki. I changed my writing accordingly. However, I am still stuck on the fact that that sequence of logic is very simple to evaluate. In other words, it's not like I have discovered the formula for the circumference of a circle, or am trying to state that it is much better to imagine the earth rotating around the sun than the other way around because it makes the math much simpler to run to predict the position of planets and stars in the future. Those examples require measurements and complicated calculations to confirm. This is, well, too simple.Johntaves (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up @ NWO conspiracy theory article

Thank you for the heads up on the talk page of New World Order (conspiracy theory). I had not even noticed that the move was made. I find it entirely absurd, and I feel that such edits are a blatant disregard for the very pillars of Wikipedia.

I am admittedly a little heated about this, so I'm going to step back and take a break while others comment. I undid the move and made corrections until we can determine collectively how to proceed (if at all) with any name changing or rewriting of the lede. I also left my arguments on the talk page in response to you and to an IP in a different thread. For now I'm going to relax and let other editors comment. This is upsetting, because this kind of unsourced view-pushing is exactly the kind of thing Loremaster and I are endlessly accused of doing by conspiracists who visit the talk page. /facepalm John Shandy` • talk 03:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sheen Talk page

Hi, Will, I looked at this issue earlier in the day for quite some time. I believe the IP archived the stuff that he removed. I'm not 100% sure he did it properly, and of course his lack of edit summaries didn't help. I also don't know how the Sheen Talk page normally gets archived (added: I don't think it's ever been archived). In any event, your reversion caused the anomaly of putting back the information to the Talk page but yet retaining the archive (which then mirrors what's on the Talk page itself).

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if everything is kosher at the moment. I wouldn't mind your taking a look at it too see if, even if it was done "improperly", it came out okay in the end. Or if it needs work to make it right.

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)