Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:13, 7 November 2008

Archives

Revision list Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008

Talk:Populism#Merge proposal

Arguments in favor of merging have been presented by other editors who responded to the RfC. Please respond. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Lucas (director)

Hello Will. The 72.76 IP is back on this article's talk page again. Is it time to consider semi-protection? (Last March it was protected for two weeks). EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistorian disappeared?

Hi. The anonymous multi-IP user (possibly the same person as Psychohistorian) doesn't appear to have been active since around August 15. I'm not sure what this might mean. Any thoughts? Richwales (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Esterson

Well, that might explain the strange edit. De728631 (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear meltdown

I wonder if we should move this back to the proper talk page (I note you're an admin...) Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify - what I was suggesting was moving a copy of our discussion on Alotma's talk page, back to the proper topic page. bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

IP requesting unblock

Hello Will. You blocked User_talk:60.229.16.214 as a reincarnation of Sfacets. Now this IP editor is requesting unblock. Inquiring minds need to know how to respond to his unblock request. Can you say more about how you identified him as Sfacets? My guess is it must have something to do with Nirmala Srivastava. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Cook

This RV of my RVing a vandal is confusing? rootology (C)(T) 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia War move

Could you please move 2008 South Ossetia war to a more suitable title. As it stands the title misrepresents the conflict which did not take place solely in South Ossetia. Russian-Georgian War seems to have the most support as a new title, but War in Georgia (2008) might be an appropriate compromise. Either way no good reason has been giving for keeping the current title and it runs against everything stated in every medium Russian or Western. Neither Russian nor Western media are calling it South Ossetia War and it's not backed up by anything else because it does not account for the expansion of the conflict beyond South Ossetia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed page moves

I'm going to move the cities back to their original names. Please follow the page move procedure and seek consensus before making controversial page moves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules recommends using simple names for cities? For example, Chicago is not at Chicago, Illinois, and Oslo is not at Oslo, Norway. Why do you object to making the articles conform with the guideline? —Remember the dot 04:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a specific guideline for U.S. places. It has been discussed extensively. If you want to change the guideline please use the relevant talk page to make a proposal. If you think that individual articles should not follow the guideline then make that argument on the relevant city's talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (settlements)#United States. This is very confusing because it is a direct contradiction of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules. Perhaps this could be clarified so others don't make the same mistake... —Remember the dot 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So New York City is going to be moved to New York City, New York, which is it's proper name? Huh? rootology (C)(T) 15:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Millenium73 poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Millenium73 poster.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Albert C. Martin

Thanks for the kind note you left on my talk page. It's been a lot of fun visiting LA's historic sites and buildings with my sons this summer, and working with them on articles about them. There's no a decent article on the overwhelming majority of the Registered Historic Places in the City of LA, and we're working on other parts of LA and Ventura County now. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement.Cbl62 (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm Lost, Catch Me Up Please

Amongst all the jumble of words and such that have been said in the past two months regarding such pages as Quixtar and Amway, I've noticed much discussion as per re-writes and/or mergers. Unfortunately my brain hasn't been able to fully comprehend and formulate a summary of the decisions made or pending. So if it wouldn't be too much of a bother, could you get me caught up to speed on the status of both articles, and what needs done or is looking at being done to each? Thanks a bunch!Infero Veritas (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you want to converse on your talk page or mine or both, but I'll post here. The merger is pretty much just a name change. The company will run the same in North America as it has in the past 10 years. So merging articles will be for namesake only. However, from what I've heard, the global markets will be working towards becoming more like the american market (obviously not completely as not everything is the same in other countries). Infero Veritas (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Need advice on how to avoid edit war

Thanks for welcoming me to Misplaced Pages last year. I haven't needed your help until now. I'm having difficulty working with an editor on the Peace (Cult album) and The Cult articles. The editor believes that Peace (Cult album) should be deleted, but appears unwilling to use wp:afd. This being despite my suggestion at Talk:Peace (Cult album). The editor appears to work from 72.185.242.31 (talk), 72.185.241.73 (talk), and most recently an apparent SPA Nomorepeace (talk · contribs). Instead of filing an afd or responding to my talk page post, the editor deletes page content, threatens an edit war, and promises to ignore talk page posts. Can you give me some advice on how to proceed with this conflict? Thank you. Noca2plus (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Reliable Sources

Will Beback: Could you give me advice about a couple of examples relating to the Misplaced Pages Reliable Sources regulations when you can spare the time to look into this.

1. I have posted on my own website passages from books written by John Stachel, founding editor of the Albert Einstein Collected Papers (with the author’s permission). The webpages consist of nothing else but the relevant pages from two of Stachel’s publications. As this is published material, by an authority in the field, would my posting them in an appropriate Misplaced Pages webpage (i.e., “Mileva Maric”) be within Misplaced Pages regulations for Reliable Sources, possibly as clearly within the remit of Reliable Sources, or at least as sensible examples of “special cases”.

I quote: “In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers. Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.”

The articles are here: http://www.esterson.org/Stachel_Joffe.htm http://www.esterson.org/Stachel_Einsteins_letters.htm

2. Also, posted on my website are pre-publication versions of some of my articles on Freud published in history of psychology/psychiatry journals. These are virtually identical to the published versions (which I was not able to post for copyright reasons). Do these constitute Reliable Sources by Misplaced Pages regulations?

Examples: http://www.esterson.org/Masson_and_Freuds_seduction_theory.htm http://www.esterson.org/Mythologizing_psychoanalytic_history.htm http://www.esterson.org/Myth_of_Freuds_ostracism.htm

Hope you can spare the time to check these out. You can see my website here (it is not a blog): http://www.esterson.org Esterson (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback: Thanks for your response, and the useful information. But I need further clarification just to make sure I have got it right!

You wrote: "Articles published in peer review journals are among the best sources available. The fact that an article is also posted on its author's website is irrelevant, but the citation should be to the journal and not to the website (though you can add a link to the website for the convenience of readers)."

My articles are not the paginated pdf versions (accessible by subscribers only). They are the final pre-publication versions (virtually identical to the published versions). Is it still okay to link to them? (Of course the journal reference would be given.)

Again, with reference to the two verbatim extracts from Stachel's books posted on my website: These articles contain no commentary by me, only Stachel's own words, but obviously the URLs are to my website. Of course in citing them I first cite the respective books by Stachel, noting the relevant pages. Is it alright to then add the URLs to the articles in question (enabling readers to see what Stachel wrote in the referenced pages), although the URLs are to my website? Esterson (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback: Thanks for your response of 12 September. As I wrote, the articles in question are the final pre-publication versions, so they are virtually identical to the published versions. (Only minor editing, alterations to punctuation and suchlike, and changes necessary for printing in the journal, e.g., the layout of references, are different.) With regard to the passages from John Stachel's books, there's no question of copyright violation, as I obtained permission from the author, who owns the copyrights. They are not lengthy, and are from academic books of a kind one would not normally find on local library shelves.

One final request. Is the following an appropriate website for citations? It is a reputable source of academic articles and book reviews:

Human Nature Review: Human Nature Review is a significant source of analysis and commentary for readers at leading universities and research institutes in over one hundred and sixty countries and is one of the most popular sites on the whole world wide web. http://human-nature.com/

The articles I have in mind are the following: http://human-nature.com/esterson/synopsis.html http://human-nature.com/esterson/esterson3.html

The first is a synopsis of a journal article that an editor of Human Nature Review invited me to submit. The second is a related article. Esterson (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

This discussion is about the suitability of the peer review process w.r.t. the Millennium '73 article, not about the content of that article. Consequently I suggest to move that discussion from Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1 to Misplaced Pages talk:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1.

I post this same suggestion on Jossi's, Will Beback's and Rootology's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Novice's question about deletions of posted passages

Will Beback: I have only now understood that terms like "Original Research" and "Reliable Sources" have a specific Misplaced Pages meaning, which means that some of the items I posted recently were illegitimate. I have been experimenting, and now know how to check "history" to see recent changes. I see that Editor "Skoojal" has correctly removed a considerable number of items of this kind that I posted recently, but on one or two occasions I believe he has gone beyond an editor's remit. Would you advise me on the following two instances so I am in position to make a judgement if similar cases arise in the future:

Mileva Maric Misplaced Pages page

1.With the explanation "removing statement sourced to Allen Esterson's blog; not a reliable source", Skoojal deleted my statement:

Stachel has argued against the claims about Joffe. -- Ref: Stachel (2005), pp. liv-lxxii: http://www.esterson.org/Stachel_Joffe.htm

It is quite evident that the statement is sourced to Stachel's book. I can understand why Skoojal would remove the link to my website, but as the source is a published book, what grounds does he have to remove the whole sentence plus book reference?

2. With the explanation "removing statements that seem to constitute original research when presented in this way" Skoojal removed the following:

"Einstein remained an extremely fruitful scientist well into the 1920s, producing work of importance long after separating from Marić in 1914. She, on the other hand, never published anything, and"

It seems to me that if this kind of statement is deemed "Original Research", a great mass of material would have to be removed from, e.g., scientists' webpages. I can see no reason why Skoojal should have deleted this sentence and a half. At most, he should have requested reference citations – but if one had to do that for every statement like this, the Misplaced Pages pages would become overcrowded with references.

(Skoojal removed the above without raising it on the discussion page, so I've only just found out about it. But that's not important here.) Esterson (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Stachel's book is in the Bibliography on the webpage, so a full citation wasn't necessary. Esterson (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have several comments on this: I'm not interested in entering into a prolonged dispute with Esterson over the Maric article. I realize that what I did there may be reviewed and possibly changed by other editors, and I don't have a problem with that. Honesty compels me to point out that, while one's own website is not usually an acceptable source, it can be so in some cases when material on it has been republished by a reliable source (which appears to be the case for at least some of Esterson's articles, as one can see here ). I may modify or undo changes Esterson makes to other articles in future (this is always a possibility on Misplaced Pages), but I have no plans to disrupt his editing simply for the sake of it. Skoojal (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Emotions"

May I ask you that you avoid attempts to gauge other editors' "emotions"? You have no means to gauge that, besides measuring your own, that is. It also places you in a position that seems a bit condescending and self-serving (as in "I am not emotionally involved, I am not biased, but everybody that disagrees with me is"). Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cloud computing

I was listing the sources (like this) in edit logs for this information (which, like most categories, is more relevant for people seeking articles than vice versa) but figured it would be ignored so I went back to using hotcat. It's important for the cloud computing articles and using a category rather than a list solves the notability issues, and if the subject of an article doesn't particularly want to list this information then they can easy enough remove it.

I imagine eventually the category will go away (in much the same way as a 'computer user' category would have been relevant 20 years ago, but not today) but it's very useful for the time being; the subjects of the articles have been happy enough to be quoted in releases, etc. so it's no secret.

samj (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, capturing the sources would be nice, but a list would be a massive spamtrap and means we have to include *all* users, which is not all that interesting. The ones listed on the google page have agreed to be listed and the reason it's google apps and not salesforce for example is that these deployments are across the board (eg all staff, all students). The idea is to give people an idea of who's using the stuff, and who's happy to talk about it. Anyway using a category was a conscious decision... samj (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephens City

Will, I seriously don't want to get into a "pissing match" over the OTRS agreement again. The agreement was reached, filed, approved, and tagged. It's over and done with. Plus, saying that a section I worked VERY hard to get added "should be removed" if "no editing is allowed" isn't the best way to start things off.

According to the OTRS agreement, no section of the "hosty section" (I am guessing you meant "history") can be removed. We can add to it, but not remove from it. - NeutralHomer • Talk 10:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have messaged another user to get clarification on this and I will wait for what they have to say before going any further. - NeutralHomer • Talk 10:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Millennium '73

On 17 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Millennium '73, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on criticism of IPCC AR4?

If you have time, could you give me your opinion on whether the addition of the Tom Harris/John McLean piece to Criticism of IPCC AR4 is appropriate? I'm tempted to add it back in, but I'd like to consider the opinion of someone seasoned and impartial first. Thank you. MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for sharing your comments with me. I did check the original source documents and discovered that the claim that I'm trying to get into the article is actually true. I looked hard for any refutation, anywhere, and basically there is none, at least not that's honest/accurate. The claim was also widely cited in skeptic circles, so I think that qualifies as a view that should be represented. Incidentally, I'm not a climate change skeptic, I just think that the charge that only 62 people reviewed the IPCC's main conclusion (that climate change is largely caused by human activity), when it's commonly presented as being the work of 2,500 scientists, is exceptionally relevant. So I'll revisit this when I have time. Thanks again! 220.33.190.79 (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Laundry man

Nice job cleaning up. I'll have to have a look at that Socktime tool. Tom Harrison 13:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric Arthur B.

As you have some experience with this fellow I thought I'd point out that sometime ago he added his own self-published book to the Cults article "books" list and has now added his email address to that listing. The publisher, "Axiom books" was a UK LLC owned by the book author, David Brear. Last time I checked the LLC was defunct. Note it is not related to various other established publishers with "axiom" in the name. This info can be confirmed with UK Company House. I'd edit it myself but I don't wish to get in to another firefight with him --Insider201283 (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request for NZ inclusion on GDS' article

In order to solve the revert war on GDS article over the inclusion of the banning from New Zealand, I have opened a request for formal mediation at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Giovanni Di Stefano. Please participate on the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Santa Monica Mountains

Hi. Thanks for photo offer. Season is often important. Please see my list of Flora of the Santa Monica Mountains on the main article page. The list is a work in progress, about half finished. I shuold be done this week. I am basing the list on species that I know how to locate (so as to photo0, then I will go back and fill in the blanks from flora books on the subject. I hike run (barefoot) to the top of Griffith Park most mornings at sunrise. Tom Labonge is there then, as is Sol Shenkman. I also practically lived between stunt road and saddle peak as a teen mathematician. I also bought a property that goes down into the LA River near Glendale Rapids, and am working with a River Commissioner's volunteer group and FOLAR on cleaning out the non natives, then getting rid of the concrete if allowed. EricDiesel (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flaming Sword cover.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Flaming Sword cover.png. You've indicated that the image meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats for reverting BLP Violation

Will Beback, I dislike being threatened for reverting a violation of BLP, and have therefore left a comment at ANI about this. Skoojal (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor error on ANI Noticeboard

Will Beback: Under the heading "Threats for reverting BLP violation at Jeffrey Masson" at ANI Noticeboard there is a slip in one of your posted paragraphs that could confuse other editors. You wrote:

"Esterson has not substantiated his assertion that Esterson and unnamed scholars are biased, which he has said is based only on his own impression of them."

I'm sure you intended to write that "Skoojal has not substantiated..." Esterson (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Email address for Axiom Books in Cult

Moved to Talk:Cult#Email address for Axiom Books

• ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

WP:ANI#Clay_Aiken – iridescent 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I commented out my edits to Clay Aiken pending the magazine coming out later this week. An undo/rollback wouldn't have worked as other people had edited the text. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the link that Bugs found (which I elaborated on), it seems pretty much resolved now. To be honest, I'm not going to worry too much about it. I added the CNN link to try to avert further edit warring, but now somebody thinks I'm trying to game the system. (sigh) Oh well... I should just refer myself to Misplaced Pages:Dude, it's a frickin' online encyclopedia. Chill out, already! and move on :) caknuck _° is geared up for football season 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi there. Just thanking you for your welcome.212.84.122.28 (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am new to Misplaced Pages and have not learned everything about it yet. I'll not change anything else until I have a firm grasp of Misplaced Pages's policies.212.84.122.28 (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

NumbersUSA edits

These look good -- I've been afraid to Be Bold, especially when a revert war seems to hover on the horizon. I was planning to embed the criticism section into the article like you did. I think we're awfully close to being able to remove the POV bug. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afowler (talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A question about Margaret Sanger

Hi! I see you keep watch on the Margaret Sanger page...was wondering if you could give me your informed opinion of this edit and the source used. I see no mention of evolution on her article. The IP in question also added some other mild POV edits, so I'm a bit suspicious of it. Will watch here for your answer. Thanks in advance... Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the source, the material appears irrelevant to the topic. I've deleted it and left a note on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated! :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool

I've been involved in a mediating a rather minor dispute between two users at this article, and looking through the history I saw your name and was wondering if you could possibly see something I'm missing. User:Rock8591 and User:WSmithPC/75.66.253.96 engaged in a brief edit war on the article, with WSmithPC claiming to be the Winston Smith affiliated with the show, but not Harold Covington as is widely believed. Rock8591 countered that WSmithPC was removing sourced information from the article (which he was) and that he was trying to whitewash the program's nature. After they continued their argument on my talk page, I thought things had ended when I suggested to WSmithPC that WP:OTRS was the best way to handle his problems. The whole exchange left me feeling suspicious, especially when a new IP removed sourced material about the Smith/Covington connection followed shortly be a second removal of the information by Rock8591 who has decided to, "give Winston the benefit of the doubt". This little gem makes me doubt Rock's authenticity, and this does little to relieve my unease. I'm not sure what's going on with these two, but something is off, and I'd really appreciate you keeping an eye on things. AniMate 04:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of me feels incredibly foolish, because I knew something like this was the endgame. Well, if I'm to be lumped in with members of a "nefarious organization" like the SPLC, I consider myself in good company. Keep an eye on the article, as he seems to be planning on exposing the evils of Misplaced Pages. AniMate 04:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Animate - good to see ya again, with both of us as loyal Wikipedians. I apologize for bringing back old things (as I'm responding to this rather late) and for the misunderstanding regarding the "give Winston the benefit of the doubt" remark. The reason why I removed the information citing Winston Smith as Harold Covington is that such is not at all the primary purpose of the Political Cesspool article, but instead, about the radio show. If what Winston said is true, that he is not Harold Covington, then having a falsehood present in the article would taint it greatly, which is the last thing I want; to not whitewash the true nature of the radio show. At the same time, it is true that there is a somewhat dearth of sources regarding the Harold Covington allegation; enough to make me think twice.

P.S. Regarding the "little gem" - I am VERY much surprised by that, as I had not a single idea of such a thing until it was mentioned here. My best guess (within my ability) is that someone has used my Misplaced Pages username and IP/computer to make that "little gem." The reason why I say so is because I am oftentimes at a public computer and have forgotten to log out of my account; this is not the first time an event similar to this have happened to me and I apologize for the misunderstanding and inconvenience. Rock8591 06:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A vandal?!

There is a vandal around here that is up to no good, as usual. The vandal's Ip address is 24.20.47.60. I see you've blocked the cad before and so request that you block him again. This user will only go on making more mischief if something is not done. Thank you--KnowledgeLord (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Permit me to disagree with your remarks, friend, in telling you that this IP addressee is up to no good. Well-intentioned, nothing! This user deleted and debased portions and a whole section of a page on film characters, deleted sections of a page on a television show, and changed information on a novel. What's more, are we to believe that this user really would stop vandalism simply because he was blocked more than once?

Oh, I would post something on this user's talk page and I have before, but my words fall on deaf ears. This user must be blocked. Forgive me for being bold as to say it, but he must.--KnowledgeLord (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Emmett Till in popular culture

Hi, I made the recent anon edit to Emmett Till in popular culture. I don't want to start a revert war but I stand by the edit. His murder was a pivotal event in the Civil Rights movement and there are probably thousands of cultural references and there will be more. Listing every song, book, and poem that mentions him makes this article awkward and unencyclopedic. The section also repeated (and still does) information that is elsewhere in the article. Respectfully, --Sand Squid (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Harvard cites

I'd suggest removing the "author-link" field for those individuals that will not likely have articles, no sense having all those redlinks. For further help I'd suggest Jbmurray (talk · contribs), who is more experienced than I with the use of {{Harvnb}} (though I can try to help/fix things where I can). Cirt (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Reflections of an American Political Prisoner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Reflections of an American Political Prisoner.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Oldboy212

I noticed you helped revert the vandalism on Racism. Can you also go through an revert all of this user's page moves Special:Contributions/Oldboy212, including United States Senate, Ode to Joy, etc. Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For super-fast action on those pesky vandals! --Jh12 (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Conservative Democrats

My edit was to make the entry consistent with Carter's bio, as he is no longer a member of the SBC. If you can think of a more precise wording to reflect both his past and current affiliations, you're welcome to introduce your own edit.Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summaries=

Sorry I will explain my edits. As for Coughlin article I intended to make a small edit and then decided to make more.

DB.Gerry (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

That article is in my watchlist, so please let's have the discussion there. I would also appreciate if you allow me and others to reply to your requests without so much urgency, as there are other articles that have my attention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

PROD

Didn't look like a PROD candidate. What is your reasoning for placing a PROD template on it in the first place? Everyking (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If it exclusively reflects a viewpoint held by a fringe movement, it might warrant an AfD, but the article as it stands is not so obviously baseless that PROD would be valid. I learned of it through a thread on Misplaced Pages Review, of course, although I assure you I do form my own opinions and do not act as anyone's automaton. Everyking (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I contest the PROD because I feel there is a reasonable chance, based on the article's appearance, that the subject may warrant an article, and I feel that this possibility warrants an AfD in which the article will be subject to community evaluation. Everyking (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyking (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've established that the term is not exclusively used by LaRouche and his supporters, will you undo the redirect? Everyking (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this unreliable source you refer to is Paul Kreingold. A Google search shows that he is based in Leesburg, mentioned on LaRouche websites, and has contributed to LaRouche campaigns, so I'm inclined to agree that an article should not be based exclusively on his views. At the same time, however, I don't wish to create a whole article from scratch about this topic, given that I know little about it and have little interest in it; also, I am concerned that a redirected article will permanently deter creation of a new and better article. Perhaps we could restore the article and tack on some better references in a "further reading" section, and others could take it from there? Everyking (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for sourcing the juicy quote for the John Birch Society page. I chased down a dozen bad leads (all the sources ended up citing each other like Grendl). Collect (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

JBX Grill

You're right, it's not notable enough to have its own encyclopedia topic. I'll integrate it into the main Jack in the Box article and add some sources. Poiuyt Man 11:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: South Los Angeles

I agree with you; if you notice, it was first deleted by NawlinWiki. He routinely deletes and undeletes pages to remove vandal diffs from the history. It was my guess that he just forgot to restore this one, so I left him a note to that effect. I deleted the version that someone created in the interval that consisted only of the word "lolwut"; aside from being inappropriate, I wanted to keep it a redlink in the hopes that Nawlin was coming back soon. Unfortunately, he hasn't made any actions in a while, and I'm not sure what he was trying to do. Currently, South Los Angeles is a redirect to the main LA article, probably best to leave that as is for now. GlassCobra 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, he just fixed it. All done. :) GlassCobra 21:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oliver_North_2_cropped.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Oliver_North_2_cropped.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay

I won't redirect established articles without announcing it on the talk page next time. I have found a better solution to this issue, which is simply removing the "dictionary" and leaving the rest of the article in. Thanks for letting me know! --dicttrshp 10:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Larouche

Hi there. I responded on the article talk page re the fact tag, when I noticed that you had the article up for FA. I have access to Lexis/Nexis and PACER, and may be able to help with the cites - just let me know what, if anything, you need. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 18:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO

Please post at talk, thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Reeluser

Hi, he seems to be caught in 60.229.16.214's hard block (Sfacets). Is it possible the IP rotated and was given to someone else? -- lucasbfr 09:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My "troubles"

the restriction you quote is not the restriction on me, that was for other editors.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

Sincerely appreciate your calm demeanor and can sense your involvement in any WP article would be appreciated and beneficial. Fcreid (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

Will, you were mistaken about the paragraph not mentioning Ross. In fact, you have managed to delete any mention of Ross being arrested! With an edit summary of, "(undo - covered in article on the topic - doesn't mention Ross)". :-) Jayen466 05:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Lar/SV case

- FYI, judging by these edits , Daniel is probably not the editor(s) in question that the arbs are criticizing. Cla68 (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And, I assume your last comment on that talk page wasn't directed at Daniel because he wasn't the one who started the recent thread which just caused the arbitrators to take action on it. I have to ask because your statement isn't clear as to who it's directed at. Cla68 (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Range block?

Hello, Will. Yesterday, I was discussing with Bongwarrior the possibility of a range block on my friend the stalker, but he declined. Is this something you would be comfortable doing? Alison said that she would do it, but is away on a much-needed Wikibreak. The vandal has made clear that he has no intention of stopping. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In reply to RJ and to add a note here: unless Alison had something else in mind, it doesn't look like there's one silver bullet. It is impossible to range block CIDR ranges below /16 because that would involve too many users. As a result, if you put all the IPs together, you get a big mess because it ends up with 64.0.0.0/4; certainly too high ...the only thing I could possibly think of otherwise is that you break down the different ranges and leave out the middle ones to reduce the collateral damage as much as possible. If you were to split the IPs based on their first two to three octets, then you get smaller ranges.

From there, 68.18.0.0/18, 68.157.17.0/24, 70.152.192.0/18, 70.157.211.224/27, 72.146.64.0/19, 72.154.191.0/24 and 74.230.96.0/20 would, in theory, cover all of the IPs, but that's too many ...? Strange how that works. If you don't mind then, I would suggest notifying a checkuser (who isn't busy at the moment) to look at this. May be we could have short rangeblocks on the more used ranges to test how it might work. ~ Troy (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I should have noticed that you responded on RJ's talk page :) ...well, I'll just let him know right now. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your responses. I honestly have no idea what Alison had in mind, and cannot claim to understand how any of this works. It does seem, though, ~ Troy, that contacting a check-user is the proper course. I appreciate your offer to contact one on my behalf. Did you have someone in mind? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Any checkuser; perhaps someone I already know like jpgordon or Thatcher; the important thing is that they see this, they see what Alison said, and are hopefully not too busy to deal with it (usually they'll say that they're on a wikibreak if they are anyway). Oh, and I hope you don't mind the discussion here, Will Beback; it's hard to keep it all in one place sometimes :) ~ Troy (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, jpgordon is a name I know, thought that is not necessarily relevant. If you would not mind saying a word to him, I would be grateful. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I'll make sure to do so. ~ Troy (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche

Thanks for the information on the Arbcom ruling, I guess. Are you suggesting or implying that I may be in violation of any of those rules? I certainly am trying to add only well-sourced material, and I hope that is within the rules. Any accusation of "advocacy or propaganda" would surely seem to be beyond the pale, given the small number of contributions there I have made. Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You say that I am adding "material from LaRouche," by which I think you mean the article Bretton Woods II. However, the argument there seems to be about the citation from Corriere della Sera, which according to the Misplaced Pages article is the most influential paper in Italy, and is not published by LaRouche. It does refer to LaRouche as a leading proponent and possibly the originator of the Bretton Woods II idea, which is, after all, the subject of the article. So I am at a loss to understand what is wrong with adding it. In the quoted part of your message on my talk page, it says that "Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification." Could you instruct me as to how I could go about doing that? --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You are citing a single edit as evidence of a "pattern," which seems a bit of stretch. However, I do wish to comply with the regulations here. Could you please tell me how to refer this "case of difficulty" "directly to the Committee for clarification"? --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I am still having a problem seeing what was wrong with my edits in this case, I am asking you for a third time how to go to the Committee for clarification. --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I can explain what is unclear to me. I am asking you how to go to the committee for clarification. I am not asking you to repeat your personal views on the matter, because I think they may be colored by your very strong personal feelings about LaRouche, which can be seen in your talk page comments. I want to know the location of a page here at Misplaced Pages where I may ask the members of the Committee that is mentioned in your post on my talk page -- the Arbitration Committee? -- whether they think that there was anything improper about my edits to Bretton Woods II. Let me repeat, I am asking you how to contact the committee, to ask its members for clarification. --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So I take it that, even though you placed a notice on my talk page that says "Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification," you are unwilling to tell me how to do so. Never mind then, I'll get someone else to tell me. --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement, redlink at FAC

The FAC nom is a redlink, both on the template on its Talk, and on Misplaced Pages:Featured articles/Candidate list. Later, Ling.Nut 07:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:William Weld-cropped.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:William Weld-cropped.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC) --Cirt (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to find another image for that guy. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing Rawat-related articles

Back in May, the ArbCom commended you for showing voluntary restraint and for following a self-imposed restriction due to your COI, even when that wasn't strictly required. It appears that you are no longer practicing that restraint, and are editing Rawat-related articles in a manner that is not circumspect. Your recent edits to Rawat-related content seem aggressive and contentious. One of the reasons we have a conflict of interest guideline is to help conflicted editors steer clear of areas where they have difficulty remaining neutral. Have your recent edits related to Rawat been neutral-- equally favoring all viewpoints? Have you been "writing for the enemy"? If not, then you can see the problem for yourself. Perhaps this is a good time to renew your previous self-imposed restriction. What do you think? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What do I think? I think that you are as unbiased as I am, and I say that based in my observation of your editing and collaboration style. Maybe you need to stay clear of editing these articles yourself? What do you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for COI compliance includes a number of suggestions for complying with the guideline on COI. Are you willing to follow those suggestions? If not, what steps are you willing to take to avoid COI problems? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you?

1. Assume good faith, the user is likely trying to work for the betterment of the encyclopedia, even if they have a conflict of interest.
2. Treat the user's suggestion on its merits, rather than trying to assess the conflict of interest itself.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm willing to follow those suggestions on any topics where I have a conflict of interest. Are you willing to follow them? If not, why not? You've said that you "will continue to be aware of the need to behave in a circumspect manner on these articles, and welcome close scrutiny on my contributions moving forward." You're behavior no longer appears circumspect, and you appear to be rebuffing scrutiny of your edits. Is this statement no longer valid? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the essay again. You missed the point, and by the look of it, as it is evident in the RS/N, you keep bringing this issue up rather than address my comments on their merits. Once you start behaving in a manner that is becoming to a long time editor of this project, and reduce your animosity against me and others, it will be much easier for me to reconsider my circumspection. And please do not cross-post. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the harassment and the accusations. Go and do something useful instead. Thanks for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche criminal trials FA

Congrats on the FA! You really deserve this in spades. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You did all the work pulling that article together and keeping a really good attitude at FAC. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry allegations

In this edit you accuse me of some sort of sockpuppetry, but you haven't supplied any evidence for this, other than your secret "analysis". Can you either retract your accusation, or supply some evidence that I may refute? Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages: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, 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: . 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, 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 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." 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)