User talk:Will Beback/archive43

Re:Torpedo Protection

Spotted your message on the Montana-class battleship talk page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I should be able to resurrect the links by the end of the day. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the links should be working again in both the Iowa-class battleship and Montana-class battleship articles. If you still can not access the cited material please let me know though so I can try fixing the links again. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Amended complaint filed regarding Prem rawat

FYI re your Prem Rawat editing.[1]Momento (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I thread

Please note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outing.3F, related to the thread on Terrymacro's talk page. Thanks, JN466 16:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Been thinking about this since I saw this last night. I considered offering my services again. I realise that last year's mediation didn't quite go to plan, but I've learnt a lot since then, and as a mediator, I don't think anyone else would know the subject better than me. What's your thoughts? Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Steve Crossin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied again. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bohemian Club members category for deletion

I mentioned you in the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_4#Category:Bohemian_Club_members. I invite you to add your views regarding whether the category deserves a Keep or a Delete. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Your input might be helpful here. Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

JFK assassination

Can I solicit your opinion in an editing debate: Text: John_F._Kennedy_assassination#Assassination. Debate: Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination#Jackie_Kennedy_and_climbing_onto_limousine. — Walloon (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		In recognition of the undoubted integrity, conscientiousness and fundamental goodwill of an editor I have often disagreed with. JN466 12:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

Hi. I have been working on the Harold Pinter article (you previously commented on the proposed ban of NYScholar from that article). If you are interested in the article or willing to help out, your input would be most welcome. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I've been trying to put the references into a more typical Wikipedia style, which has been a big job. Also, I have been trying to reduce redundancy, overlinking and the other problems with the article that have been identified in the past. I have gone through the entire article once, and made a lot of changes, and done some minor reorganization. If you look at NYScholar's talk page, he is basically disagreeing with everything I am doing. So, I would be pleased if you would review (at least some of) the article. Feel free to do some copy editing, and you think the changes have helped the readability of the text and the usefulness of the footnotes, I'd appreciate some positive feedback on the Harold Pinter talk page. On the other hand, feel free to suggest a different editing strategy. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

hi Will, you might remember me. In around april you sent me a message with some very useful links in it. It has helped me greatly with getting to grips with using Wikipedia. Thanks. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Will u adopt me?--TheCommunityWave (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

me too, please.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to be adopted as well.--The Fat Man Who Left but Returned a Short While Later (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is some background you might not have seen and should be aware of; the user in question has and did removed sourced content that consensus has continually re-inserted after its removal, he/she deleted sourced material, deleted sources and reinserted content that we decided to remove on the talk page. All of this was done without a word of discussion, this is not the first time this was done. With that in mind I am totally confident in classifying that edit as vandalism. - Schrandit (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi Will! You said I haven't looked into Promethean's allegations, but I can report simialr behavior. I participated in a discussion about content created by Thekohser during or prior to his ban. Upon your further comments, I now see that I was misreading your statement: the discussion was after the ban was lifted. If I may give feedback on your presentation, when you said "I haven't looking into Promethean's allegations", my attention decreased a notch, and when "prior to his ban" appeared, you lost me. Sorry for that. Nonetheless, Sandstein is exactly correct that this matter can't be resolved at WP:AE. Feel free to address issues directly to ArbCom. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of X Committee

The problem with the "X Committee" material is that there are no secondary sources referencing it. LaRouche has a million ideas, but unless they've been reported in secondary sources then there's no indication that they're notable. The Views of Lyndon LaRouche article has been a dumping ground for merging in articles on some of these minor ideas. That's kept clutter off the overall encyclopedia, but it's resulted in an incoherent and poorly sourced article. If there are any secondary sources available for this material then please add them. If none can be found I'll delete the section and the redirect.   Will Beback  talk  17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading about it in a fairly obscure French-language newsletter. [2] There are also various second-hand sources in English that talk about a similar organization. [3] [4] [5] ADM (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Sculleywr

I am unsure which edits you were talking about. I have only been able to log in occasionally due to difficulty getting internet access until just recently. Since it isn't on the article I spend the most time on (I checked the revision history on Audism), I don't know which you are talking about. If you could provide a link to which one's you were referring to, I would be better able to revise my methods, since I am still getting used to the Wikipedia system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sculleywr (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Why was I blocked indefinitely by admins who don't know about the context of what just happened? My block should be reduced from indefinite to like 6 months, a time in which I can heal. My latest block happened after I inhaled too much Spray Fixative during a phase where I was still dealing with evil done unto me by some evil ****. I feel better now, the spray effects are completely gone, but I'm still dealing with some past events from 2007. I guess that's how it works, abusive evil people abuse me (off of this website, at another website), make me go almost crazy, I come back to Wikipedia to work it out, but what they did to me was so horrible that more than a year later I had some outburts and p-attacked some editors. I would like my block reduced in the future because I was abused by evil people and I use this website to improve the information and also to heal. 76.208.174.243 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. However you don't say which account was blocked. Do you remember the account name?   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It was User:Alex contributing. A 6 month block does seem warranted, even a year, but not idefinitely. At User talk:Dahn#What happened I explain some more about what happened, and even Dahn at my talk page acknowledged that the Spray inhalation was the last straw that made me literally flip out. I know I need therapy after the way I was abused, but I mostly avoid therapy and I try to do it myself by taking walks, editing Wikipedia, and all my other hobbies. I can link more of the information relating to this latest block like the entry at WP:ANI; User talk:Alex contributing and that secton at User talk:Dahn shows how the stress and madness built up and exploded. I wouldn't have been so irritable if some maniacs hadn't abused me in 2007 and almost drove me to suicide. I did get a lot better in the past year (mid 2008-mid 2009), and I will get even better as more time elapses from 2007. 76.208.174.243 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't even care about the argument that set it off anymore, it was about some categories. Now that weeks have gone by, that was not even really about the categories, just a build up of stress and poison, topped off by an accidental spray inhalation. I was abused by nutcases in myspace (they used various profiles to attack me) in 2007 and they almost drove me crazy, and this outburst over the categories shows that they did abuse me a lot, but I'm getting over it. You know, a girl **** was driven to suicide by maniacs in myspace, and that's what they tried to do to me in 2007, so you can imagine that I have a lot of stress and rage, but I was doing very well and being productive and then I flipped out. But indefinitely blocking me when I'm trying to improve and am willing to listen and listen, and I really want to continue to contribute positively as I have been aside from when I flipped out in late June? 76.208.174.243 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking for admins to consider reducing/defining my ban to one year. Or should I just come back in 6 months and ask for a reconsideration? It should be taken into consideration that my previous ban was not because of an attack on any person: last time I was banned I was banned for disruptive edit summaries which were unconnected to any editor, I was expressing a distaste back then in July 2006 for my experience with Wikipedia. A look at what happened in July 2006 verifies that, you can look at Admin noticeboards from back then and no one was being attacked. This latest ban was because of PA's against specific editors (see User talk:Alex contributing), I slung terms at them because I just had to relieve some of my hurt, including physical hurt from the nasty spray that came my way. It was nightmare, just too much at once.[Special:Contributions/76.208.174.243|76.208.174.243]] (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear of your difficulties. It sounds like you may still be working through issues and I wish you well. Wikipedia is not therapy though, so it'd be better to get it out of your system for a while before coming back. If Wiki-ing is just irresistible, you might consider working on one of the sister projects for a while, like Simple English, Romanian, or Wikiquote. Solid, unproblematic work in one of those would be persuasive here. If you stay away for six months (no socking), I'll put in a good word for you in a request for an unblock.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I won't start another account, but I may edit with IPs occasionally. I can't write in Romanian with any ease, I was brought to the U.S. when I was a one year old (Charles Bukowski was brought to the U.S. when he was 4 years old), and I only taught myself (with a little help from others) to read Romanian better in my teens. I can read Romanian well now and I speak Romanian fairly well but I can't write in Romanian without help from someone with native Romanian writing skills, Romanian has a complex grammar having retained a complex grammar from Latin, while Italian, French etc. have simpler inflections. Simple English is no fun. So I may be at the English Wiktionary sometimes, where I have an account. Alright, thanks, and later on. 76.208.174.243 (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

By "socking" I mean evading your ban. Any IP that's identifiably "you" is blockable. Just go away for awhile. Maybe in six months Wikipedia will seem irrelevant.   Will Beback  talk  09:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can leave just yet. It's like I feel the need to wrap things up here. Maybe in 6 months Wikipedia will be irrelevant to me, and I will have moved on. I erased the name of that girl who was harassed and driven to suicide, because I don't want to see that. If I had never used Wikipedia or MySpace, I probably would've been a lot healthier. At least Wikipedia is safer than MySpace, we have so many Admins here on watch. Later, take care, I won't be using Wiki much anonymously and I won't start a new account. 76.208.170.29 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Just dropping you a note to say I fixed a link you left. I hope you don't mind. As for the topic at hand, I think it's been a long time in coming. There have been a number of AN/I sections, but nothing has ever been done. The WP:TE has been going on for months. Enigma^msg 22:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Mark Ellmore

Hello Will Beback, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Mark Ellmore has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - although failed candidates are often non-notable, this one appears to be based on national coverage of his run including this interview in CA: http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/60782)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 00:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism

I'm very new to wikipedia and am writing you because I got your "welcome" message after posting edits on the entry on Aesthetic Realism. My edits were undone twice within a couple of hours, accompanied by very nasty remarks.

I do not want to get into a name-calling or editing war online.

Can I ask you a technical question? Are you not supposed to link to an external site in the first paragraph? That was one of the objections, which is fine if that is the rule...however, I felt it was just wrong to link to a site which says Aesthetic Realism is a cult as the very first link in the article! I also tried to clean up someone's very sloppy paraphrase in the bulleted principles as well as adding some external links (objected to as "advertising"). Yikes. I would like to know how to proceed without getting into an online war. Do I give my reasoning for my edits on the discussion page? Thanks for any advice or links about disputes which you can pass on. LoreMariano 03:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your speedy reply. It looks much better. Would it be appropriate to link to the foundation's website as a reference in this sentence: "The philosophy is taught at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation [create link] in New York City." That would then be the first link in the entry, not the POV link. Thanks again for your help. LoreMariano 17:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

Thanks for adding the first reference link. When you get a chance, can you please check my most recent edit? I changed the opening principles so that they are a direct quote. I tried to use the block quote style but had problems dividing the 3 points so I instead used something that looks like a block quote (::). My concern is that I don't want it to be paraphrased again. As I previously noted, the original paraphrase was sloppy; then a second paraphrase was entered which was even worse than the first. In my reasons for editing, I quoted the format you stated, ie, entity should first be described in terms it would use for itself. I also added a citation. Thank you. LoreMariano 17:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

My changes were blocked again, on the basis that there are "absolutely" no quotes allowed in opening. I viewed one in the entry on existentialism. The edited paraphrase does not accurately reflect the principles. It is not how the entity would describe them and it is not right that a person with a POV can make up a definition and change it to suit himself. I am feeling very frustrated. Please tell me how to escalate this. I don't want to go back and forth with edits. LoreMariano 03:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

Got your message re: okay to use quote but secondary source is better. But what about my problem that every time I make the change, it is undone? Where will it lead? My change will just continue to be undone. Thanks for all the links, they're really helpful. LoreMariano 17:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the information about consensus. I will start a thread later this week after I've had time to read WP:Con page + links.

Here is a really stupid question: Why are all my comments signed "preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMarian"? Why isn't it just showing the date stamp/sig? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs) 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, signing with 4 tildes. LoreMariano 19:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

I think restoring preferences worked. Thank you. LoreMariano (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Kludgey appearance: can you please look at my latest post (very bottom of talk page) and tell me why Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, is not formatting correctly in the saved view? The italics are skipping over the word "Criticism" and italicizing part of the next phrase. Thanks. LoreMariano (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will. I'm fine with calling the 2 RfCs a done deal. I thought the editors who looked at the style page might have more specialized knowledge as to lead formatting but I gather from your comment that's not true. I'm not sure what to do next. I think the whole push to have a concise opening is so that people can get to the second and third paragraphs as soon as possible. My 2-paragraph prose attempt clearly falls into Wikipedia guidelines but it was rejected. I still maintain that the "allegations of cult" para should go under a category called Criticism. That is also a Wikipedia standard. To say the article's integrity needs to be protected is hard to swallow as the article so clearly lacks cohesion throughout. Well, anyway, we're basically at a stalemate. Is there some kind of note that can be put at the top of the article that says this is a controversial article? Thanks for any advice. LoreMariano (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to a philosophy article (or articles) drawn from secondary sources so that I can better understand what the aim is. I am troubled by the equation Wikipedia seems to make of a secondary source being a "good" source. I can point to good and bad secondary sources, just because they're secondary doesn't make them reliable. The most important thing is what the purpose is, to see a thing truly or twist it to suit oneself. I really don't want to stubbify the article and start from scratch, let's just get through the opening and leave it for now. It would be a full time job to start over. LoreMariano (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Error

Sorry it was an error in the typing, it should have said "shouldn't have post WWII" . On the talk just about every message says that a list of terrorist groups from after WWII should not feature in the same list as WWII resistence movements, thus rendering it a pointless article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Victorville, California notable residents

Will: Could I get your administrator input on this? User:Hawarren insists on adding what I consider to be non-notables, such as a local high school coach "who is the winningest High School Basketball Coach in San Bernadino County and SCIBCA Hall of Fame member." I have been reverted several times by this user and do not wish to get in a revert war with him. Thanks a million for any help you can give me. --Manway (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Appreciate you looking in. --Manway (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Humour

You are right of course WILL - it's this confounded flu I think. My apologies The7thdr (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi ... a question on a subject you've considered generally. A baseball player is mentioned as being Jewish in three different articles, one by a senior editor for the primary publication for major league baseball. Jewish refers (as Wikipedia tells us) not only to a religion, but to the Jewish people/nation/ethnicity. An editor deletes the material, citing to WP:BLPCAT, saying that because none of the articles quote him as saying he is Jewish, he cannot be listed as such. But [6] suggests that no such quote is needed, and the three citations should be enough. Thoughts?--Ethelh (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, its not resolved ... it just resulted in edit warring and an ANI complaint by the editor in question (see [7]). The editor maintains that the BLPCAT guidance supports his deleting text in the body, that is supported by the indicated citations.--Ethelh (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment about me

You commented on the AN/I thread: In a quick glance, I see that he appears to be promoting a pro-Russian POV. For example: rv - this is georgian and american opinion, not the truth, and we have agreed not to include this kind of blame game stuff in the lead.

I disagree with your assessment about me. I'm not here to promote anything. I try to help where I can and create new content and improve readability of articles. I also try to make articles neutral. This includes "fixing bias", especially in Russia-related articles, where there often is a lot of it (maybe reflecting the bias of anglophone media, which is heavily used as a source in WP, or the bias of the editors themselves.) I am confident that most of my edits have been for the better, although I do make mistakes (like edit warring). You mentioned this edit[8] as an "example." But the edit can be explained: we have indeed made an agreement on the talk page of that article not to include any "blame game" stuff in the lead (you can ask there if you don't believe me), and only use 100% sure facts which everyone can agree with. This is because adding blame game material (such as Russia's or Georgia's opinion on who is responsible for the war, etc.) would open Pandora's box and every editor will start inserting more POV-stuff in the intro, which would lead to edit wars. Offliner (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not responding? You made an accusation against me, so I think you should. Offliner (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

First Thanks for cleaning the writing up and i will use the talk page more in the future, i do own the rights to the photo i was the one who took the photo its on there site for i uploaded it on there photo book. Thanks Philip14 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians

Hello! Please could you have a look at Ancient Macedonians and my edits in the last few days? My edits have been slight, moderate and have not changed the content of the article. I made them for cleaning-up reasons and I just rewrite small parts in order to be more accurate to the sources provided. For one more time User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, who happens to be an administrator, started an edit war at the beginning without any obvious reason and after that he put a pov tag. It always happens in articles that he patronizes and are of special interest for the Greek community in wikipedia. Even if there is not any other objection, he acts like he owns the articles, preventing members from editing. His actions are stamped from his strong anti-Greek position which has caused a lot of troubles, and I am one of the (several) editors who always have problems with him. Please I need your help because I'm one step from leaving wikipedia, like many others have done in the past because of him. I don't know what I should do. - Sthenel (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A discussion has been started since yesterday in the talk page of the article and the general idea it's that the article should be improved but nobody says that a POV-tag is justified. I want to remove it but I'm sure my edit will be reverted soon. What about my edit in the Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia and the immediate eversion by the same administrator? See also his excuse. Is it another pure, unselfish and totally reasonable action of such an experienced user? - Sthenel (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The introduction of the article was "Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia are a minority population in the northern part of Greece." I changed it to "Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia are a population group in the northern part of Greece" because the majority of them identifies as Greeks, most articles about linguistic or religious minorities do not use this term referring to them, and this is too provocative since FYROM wants to name them as a Macedonian minority in Greece. FP reverted it and insists on minority population. - Sthenel (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I told you exactly what happened. If you don't have time it's OK. - Sthenel (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read everything in your comments but I haven't understood what you are waiting for. In the ancient Macedonians, I told you that I'd like to remove the pov-tag, but this is gonna result in another conflict between me and FP. For the second article I wrote above the change I made and what his reaction was. It's so simple. - Sthenel (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! bb! - Sthenel (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anwar Robinson

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Anwar Robinson. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anwar Robinson. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Support?

Do you support this non consensus large deletion of content?(156.34.45.217 (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC))Sorry OJ material.(Olive... can't log in here)

Thanks for your reply. I posted here feeling the question was off the "topic line" on the talk page.(olive (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

Bishzilla

Given that it was disclosed at the outset - the Deleted revision of User:Bishzilla (as of 25 October 2006, at 03:11) by Bishzilla states: This is an alternative account of Bishonen. and given that Bishonen had her Admin rights transferred to Bishzilla for some time, I'm thinking you'd have to be fairly dense indeed to not know Bishzilla is Bishonen. Its not even remotely an "undisclosed sock". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Good edit[9] at least others won't fall prey to the same misunderstanding I had. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are wrong; I think you were wrong and obnoxious to object to Bishzilla and Lady de Burgh in the first place; and I think ArbCom should tell you so, if necessary. I trust that position appears coherent. With luck, ArbCom will also clear up the wording of the Privatemusings case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, abusive socks are a large problem. Bishzilla and any non-abusive alt accountw which are just editing are diversions from that problem. As for which would have to be corrected: probably both. Policy should not quote ArbCom, just as ArbCom should not set policy; but when it does, disputing the policy will provoke the (vacuous) response "but Arbcom said so". Therefore both ends need to be fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ridgecrest, California article

If you want the Ridgecrest, California article to be a B=class article then add back all of the stuff you and others deleted. Another thing, Don’t come to me trying to be my friend sending me a welcome message. What go's around comes around, 5 times worse. --71.105.39.114 (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

The IP editor above put up a new AN section involving you, FYI. Obviously I've commented there. I don't know the full backstory here and it's a bit difficult to see exactly what's going on in terms of the disputed content, but probably you should not have protected since this seems to be at least partially a content dispute rather than pure vandalism (even if you're 100% right about the content issues). Maybe I'm missing something though and regardless you should probably weigh in at AN. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for taking off the Semi-protection on the Ridgecrest, California article. You did the right thing, Because I don’t think its far for the other IP address... Just because we been having a dispute. I want others to be able to edit it. --71.105.39.45 (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Username

I would make a user name but, I cant, because a user on here will think I am a block user. HERE is a good example. Look what User:Synchronism put. O yea. User:Montpelier Vermont put it as resolved and then User:Synchronism Undid it. SEEN HERE I never made a user name and I am not a block user. --71.105.181.222 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Proxies

If User:209.44.123.1 is an open proxy, then it should be blocked indef instead of just for 24 hours. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I thought you were just blocking and walking away. If you will revisit after a checkuser or whatever is put into play, then that works. Have a chat with Luna Santin, he is a checkuser and does pretty quick work. Should be online sometime soon or on IRC. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If we're checking for proxies, also check the 95.154.214.0/28 range. It was rangeblocked for a month because Michael was using it, but the block will soon expire. Shubinator (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jules Eichorn

Thank you for the positive feedback abut the Jules Eichorn article. This is my 2nd article, so I have a lot to learn. Would you be able to help me learn about more attractive formatting, and also about adding images to articles?Cullen328 (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the additional suggestions, which I am incorporating. I do have a photo of Jules Eichorn that I took on a Sierra Club mountaineering trip in about 1978, but now I have to dig it up. I also have some photos I've taken of the Minarets. I am thinking of contacting some of his friends in the Loma Preita chapter of the Sierra Club for other photos.Cullen328 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)