User talk:Will Beback/archive59

Nomination of Marvin Charles Katz for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Marvin Charles Katz, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Charles Katz until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. J04n(talk page) 19:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please choose your wording carefully in talk pages

You suggested that I want to "manipulate" search engine and said that we should not do that [1]. Redirections are used all the times. Through redirection a term is directed to an article. For the purpose of our discussion, this is the important mapping. The article title is less important. There is no manipulation in this. Please revise your comment with AGF in mind. Thank you. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I wasn't making any negative remarks about good faith editing. You say that you're not concerned with article contents or titles, but with the results that come from the Wikipedia search engine. If I understand correctly, you want that search engine to give a different result than it does now. I think that's looking at the problem the wrong way, and that article titles do matter. We also disagree about whether the title should match the content, but I assume that everyone in the dispute is editing in good faith.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You are in my watch list, so you can reply on the same page. It is better to keep replies in the same thread. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Would you mind taking a look at this comment and telling me if you think it is appropriate? Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As you seemed to be offline, I brought this matter to the attention of Rich Farmbrough. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand

Hi, Will. I don't understand your comment on my Talk page regarding peremptory deletion. I proposed this deletion on the Talk page of MVAH. One person agreed with the deletion, and no one objected. I waited four days and then deleted. In my edit summary I said, "remove sentence per Talk." That about covers it, doesn't it? TimidGuy (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment

He had been edit warring with another user over something amazingly inconsequential for days. He responded with sarcasm to a good faith comment that I made, has called edits by the user he's warring "smartass," and had been editing the article tendentously, preventing any consensus and civil discourse from occurring. My point was that he's not looking for consensus, so why is anyone trying? Maybe you're right -- my comment did express frustration, but I don't feel bad pointing this behavior out, either.

I also don't think it's appropriate for him to remove my comment before asking me to do so first, and his "Welcome to Wikipedia" note on my wall was just passive aggressive. And now he's tattling on me to multiple administrators for pointing out the behavior. His other edits seem normal and good; I don't know why he's unhinged about the Deadwood article. Regardless, I appreciate your intervention. If you need me to remove the comment, I will. However, the situation that this editor has contributed to on the Deadwood article is no shining example of Wikipedia at its best, either.Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Email

Yes, I do have email enabled. Memphisto (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry, try again. Memphisto (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and thoughts on Zerodur

Hi - thanks for your message regarding Mount Wilson Observatory. I'm very new to this and any advice is welcome.

Also - on a different topic but still related to astronomy - what do you think of this article?

I think it reads like some promotional literature from the manufacturers (Schott). Perhaps the article could be more balanced, for example by mentioning that Zerodur is incredibly fragile and can difficult to work with. I don't have any special interest in this field, and so don't feel qualified to edit the article myself, but I think the article might be flagged as impartial? I dunno... M62902 (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again - you asked where I had found information relating to the difficulties of working with this hi-tech ceramic glass from Schott? ...it was mentioned in a book called The Edge of Physiscs. The first chapter is concerned with Mount Wilson, and Zerodur is mentioned briefly there. I returned this book to the library and so I can't tell you word-for-word what it said - just recall it mentioned that Zerodur is incredibly fragile and hard to deploy into real-world applications.Best Wishes. M62902 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved your comment in the proper location

I propose that the subtalk page TM/technique Vs movement is not for discussions with threads. We should use the talk page for that. Your brief statement was appropriate, but moved it in the proper section. I hope it is OK. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. I'd have commented there if I'd wished to.   Will Beback  talk  12:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please reply here. Your talk page is on my watch list. Let us keep the replies in a same thread. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

CitationTool, link rot

Hi. I saw your comments on User talk:CitationTool from 2009. We really have a need for this. Who do we talk to about fixing the code and putting it online? The best thing would be for the code to be added to Reflinks, and it is quite surprising that this hasn't already happened. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative. Has anyone measured the link rot problem? Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

KooKooGajoob

KooKooGajoob (talk · contribs)

I looked at his contribs, which included some blatant BLP violations and vandalism. I do not see him returning as a productive editor. I'm puzzled by the 24 hour block. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for listening. It is appreciated.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A note on the current DYK mess

Hi will. I was prowling around when I should have probably doing something more productive when I noticed your post on Rlevse's page, under the DYK note for Silver Knapsack Trail. I was the reviewer who approved the article, and I feel terrible about all the drama that has resulted. I feel if I had caught that before it went to main page, maybe some of this could have been avoided, or at least not have exploded so publicly. I just wanted to point out that I did not count the list when counting for eligibility. It was over the mark without it. Just wanted to touch base with you on that point. The Interior(Talk) 06:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Kicking Rlevse when he is down

You need to back slowly away from Rlevse's talk page. Adding little jabs at Rlevse when he can't respond to them is just low and as an admin you should know better. As mother's around the world have said for years: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether you are "restrained" or not, it still could be seen as kicking a person when they are down. Let's just let this fade into the background, per RTV. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

After I posted that, I received an email that he had scrambled his passwords, so while I would like him to come back, that probably won't happen. WP:RTV should be put into effect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just let the dude be. Enough people are "out for blood" as it is, he has said his parting words, let it go and let him vanish. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do. From everyone at that ANI thread, to the people stomping on him at his talk page (though the wide majority are pro-Rlevse), I don't care. He has said his parting words, he has scrambled his passwords, let. him. vanish. Whatever problems you may or may not have had, let them go. WP:RTV and WP:STICK are in effect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter Unger, M.D.

Good morning, Will. I would greatly appreciate your comments on what should have been ommitted from the entry on Dr. Unger so that it doesn't come off as a publicity piece. In creating this entry about him, I tried to balance the amount of detail listed between the two extreme examples of practicioners in the field that are currently posted on Wikipedia: the pithy entry about Norman Orentriech, M.D., and the more lengthy entry regarding Robert Berstein, M.D. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carloskw (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful feedback. I will make those changes accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carloskw (talk • contribs) 16:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

PIF Magazine

Pif Magazine

Odd little talkpage messages

Hi will. I notice this user: User:RockvilleMD has been leaving little messages on talkpages directing people to a website called Wikibias. This happened a month ago, so maybe it's a non-issue. Thought you might be interested. The Interior(Talk) 00:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Maharishi Heaven on Earth Development Sources

Hi Will, This article (above), which you created, has 75 citations and 39 sources. However, only 5 of the sources contain URL's. This means that about 87% of the citations require some research in order to verify them. I have tried to locate several of the sources in the article using Google and Google News Archives, but I have come up empty handed in each case. On 10/28 I asked on the article talk page where we both have been discussing the article, if you could please indicate by what method you are able to access these sources and/or if you could please provide URL's. [2] You haven't responded, so I'm thinking maybe you missed my post somehow and I thought that I would post a note for you here, so you would be sure to see it. Having access to the sources would be very helpful in assisting other editors to collaborate on the article and improve it. So anything information you can share that will help others to access the sources would be greatly appreciated. I have your talk page watch-listed so you can post a response here or if you have URL's then please add them to the article citations when you have time. Thanks again for your help.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply

This has been discussed to death. My point was not in wanting you to concede to some point that I was making, but to point out that deciding what editors should and should not know is completely subjective and is in many cases random. Why it it Ok for you to make the mistake you did but nor for Rlevse to make the mistakes he did. You uncovered more concerns with R's editing but are you or any of us sure that detailed searches of our editing patterns wouldn't uncover problems. I edit in the best way I know how at the time and with the knowledge and experience I have, but who knows. I've been watching Rlevse since I first came on Wikipedia and what I know is that he has integrity, the kind of integrity that would not have allowed him to make edits he thought would in any way harm the project he worked so hard to help build. Further unlike some editors he was humble about the roles he played so power wasn't motivating him. Problematic edits must be cleaned up for the sake of the accuracy of the encyclopedia. The tendency for witch hunts and drama on Wikipedia doesn't clean up anything and is actually sickening. If an editor makes mistakes notify him and he'll clean it up. Notify doesn't equal accuse. If someone accuses an editor who has high levels of integrity, that editor may very likely feel concern. If that editor has taken five years of his life spending countless hours on thankless tasks and then is not given the benefit of the doubt on edits he made he might walk away, too. Why work within a group that sees only the mistakes not the years of good. Cleaning up edits in this case would have been easy if that's the motivation of those who are condemning. Contact the editor and tell him the concern and suggest he fix it. If he won't then you have a different situation on your hands. I teach a kind of performance that demands students make so-called mistakes. It is in making mistakes and using them for knowledge about themselves and about what they are doing that I get brilliant performers. There are no jails on Wikipedia, no whips, or chains. Collaboration doesn't work that way anywhere if its going to be successful. Collaboration works by recognizing that human beings are always learning. Rightly arbitration the highest level of dispute resolution we have doesn't focus on the edits but the editors. Its the quality of the editors that a collaborative project depends on, not their edits. While the encyclopedia must be accurate, its accuracy can only come out of the quality of the editor and their abilities and opportunities to learn and for learning, and the quality of the editor is based in the kind of human being that editor, is not on his knowledge. As editors become more and more knowledgeable the encyclopedia will improve. Arbitration focuses on the editor because it is the editor who will ruin this encyclopedia not because they make honest mistakes but because they cannot work in a collaborative environment. This discussion could go on endlessly in part because Wikipedia is one of the first of the online collaborative communities and how those communities work is being discovered in the moment. We are ground breaking. There is no trail. Falling back on the old paradigm of action punishment won't work in any collaborative community and will eventually destroy them. I've taught "collaboration" for fifteen years. What makes collaboration work is heart and understanding. We lost an accomplished experienced editor because the focus was not on what he'd done but because we assumed his motivation. A stupid mistake for a community that must to move forward in terms of collaborative skills and knowledge and a loss to all of us whether we know it or not.(olive (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

MHP mediation, again

Will - Your assistance in keeping things focused at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/Conditional probability solution would be greatly appreciated. Letting the discussion simply drift where it may and popping in once every couple of weeks to see how it's going is really not working. I think we've gotten very close to an agreement on specific (different) things at least 3 times (the rewording of the single sentence attributed to Carlton which was very close to agreement when Sunray was more involved, the revision of the "conditional solution" section that got stuck on Martin's insistence on not plainly describing conditional probability, and the current summary of the Carlton paper) - but the focus drifted without actually closing anything. Is there any way you and Sunray can collaborate on this so at least one of you remains engaged on at least a daily basis? I've suggested arbcom-style rules of engagement before - is that an approach you've considered? Another possibility might be to run the discussion the way moderated netnews groups are (only you and Sunray are allowed to write to the discussion page and anything anyone else wants to say must be emailed to one of you to post). Rather than shake things up again right at the moment, I suspect pushing for an agreed summary of the Carlton paper might be immediately productive. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your scarcity on the MHP mediation page is now attracting sarcastic comments [3]. What's the deal? Your last edit to this page was Oct 24. You said [4] (a week ago) you'd look in on things and see what you could do. Did you look in on things and decide there was nothing you could do? My impression was you were going to be actively moderating this discussion. Bored? Other interests? Real life intrudes? Your contribs show you're editing (so my guess is you probably were not run over by a truck). Some kind of hint would be nice. -- Rick Block (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC regarding Transcendental meditation

A request for comment regarding the overall layout of the TM topic area is ongoing here. As you have commented previously your analysis of the best way forwards would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty

Hello Will,

Since you've previously pointed out to Dylan an inappropriate comment he made regarding an editor's honesty, please ask him to redact this comment as well: [5]. He seems to have an issue with assuming good faith and appears to be suggesting that people who disagree with him are being less than honest. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Malke, thank you so much for stirring up trouble for me, but if the recipient of that message had indicated that any insult was taken, I would have been glad to redact it. If Will had suggested it, I would likewise have been glad to redact it. Neither of these has occurred, so there's nothing to discuss. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad wording or misreading?

I am trying to address what I see as a major problem with Weston Price and have taken it to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Weston_Price_and_.22The_Charles_Darwin_of_Nutrition.22 but it is clear from the commented of the two other editors involved they ether don't or can't see what I am trying do and just want to remove it rather than trying to reword the thing. It would be welcome if you could look at the argument and put in some comments of your own.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Golden huh?

Anything more specific in mind? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Will, further to your recent comments re close paraphrasing on Jimbo's talk page, you might be interested in, or want to contribute to, the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_violations#Close_paraphrasing_as_copyvio. --JN466 20:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Back

I see you have encountered my hound. It is time for an ANI report. He is following me almost everywhere. You are hereby released from any mention of your not being on my back LOL> Please do! I am collecting diffs. I value your input enormously--oh you already know that! Any suggestions at this point? Respectfully...DocOfSoc (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Will, I hate to see us on opposite sides in naming disagreement again but I just want to let you know that I'm quite bewildered by your position on this wording and that I will file an ANI about the issue of reverting to wording from over 6 months ago simply because no "significant discussion" has occurred if you insist on reverting to that again. If at least there was a clearly stated and well-reasoned specific objection to the current wording, if not the showing of consensus against that wording, that would be one thing. But this kind of "no discussion" revert over 6 months later is unprecedented, as far as I know. Please also consider Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus". Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(Let's keep this all here intact, please) -- Born2cycle (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. If the edit we're talking about was significant, then do you think it was appropriate to use an edit summary of "ce"? If there was no explanatory summary, and no obvious discussion, then how are interested editors supposed to be aware of the change?   Will Beback  talk  07:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not defending the edit or the edit summary (which was not "ce" but the equally unhelpful "United States: better; "town" has specialized meanings in several states" for the edit that matters).

I'm saying editors occasionally look at guidelines. I did today, for example. I quoted from it when I made my big San Diego neighborhood proposal. Who knows who else has used it like that? I, for one, don't stay on top of everything that reference WP:PLACE, do you? Regardless of how well this change was vetted or not at the time it was made, it has been in there for such a long time that it's more reasonable than not that it has had an effect. I'm not saying we can't revert it, it's just that we can't revert it for no reason other than "lack of discussion" back in March. That was just too long ago. Plus, like I just noted elsewhere, there was some discussion at the time and it's reasonable to presume all those involved did take a look and did not object. As to the small number involved, I believe it was less than a handful who originally decided to disambiguate all U.S. cities, so let's not talk about small numbers deciding too much. That's just the way it is sometimes, like it or not. Been there, done that.  ;-) --Born2cycle (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate it

Thanks for alerting me to the discussion on TM technique talk. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Communication re MHP

I sent you an email. We should talk. Sunray (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty 2

Will, before you open up the Envelope of Doom below, I want to make sure you know about the administrative order calling for us to disengage. Due to this order, neither of us would be able to follow up on the issues raised below, so I suggest we put it behind us and move forward. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read the above first

Hello Will, Since you have been giving Dylan some good advice, do you think you could persuade him to not edit war over the term 'grassroots' as he's reverted it twice today: [6] [7]. Also, he's being disruptive on the Mediation page by inserting comments about my opening statement. Dylan seems to have a particular Jones for anything I do, but this is getting over the top when I can't even make an opening statement without him disparaging my comments. [8]. Everybody is trying to be patient and work through the process. It would be nice if Dylan could be guided to behave in a like manner. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC) More diffs: [9][10]. He's also harassing me on my talk page and edit warring over there as well. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but this summary is not at all accurate. I posted on your page to request that you not violate Wikipedia rules. If this is harassment, we are all guilty. Please try not to take everything personally. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC) He's at 3RR now: [11].Malke 2010 (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC) He's been conducting an edit war all week over this.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Don't worry, your edit-warring got the entire page locked, so there's nothing to worry about now. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC) No, I'm at 2RR now and I'm stopping. If you want to "win" this edit war, go for it. It's your noose. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC) 1RR is not edit-warring. The topic is currently in mediation, so it's best not to include that term until we have a firm ruling that it is not a POV violation. As for my comment, which you made the serious faux pas of moving, I am entirely within my rights to correct you when state falsehoods. Do not move my words again. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC) You've caused the page to be locked.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC) It is always good to see someone mature enough to take personal responsibility for their own actions instead of throwing their opponent under the bus. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Malke, at this point, I have officially stopped assuming good faith. Your actions show premeditation and hostility, with a clear intent to try to bait me into being uncivil or edit-warring, or doing anything that might get me blocked. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Hi. Malke, Will, whoever, there's this to look at.1 2. Sorry Dylan. I don't like the way you act. -Digiphi (Talk) 10:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the worst article you've ever written?

Will, it would be easy to fudge an answer to this. If you want to ask an individual candidate, I wonder whether a direct hit asking for a self-analysis of content-writing skills might be harder to dodge. "Specify your strengths and weaknesses as a content editor. How will these affect your ability to serve the community well as an arbitrator?" But some editors are not keen on the assumption that content-writing is directly related to what an arb does. I myself think certain writing skills are important—but that's only one part of content-writing. Tony (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

George Alan Rekers

Thanks for doing research on George Alan Rekers and helping to create a consensus about what terms would be appropriate choices for use in that article. Blue Rasberry 16:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Query: User:Rlevse?

I see that User:Rlevse has left, apparently under unsavory circumstances. Is there a page where misconduct was discussed so that I can ascertain what happened? I found this shocking, and would like to understand. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind; I've been looking around and I think I got the gist of it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that User:Snoid Headley has been banned. I request that you do not strike his comments from talk:Views of Lyndon Larouche, which has happened on several prior occasions. Any article about someone like LaRouche attracts supporters who are willing to break rules to get their point across. Obviously I don't know if he used sockpuppets. Assuming he did, that does not automatically mean that every edit and comment that he made is against the rules, even though he is absolutely wrong. I want everybody who reads the talk page to know they are wrong. Preventing them from hijacking the article ought to be enough. BillMasen (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI Thread that Slight Regards You

Go here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Siebert

What is the exact quote on page 88 of Siebert's book? If I understand right, she cites "holocaust thesis is a hoax..." as an example of Lr's antisemitism. What does she actually say? Another editor seems to think this isn't holocaust denial. BillMasen (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks. I think you added this quote. When you have sources to hand I'd appreciate it if you brought in the quote. BillMasen (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried that; in the UK there's no available preview, only the book is listed. Do you have a preview? BillMasen (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

skepticfiles.org

How do I know that a web page on skepticfiles.org wasn't altered by the site's owner? It is a personal site, after all. Please clarify. Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 00:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

You are quite wonderful in dealing with Grays's agenda. I put more sources here: [12]

Ethnoburb: The New Ethnic Community in Urban America", the 2009 book by Dr. Wei Li, a professor of Asian Pacific Studies at Arizona State University, explores in depth the phenomenon of ethnoburbs scattered through the United States. Her foci of research are urban ethnicity and ethnic geography, immigration and integration, and minority community development, focusing on the Chinese and other Asian groups. She coined the term 'ethnoburb' in 1997, to describe a new form of contemporary suburban Asian settlements, and continues her empirical studies in Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay area, Metropolitan Phoenix, Toronto and Vancouver, Canada.

Rfc regarding a renaming of Transcendental Meditation movement to Transcendental Meditation

See Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#Rfc:_Should_the_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_article_be_renamed Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I will be requesting formal mediation. Please let me know if you wish to be included or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thank you.(olive (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Will Beback Auto: possible bug

In this edit, Will Beback Auto moved the position of a colon, which caused the infobox to break apart and the entire article to be indented. I'm not entirely clear what the intention was behind moving the colon, or quite why it had such conpicuous consequences, but it's probably worth preventing as far as possible. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I am watching this page, so contrary to your instructions at the top of the page, I think it's better to keep the discussion in one place, i.e., here. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:KNOW

Is the primary redirect for the Josh Billings essay - and, as such, it is most apt when used for people who assert that they "know" everything about a topic - its purpose is to remind editors, as Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, that we should all doubt a little of our own infallibility. I kept it short so that its main point would not get lost in the endless minutiae which WP attracts. Collect (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Outed again

Fred, people must love outing me. Will you please, I'm sorry to have to ask you, take care of it? Really, I'm so sorry. I thank you in advance. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I see even my town and state is there too. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted, for the time being, my posting of excerpts from mainstream newspapers that quote, or are written by, a certain library activist. That activist is actively engaged in editing Wikipedia articles in his area of activism. We all know of cases where that kind of editing has turned out poorly, even where we might have supported the activist's causes. There are so many other topics, it's best to avoid those we feel most strongly about.   Will Beback  talk  10:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've suppressed the edits you made which explicitly link User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling with the person you believe is editing with a conflict of interest. Feel free to vigorously pursue the question of whether User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is editing with a conflict of interest, but please focus on the objectionable editing. If there is bad editing, aggressive pushing of a point of view, that should be obvious, and actionable without definitive identification of the Wikipedia editor engaging in it. Fred Talk 11:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Will, I see you are removing links from my own site that I added on various pages long ago. Thank you for finding them and replacing them. On the Multnomeh County, OR, page, I asked what is a convenience link since neither you nor I found any substitute. Perhaps the link should be restored in such a case? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom

Will you would be great for ArbCom... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to public disputation

I would like to invite you to make a public disputation of the substance of my essay "What Wikipedia Is" on its talk page. I'm just glad it's getting some notice, since the ideas it contains are important and need to be publicly and openly discussed. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 16:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Better Business Bureau Dead Link

What is your thinking regarding restoring links that don't work? The http://www.bbb.org is a very well funded website. It seems to me that leaving a dead link degrades the authority of the article. Please explain. Charles KnNell (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

re: Ethical Marketing. Fair enough. Charles KnNell (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources needed for notability

I saw that you removed a number of entries from The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Mark Levin Show because they were not secondarily sourced (even for items about The Rush Limbaugh show that were sourced to the rushlimbaugh.com). Will you go through the entries in the far less notable article List of Keith Olbermann's special comments and remove all the entries that are not sourced to secondary sources, including those sourced to msnbc.com? Maybe that article needs to be submitted for deletion, given that Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show was deleted. Drrll (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

Dear Will, Am seriously working on deserved "assignment." This morning vandal "Oscarsnide" aka SRQ reverted every one of them (4 so far). Your assistance please. With due respect, DocOfSoc (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looked like a rather blatant duck, so I've blocked it indef. Favonian (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please reinstate the page Sri Vishwanath it is a request.. Would appreciate your help in this regard

It is to be mentioned that Sri Vishwanath is taking the spiritual world by storm and mention about him is very necessary as he is talking about some great aspects of meditation spirituality never heard or mentioned before. If the links are an issue and make it sound spammy please remove the links. I can assure you that very quickly you will have lots of people who will talk more about this guy by the middle of year 2011. More pictures contents and articles are to follow. So it is a request if you could hold on and if you wish remove only the links Steven.Would appreciate your help in this regard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritualguru (talk • contribs) 07:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Swami X

As you were closely involved in the dispute over this article's deletion, I thought you might like to know I have brought it to DRV for discussion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 28#Swami X. Robofish (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks anyway

Hi Will, I have no intention of making further changes to Deism on Wikipedia as I do not want to further waste my time here. Strangely, it was Wikipedia that gave me some information about Deism when I came across this word. Then I did some seraches particularly the Standford philosophy net. Sikhism very much encomapsses Deism and answers all the questions which Deism itself is unable to. But there appears to be an envy that how come a religion is able to be above Deistic theory. Sikhism is a young religion and research on Sikhism in the western universities has just started. Thanks but not thanks. I'll keep developing information on how Sikhism predates Deism and post that on my blog sometime and eventually take that to a university conference. So much so for the narrow mindedness of Wikipedia gatekeepers. Have fun. Cheers.

Please rethink your attitude to BLPs

Look Will, I gave ground and restored the article, stubbing rather than deleting. But frankly your response to replace most of the poorly cited material [13] which you knew I'd objected to was extremely disappointing. I object to this material, and I do so under the WP:BLP policy. Please do not restore it again unless each part is solidly sourced. You are too experience for this - and you must have known you were replacing very poorly sourced material, which others have objected to.--Scott Mac 23:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)