User talk:Will Beback/archive64

Barbara Boxer

I noticed you undid a recent edit on the Barbara Boxer page, saying it was 'unexplained' and 'a request to seek consensus on the discussion page. If you look on this discussion page, you will see the changes very clearly explained, and also repeated attempts at reaching consensus. So can I ask for a better explaination. Thank you. Rodchen (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Will Beback and Sam Vaknin

Hello, Will Beback. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Will_Beback_and_Sam_Vaknin. Thank you--Penbat (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Advice on how to react to a secret linkbomb?

Sorry to bother you, but I was hoping for your thoughts on a massive list of ambiguous accusations another editor is preparing. He has repeatedly removed the list[1][2][3], perhaps to conceal it. His role in this mess started when he joined a disagreement at WP:MEDCOI on Feb 21st. That debate ran until Feb 24th. In the following week, he:

1. Tried to use a Wikipedia printout as an RS at adult diapers to distract from his having "searched for [my website] so [he] could remove any instance where it appeared as a source"[4] or EL.
2. Started an edit war with a bot at paraphilic infantilism.
3. Edit warred to force an unnecessary dismbiguation definition at infantilism,
4. Made an edit at diaper fetishism[5], replacing a citation to relevant pages with one to a mostly irrelevant chapter, after the same edit had already been discussed and shown counterproductive at paraphilic infantilism[6].

Etc. This left me having to fix his mess at multiple locations; locations where he had never edited before but that I had long been involved with. I'm not sure if this is above the threshold for wikihounding yet. His last edit to the accusations was Saturday today[7]. What do you think I should do next?

Also, congrats on 10,000 edits. That shows dedication. At my rate won't reach that point for a couple decades. BitterGrey (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That accusation set has been updated to include this request for advice[8]. BitterGrey (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

New Approach

Edits (and deletions) need to have consensus. As an alternative to taking the dispute further lets try and discuss proposed edits in Talk and include only what is agreed to by more than one editor. Wayne (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems consensus has become impossible. With regard to the Bonacci case (discussion above) I worked to define the merits of the case, fastidiously sourcing every change in accord with P. & W.'s previous demands. P. & W. changed some aspects of my revision, which you found unacceptable, so you reverted to the version that prevailed during March. P. & W. then objected to the March version, further truncating the text because of concerns about "wordiness." Since you basically supported my Bonacci case revision, and since I could agree with many of P. & W.'s concerns about wordiness, I carefully edited my revision of the Bonacci case and incorporated most of P. & W.'s suggested changes. P. & W. reverted wholesale, then you reverted his changes...and the war leaves us back at the beginning.

I do feel my last revision of the Bonacci case was a good-faith attempt to honor everyone's concerns. You asked me to include in full the last sentence of the third paragraph, and P. & W. asked for his more concise language, which I incorporated. My reasons for submitting a new version of the Bonacci case are clearly detailed above.

On February 1, 1991, former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp filed a civil suit on behalf of Paul Bonacci. The suit named Lawrence King, the Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha, the Omaha World-Herald, retired Omaha World-Herald publisher Harold W. Andersen, the Omaha School District, former Omaha Police Chief Robert Wadham, and others. The Bonacci suit alleged that King and the other named defendants had forced Bonacci to participate in a child-prostitution ring that involved satanic rituals and orgies with other boys and girls. Bonacci claimed that the defendants abused him sexually, or were responsible for abusing him, which caused him permanent harm.

Senior U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska in Omaha removed the diocese from the lawsuit, ruling that the archdiocese could not be expected to "know what individual priests had been doing" in Boys Town, and an appeal against the removal failed. The other named defendants were cleared, leaving only King to stand trial.[13]

At the time of the civil trial, King was still in prison serving time for embezzlement. He was served a court summons, however he never responded to Bonacci's allegations. Judge Urbom said, "There is no indication he (King) wanted to dispute this."

On February 4, 1999, Judge Urbom awarded Bonacci a default judgment of $800,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages. The judge declined to consider the merits of the petitioner's allegations, however he ruled that the failure of King's attorney to respond to the charges "has made those allegations true as to him." Urbom said he determined the amount of the damages based on Bonacci's allegations that King had sexually abused him and caused him permanent harm.[14][13][15][16]

An appeal of the default judgment was filed, however it was dropped in January 2000. King was released from prison April 10, 2001.[17]

I do not understand why we are back to square one having made no progress whatever. I respect your desire to achieve consensus. It is obvious that P. & W. has no desire to achieve consensus or even to work collaboratively to improve the article--his attitude is "my way or the highway." and his abusive language adds insult to injury.

I am withdrawing from editing this article. Apostle12 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A Milestone

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Congratulations--100,000 edits! You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have accomplished. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your tireless efforts. Buster Seven Talk 20:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't get to attached to this Award. I might suggest using it as a door-stop for the time being. A New and Improved model is on the drawing boards as we speak (or whatever it is that we are doing). You are on the list to receive the improved version...(the ink is still wet!) Buster Seven Talk 22:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

#2

		100000 Edits
		Congratulation on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work! 06:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Buster Seven Talk 06:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)This award design created by User:Bugboy52.40 ________________________________________________________________

Talkback

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at WP:RSN.
Message added 02:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Since its been a dead thread for few days I thought you might like to know its been responded to.

  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the throne of Baden

I'm not sure how this works, but.... If this was at AfD, I would say merge with List of rulers of Baden and redirect. The position was held for 800 years and as with other defunct titles, a line of succession is in there somewhere. I'd just merge people 1-4 and not the rest. I'm not sure how this works. Do I have to remove the Prod tag or can just merge and redirect? Bgwhite (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

AR, briefly

We've been having a (peaceful) marathon discussion about what to title the Homosexuality section, after I pointed out that WP:MOSHEAD deprecated repeated mention of the Article title in each header (previously it was Aesthetic Realism and Homosexuality). We've got a list of about 15 different options ranging from the very brief (Homosexuality) to the very detailed (Approach to homosexuality, assertions of "change" from homosexual to heterosexual, and controversy) and everything in between (Homosexuality conversion therapy). I'm curious if you have a preference--whether or not you want to chime in at the page--I'm pretty sure your opinion is highly respected there. The article is fairly well balanced, although it still appears that many sources from the subpages didn't make it in. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 07:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra talk page deletion

Is this an appropriate deletion in your opinion?[9] It seems to me that striking the offensive comment might be in order but not sure the whole thing should be deleted. Any thoughts?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar. TFD (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

For Clarity...

The POV'd remarks I was referring to were Rumiton's, not The Register's. I did not find the Cade Metz articles to be as described by Rumiton either. If you think my comment was unclear, I will look into revising it. I wouldn't want to leave people with the impression that I agreed with R's statements there. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

red hair

Someone is accusing me of vandalising the red hair page (see my personal page), when all i did was add ancient sources. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Claremont Independent

The Claremont Independent page should be preserved if the Dartmouth Review pages or Stanford review pages are to continue to exist. It has produced a number of journalists and its reporters have gone on to do interesting things like write for the Wall Street Journal. It's not a PR, thing, in other words. Could you please remove deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinleinscat (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Hello Will, there is some problem with regards to this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fleury_-_Rosalie.jpg where the image does not change even though the file has been replaced. Could you please find out what's wrong, and more importantly, the old versions breach copyright. It'd be preferable to remove the history altogether (so that someone can't revert it to the copyright-breaching version) and re-insert the new version. If necessary, you could delete the entire page, and I'll upload the new image that is permissible to use. Thanks. Kfodderst (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it's working now. In any case, could you please remove the history of the image's page, so that the copyright-breaching image cannot be retrieved? Thanks. Kfodderst (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Koch-up

Look! It's a new single purpose account! — goethean ॐ 14:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Liberty Fund

I deleted a lot copyvio, could you keep an eye on it as well? Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

With his multiple reversions today of the Franklin article, I believe editor Phoenix and Winslow may be in violation of the Three Revert Rule. Could someone more familiar with its function please check. Thank you. Apostle12 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Where does one go to "complaint" about someone's (not yours) editing?

From Talk:Political activities of the Koch family, where does one go to "complaint" about someone's (not yours) editing? 99.19.44.88 (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Amway/Amway Global merge

Hello, you seem to be the most expert editor on the Amway article. I'm wondering why that article has not been merged with Amway Global, which has basically the same information but a better structure? What do you recommend for improving either or both of these articles?Octopet (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Occidental article

Will, thanks for your contributions over at Occidental College. I'm not trying to be a jerk over there or on the other articles that I'm editing right now, but it is very important that we try to keep the Project NPOV and stay away from articles that are simply advertisements. This one in particular has had multiple issues for some time now, and my hope is that the original author, alumni, faculty, and the community in general can take another look at this one and get it cleaned up properly, instead of throwing out random un/mis-sourced "RAH! RAH!" statements. Thanks again! SeanNovack (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Birthright Citizenship

Your suggested compromise is inaccurate. Berger did not write: "learned and reported . . ."74.192.7.135 (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot avoid others. They want the whole thing removed. Your compromised is satisfactory, but if you will note the citation. Forrest McDonald is stating, in the foreword, that Berger . . .learned and reported . . . ." Please do what you think best, I trust you to be fair.74.192.7.135 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the most reliable source, for a summation of the book, the distinguished scholar who has edited it? 74.192.7.135 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The B.S. here on Wikipedia is unbelievable. Congrats on your 100,000 edits.74.192.7.135 (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

wakakai is a real martial art

im registering a martial art so please explain why u continued 2 delete my wakakai page!!! Tommy Gallagher (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

John Ziegler

How can i add a tag that questions the accuracy (not just the neutrality) of the page related to me? It is an absolute abomination and I will not stop until it is fixed. This can either be done the easy way (you seem at least rational and your responses have been appreciated) or the hard way. Can you help me do it the easy way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talktozig (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What now?

A couple of days ago, Wayne suggested that we follow your suggestion and work on the Franklin Coverup article section by section, attempting to engage Phoenix and Winslow in discussion on the article's talk page. We have begun to work on the lede and on the section titled "Franklin Committee final report," the latter in response to Phoenix and Winslow's unsupported assertion that the Franklin Committee agreed that "a carefully crafted" hoax was valid. We have repeatedly invited Phoenix and Winslow to join in our discussion. However he refuses, saying his time is valuable and he doesn't want to waste it talking to the likes of us. He continues disruptive editing and refuses to discuss the merits of the article. Today, Phoenix and Winslow posted the following on Wayne's talk page:

Wayne, it is with deep regret that I must bring this to your attention. I have learned that in addition to your POV-pushing for conspiracy theories at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, you've also been POV-pushing for years at a series of articles on the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And at those articles, you again took the side of conspiracy theorists.

I'm going to conduct a complete investigation of your entire editing history, contact any other editors who may have additional information, and start an RfC that focuses specifically on your conduct over the past few years. My only goal is to protect the Wikipedia project and prevent it from becoming another version of Executive Intelligence Review.

I assure you that it is not my intention to harm or humiliate you in any way. Regretfully, that probably will become an unavoidable side effect in the proceedings. I encourage you to STOP IMMEDIATELY, review your behavior, and ask yourself what the community will most likely do when presented with an inventory of your behavior here. I will recommend a lifetime topic ban on all articles where conspiracy theories are presented, enforceable with blocks by any administrator.

Please review and modify your behavior immediately, and make this unpleasant action unnecessary.

Frankly, this is unprecedented in my five-year experience with Wikipedia. I have no idea what we should do next. Phoenix and Winslow simply asserts ownership, refuses to discuss the article, and now makes not-so-veiled threats. What should we do?Apostle12 (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, Will Beback. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Right

Here is a link to a lecture about the American Right by Chip Berlet. Since you have taken an interest in this topic, I thought that you might find it informative. TFD (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg Mortenson

Most of the information in the Wikipedia article is now in dispute.

I reinserted the language about how the Central Asia Institute spends its money. I tried to write in a neutral point of view and added reliable sources. If you like, please revise. It is relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgmagone (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Lyndon LaRouche 3 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice

The conduct of WLRoss (talk · contribs), currently being discussed at RFCU, is also being discussed here. You may participate if you choose to do so. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection again?

What do you think of requesting protection again for all of the articles related to Greg Mortenson? Lhb1239 (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Asking other editors to keep an eye on it is a good idea. I just don't want it to get too out of hand to where it becomes unwieldy (I watched that happen with the Tucson Giffords-shooting article). After having recently read the policy of reverting (3RR and all that), I'm trying to just keep myself at 1 revert so as to avoid providing the means of temptation for others to start edit-warring. I realize that what I edit may be reverted or changed, and I'm perfectly okay with that. I also get that I will make bad calls when trying to "edit boldly" and appreciate any advice or direction I can get from experienced long time editors such as yourself. Thanks for the feeback. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully I didn't over-reach, but I placed a warning template on the talk page of User:Lgmagone here. Apparently, this user is the IP who has been reverting (and just skirting the edge of edit warring over) the same info. If that is the case, then he has also broken the 3RR rule. I don't want to revert the info again so I won't be guilty of edit warring. Just letting you know since you are the only administrator I've seen who has been involved in this article. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on my talkpage. Isn't it against policy to switch back and forth from being an IP user to being a registered user? Lgmagone edited as an IP again early this morning at Mortenson here. I know you don't want editors speculating on why other editors are editing the way they do, but it seems to me that this is user is working very hard to make a point about Greg Mortenson in a vendetta- or revenge-like fashion. It's natural for people to be upset at Mortenson after the 60 Minutes piece on him. I imagine a number of people feel duped for believing in him and his cause. But when editing an article in Wikipedia (especially a BLP article) one needs to check their feelings and emotions at the door, correct? I just get the feeling from Lgmagone's edits (both as a registered user and an IP) that he's letting his feelings about Mortenson get in the way. Add to that the evidence that he thinks his way of editing the article is "neutral" (when it doesn't seem neutral but more along the lines of WP:POINT if you look at the edit summaries he provides), and I just don't think he's going to try to work together with the rest of us. Is it possible/appropriate for you as an administrator to give him some kind of reminder about policy? Sorry to bug you with this, but my gut is telling me it's all going to get worse before it gets better. Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Will Beback. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BelloWello (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Hi Will. Due to the death today of the above subject, the article (which has been stable for quite a while) is getting swamped by new users. What do you think about a temporary padlock? Rumiton (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. While I agree the flood of new editors did give some good input and sources, it's getting unmanageable again. It's nearly a full-time job now trying to maintain any sort of neutrality. Any suggestions? Rumiton (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Will Beback. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editdoctor.
Message added 04:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposal in Sathya Sai Baba talk page

Hi Will.

• I updated my input in the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. I have been working in this article for years and got it to this point where its balanced, well written and reliably sourced. Every section has been discussed several time in almost every wikipedia forum.
• Regarding the proposal, I always believe in productive discussion and coming to agreable terms with other editors than just edit warring. All of our goals I think is to present an encyclopedic content. I am strongly against giving too much importance to this one incident which happened a decade ago.
• I don't see why it should be duplicated when there's a dedicated article explaining it. It was moved out after consensus from other editors that it did not make sense to keep in the Biography and was given a dedicated article.

Though you are an administration and may have more permissions than users like me yet I hope you will respect the fact I have been working in the article for years with other editors. I know every source related to this. As I said before the details were removed to a dedicated article only after consensus from every one that we don't want to give undue weightage to this 1 incident where there's no proof that Sathya Sai Baba was even involved? I am going to link to the Main article and treat it just like how other main articles are treated in that page. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the reply in the talk page. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want I can add the proposed text with the references or if you want go ahead and add it under Life and subsection "Later activities" section. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, am I missing something the content appears t have been removed leaving only a link to the main article without any content at all? Is that the agreed position? Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg Mortenson

The sourced material that I deleted was duplicated in the year-by-year list of achievements. It is redudant to have duplicate entries in Wikipedia with the same information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgmagone (talk • contribs) 03:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Kmiec

thank you, Will, for your prompt attention and the careful separating of old and new materials. Dkmiec (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)dkmiec

James Eric Davidson

Hi there. You contributed to an AFD discussion of this article back in 2008. The discussion ended in 'no consensus', but I think the subject is non-notable and have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Eric Davidson (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

lhb

I'm growing tired of LHB1239's rants on the dicussion page about Greg Mortenson. For example, he writes "One more thing I would like to point out, Nowa, is that your response to Lgmagone seemed more like you were interested in making him happy, rather than making sure the article was NPOV, non-weighty, encyclopedic, and adhering to BLP standards." I think this is a uncalled for personal attack and one that I've grown tired of.

It's not just me...you've called him on personal attacks and rants earlier on the discussion page as well. Is there a warning that can be issued?

I added a 3R flag to his talk page because he reverted five or six changes in one day - but he deleted it saying it was in error. Lgmagone (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible sock

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that this edit by this user was done by a sock. I will let you figure out who it might be based on recent events in an article I have been heavily involved in over the last few of days. Could be worth keeping an eye on. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. No, I don't think that one minor edit warrants action, I'm just thinking it should be watched. I found it strange that after all of the hoopla and accusations there would be an edit to the very section last disputed by a brand new editor. I mean, of all things for someone to edit -- well, to me it just seemed weird and I got a "gut" feeling from it. I hope I'm wrong. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Greg Mortenson

He's back to edit warring again and this time (with this edit summary) he seems to be getting a kick out of it. I've left an edit warring warning on his page -- as retaliation, he has now left one on mine. I'm done for the night with it and leave it up to you to do anything if you feel it's warranted. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

LHB1239, uh, I added some information and you reverted it simply because you didn't like the content being there. It was sourced information that has reliable sources to back it up and it was factual information. There is no reason not to include it in the Wikipedia article. I made some modifications to add clarity, and you reverted them.

None of these changes were malicious, changed the point of view, or caused other issues. Will or any other administrator is more than welcome to review them, but I do not think that anybody will find them to be disruptive or otherwise go against the philosophy of wikipedia.

Beyond me, you also reverted edits that Nowa made earlier. You've engaged in your fare share of reverting edits as well. Additionally, you've accused another editor Sharker1812 of being a sock puppet because he made an edit to the wiki article, even though his edit was minor in nature.

From what I can see, it looks like any editor besides yourself is at risk of getting accused of edit warring, being a sock puppet, or making unnecessary changes. Lgmagone (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Break

I see you've requested that I take a break from wikipedia. OK. Lgmagone (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Kmiec

You requested some citations beyond Malta, here are some:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/kmiec-says-injustice-forced-him-from-ambassador-position/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ambassador-criticized-for-spending-too-much-time-writing-lecturing-about-religion-resigns/2011/04/17/AFdwZTsD_story.html

CNN and the LATimes seem to have done the most digging. CBS (KNX) radio reported on the subject.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/04/25/pepperdine-professor-to-quit-diplomat-post-over-religious-beliefs/

You are right, it is not about Obama, however, the two are interrelated, of course, and that is an important aspect of the story that is fact-based: namely, how a campaign advisor for the President who was once listed by CNN as one of the President's top religion and cultural advisors (fact) comes to find himself disparaged for expressing his faith beliefs in a noncoercive way and for doing the work envisioned by the President as announced at the State Department,

yet, the President fails to act. Opponents of Obama call this being thrown under the bus.

I resist that speculation both because I do not believe it to be true, but also because it effectively creates a division between myself and the President, which may make me individually popular in the present circumstance, but deny the US the benefit of my efforts to improve relations between nations and not just between myself and the host country President or Prime Minister;

Having known the President from the campaign to be a person of honesty and integrity and having watched him struggle with even speaking out with respect to Rev. Wright, and then, doing that only reluctantly when Wright went on a lecture tour against candidate Obama, his silence in this case is not in him:

• taking credit for an appointment that the local host country finds to be very strong from the standpoint of bilateral, international diplomacy -- a matter of some importance anytime, but especially important given the need to have an honest broker nearby the Arab spring in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, etc;

• taking credit for making good on his Cairo promise to pursue mutual understanding of different faith traditions which is what this Ambassador tries to stress/do every day;

• rescuing a friend from the clutches of bureacratic inertia or hostility:

it's a win, win, win. Not to act or say nothing is the opposite.

Hope this is helpful and thanks for the conscientious editing.Dkmiec (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)dkmiec

Due to questioning...

A user wants confirmation as to whether I've edited any article related to Meredith Kercher or had significant interaction Hipocrite in my previous account that I abandoned due to OUTING. Would you be willing to provide confirmation? BelloWello (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) BelloWello (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams

Thank you for your helpful feedback on my addition to JQA. I am working on a Wikipedia assignment for a class but did not mean to negatively alter an established page. I will beef up the sources this weekend and try to integrate the information. Perhaps you can help remove anything you see as too specific for this topic?

--Emab45 (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Franklin case: Endless attacks, becoming more and more irrational

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Franklin_child_prostitution_ring_allegations corr. link, per WP:RTP (technical)— DennisDallas (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow's last post on Wikipedia: Fringe theories was the following:

Yes, the two of you have buried the thread under such a mountain of details that nobody who's uninvolved wants to become involved. It's just too much work for uninvolved editors like Paul B to dig you out of your entrenchment. And it's the same tactic that has worked so well for you previously. But now that MONGO has become involved with the article, his experience with your personal WP:FRINGE history at the 9/11 articles and his presence in Omaha should prove very useful. Two against one wasn't consensus; two against two definitely won't be consensus. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a conciliatory note and received no response:

My intent has never been to obfuscate, and I have seen no indication that WLRoss intends that either; there is no "tactic" involved here, and it is not necessary or appropriate to frame this as a war. Why don't we discuss the article, section-by-section and point-by-point so we can arrive at appropriate compromises in language and content? The goal is to present the topic so that readers can understand the Franklin case. Apostle12 (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted a new section "Fresh Start Two" on the article discussion page requesting that we begin with discussion of the lede, however it seems obvious, at least at this point, that everything possible will be done to prevent meaningful discussion.

A week ago Mongo requested that the article be locked for a week, then a couple of days ago he threatened to re-write the entire article during the period when it was locked. I strongly suspect that Phoenix and Winslow is privately collaborating with Mongo to write the alternate article and that it will appear tomorrow when the article is unlocked.

My question is: If these two editors re-write the article on their own, then substitute the alternate article without consultation with the other editors, and if they refuse to engage in meaningful discussion--what should we do? Given the history, I see only two choices:

-Leave the alternate article alone.

-Revert to the article as it has been written by many editors over several years.

Edit warring, back and forth, seems unproductive.

Honestly, Will, I have no idea how to solve this. We are not supposed to "edit war," but this sort of highjacking seems quite wrong. Can you help? Apostle12 (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Lgmagone

I note that as of early this morning, Lgmagone did not follow-through with his agreement to stop editing the Mortenson article for three days. Just sayin'. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

LHB, I stopped all editing on all articles and discussion pages regarding Greg Mortenson and his book, as requested by Will. I noticed on April 29th around 7:10 UTC, you startedt posting in the Greg Mortenson discussion page. Four hours after you made your edits, I made a few changes of my own, this time to the article page. I don't understand how you feel it is reasonable to start editing at 7 am but unreasonable for me to add an edit at 11:45 am.

Regardless, the edits that I made were backed up by reliable sources, written from a neutral point of view, and were not disruptive. There is no reason that any of the edits go against any guideline or policy of anything in Wikipedia. The simple fact that you want the article to be only positive is not justification for calling the edits that I am making bad. Lgmagone (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What I understood from Will's request was that we stop editing the article. I didn't think he meant the talk page was off limits too. Regardless, you understood him to mean both the talk page and the article. When you saw me making comments on the talk page that was a signal for you to start editing the article in violation of the request of an administrator? You do understand the power that administrators have here, don't you? If Will meant for me to stay away from the talk page as well as the article, then this is just me innocently misunderstanding. You blatantly disregarded his instructions. There's a big difference. But, it's up to Will to do something (if anything) about it not me. Lhb1239 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a suggestion, not a requirement. I followed it until I saw that you were chiming in again, then decided that the break period was over. But honestly, I think you are trying to pull any strings possible to get an opposing view blocked from editing the Mortenson article, and I don't think you'll be successful. Lgmagone (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a suggestion by an administrator that I took to mean "Do it or the next step is having your account blocked". And as I asked you several days ago, please stop with the second-guesing and personal attacks. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nosheen Ali article

Someone put the Nosheen Ali article at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/349981/books.pdf

Let me know when you've downloaded it - then the link will be taken down WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)