φWelcome!
Hello Will Beback/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- bainer ( talk) 09:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Am I missing something? Causality maybE? — HopeSeekr of xMule ( Talk) 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, Will! I had great fun taking the pics, but it's even more fun finding uses for them on Wikipedia. Infratec 11:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you state your reasons for removing content at Cyberstalking? It showed up as pozssible blanking vandalism on my RC patrol screen. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Just curious - why did you change your username? Marcuse 02:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
go here [1] and scroll toward the bottom for judgement of wiki admins against User:Willmcw who is now User:Will Beback. It seems clear this user is attempting to distance himself from these official rulings against him. notice each one was unanimous. It is important to follow closely now because it appears he is reverting at will another article under the same tactics,
Former username: user:Willmcw
These articles provide some perspective on W.W. Behrens, Jr.'s transforming his Art of War ( Zero Sum Game) military academy training.
He became an
interdisciplinary engineer-scientist who championed an alternative (
All-WinWin)
Art of Peace using
social networking ...
RJBurkhart
12:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
A reminder that you need to redirect your previous userpage before the name change. Also, your old account needs to be blocked indef so no one can impersonate you and this page protected. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Will why were my edits on the BAPS article reverted? I have justified my reasons for editing in the discussion page.
...oh my yes. We'll be absolutely IRRITATING! All year! It's going to be GREAT! I was up until 3:30am last night; I'm tired, hung over, and thoroughly satisfied. ;) · Katefan0 (scribble)/ mrp 16:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
If civility was important to you, you would have critized all parties to the debate, rather than just single me out. You might have also signed your comment. I can take criticism, but if calling comments "balderdash" is acceptable (you didn't criticize it), now I know the correct lingo to use, although balderdash and useless are somewhat similar. Carlossuarez46 22:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Part of the problems is that all these categories are inescapably arbitrary, and there is overlap of all kinds. Thank you for being reasonable. Haiduc 23:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'll reply on WP:MC soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering if you would mind taking the time to research Hawkins' knighthood claim and edit his entry with what you find? Perhaps add an entry for the source of his knighthood as well? I remember you wrote that the Prince he referenced does not exist. Many websites still say the "Danish crown" knighted him. I would research it, but I don't really have time to, and I respect that you already started down this path. Thanks for the consideration. -- 66.31.144.141 22:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you remove the Clean-up tag on Fictional resistance movements and groups ? Martial Law 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
...harassing me.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Morton devonshire (
talk •
contribs)
Would you please just leave me alone! Morton devonshire 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Discussion page of W. Patrick Lang. Was it something I said?-- csloat 02:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
That National Review article is highly biased and is not a good reference. I'm not saying I disagree with it, I really don't care. But opinion pieces are not proper references. I'm going to ask for a third opinion though. It might be ok if there is some trustworthy info. -- DanielCD 03:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
n/t - Guettarda 14:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we will be absolutely irritating. We have been waiting on this opportunity for quite some time. My goodness what a great game. I would love to meet you again in Tempe if it will be a similar event. We each have to bring along new QB's though. I bet the Buckeys are licking their chops for their rematch with us in Sept. And of course if ou gets that Peterson guy to stay healthy... Anyways, thanks for the congratulations - you Trojans were a worthy foe! Johntex\ talk 04:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Naserke 18:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Just got your message. Wow! And thank you! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I have never read this article on 'Cattle' until today. I must say that I found your note to me somewhat offensive as I never vandalised wikipedia or even looked at the article you refer to. It may be that every AOL user comes up the same (as we sem to be classified as multiple users) but rest assured I have not done anything untoward. Ben
I wish that I could say "sure, no problem!", but I don't think that it will be quite that easy. I think that the followers of these sects are more interested in a PR outlet than in contributing to a collaborative encyclopedia. There is probably an emailing-list out there somewhere encouraging followers to systematically revert to the dogmatic versions. I will see what I can do however. — goethean ॐ 18:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
there is an RfC and a few other procedures going on about you in admin land, as you know. You're latest move has bee ndocumented as an abuse of power. one who yearns for meditation title perhpas should not so frequently ban those that they disagree with in edits of an article, should they? you go girl!!! 216.175.117.65
...you've been called a rouge admin.
On the Hilton thing.
I'll retire for the day.
grazon 21:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Jonah Ayers has been back to vandalizing Biff Rose with IP: 216.244.3.79 and sock User:Peter hopetter. Maybe they can be added to your block list? Marcuse 04:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Will, are you still an admin? Can you block User:216.178.51.241? He/she has vandalized (blanked portions of) Reconquista (Mexico)'s talkpage twice--or maybe just warn him/her? Thx.-- Rockero420 00:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Alter, edit, or vandalize the Merkey page, and you will be added to www.merkeylaw.com as a cyberstalker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.137.28.189 ( talk • contribs)
I think I have run into him on many civil rights wikis. It seems his sole purpose is to vandalize those pages. Is there anyway to put a stop to these constant edit wars? Mosquito-001 01:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, much appreciated :) -- Ze miguel 09:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Admins are permitted to protect and then edit protected articles so long as they aren't involved in the dispute beforehand. Because I wasn't involved in the article (with the exception of one revert during RC patrol) prior to the protection I believe I can. Also its the only way I see moving the article forward. - Roy Boy 800 15:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
How is the term "fiat currency" POV?
Def: "money issued by government fiat" that is not POV, it is a matter of fact.
Search
4
Lancer
23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I meant to add only the image and some supporting text but as I lingered over the article, I noticed that there were a lot more improvements that can, and still could, be made.
You know, it could be a featured article despite its relative brevity if we get a little more in it and adequately reference it (and go through peer review, of course). Daniel Case 03:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clean-up on this article, nice work. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.129.165 ( talk • contribs)
Feel free to hop in at any time; the article and talk discussion could do with some fresh perspective after all this time :) .:. Jareth.:. babelfish 21:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I won't be surprised if it turns out 24.0.91.81 was Shran. Ah well, I guess it's better to err on the side of caution. — Viriditas | Talk 04:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops - thanks for the reminder. I did forget about that. Johntex\ talk 23:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. It's a format that I'm using on wikicities, and I was working on the wrong site. Go ahead and delete them.
As far as tracking the members of all the various boards, these are some of the most powerful people on the planet, in many cases with more influence than our elected officials. So many conspiracy theory websites try to tie the individuals together, I thought it would be worth it to bring a Neutral point of view to the subject, and bring it under the scrutiny of the Wikipedia Community. Chadlupkes 00:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You're a retaliatory editor. You don't like my edits on one of your pet pages, so you go and revert all of my recent changes on multiple pages. Bad form willbeback. Morton devonshire 02:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I never thought that a simple attempt to improve the quality of an article would create this sort of a mess. I don't understand why people are adamantly opposed to improving the accuracy of our articles. Guettarda 03:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You wrote me recently and asked if I would stop putting links up to my site. I assume you are referring to the links I embed in bibliographic citations. I am new to Wikipedia and don't wish to do anything wrong or that will offend anyone, but when I put links, they are to pages I have about those books mentioned, where there is often additional relevant reading material available, so I didn't think that I was doing anything incorrect. I am a 72 year old senior professor of history at Umass Boston and have published a variety of books, in both gay studies and ancient history. I was the co-editor of the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, which is still regarded as the most thorough text of its kind, so you can see that I am not some sort of cheap vandal. I simply feel that there are many articles on this cite which pertain to my work, and I feel fair in adding the appropriate works in the appropriate places. Like I said; though, I don't wish to do anything wrong, and I would like to be a healthy member of the Wikipedia community, as I firmly believe in the potential of this site. If you can point me to the regulations of the website of which I am unaware, I would be much obliged. - William percy 05:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you drop by #wikipedia - I'd like to talk with you about your request. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Will,
in the apparent absence of our chairman, allow me to welcome you to the Mediation Committee. Please make sure you have read and understood Wikipedia:Mediation, and you'll figure out the rest as you go along. If you could add your email address or link to {{ Medcom}}, I'd be grateful, and you can also join the not-very-active mailing list.
Congratulations on your vote! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations. And with the added incentive to prove me utterly wrong, I hope you become an excellent mediator. :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Congrats esse. Is like, you deserve it, joo know? Is good, is very good. Shaggorama 10:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Congrats!! I wholeheartedly approve! At times, in my dispute, I have found you maddeningly patient, fair, and even-handed towards the "other" side as well as mine....which may sound a little backhanded, but is in fact significant evidence of your suitibility for the role of mediator. You are a force of positivity. Cheers and all my very best. --- Sojambi Pinola 07:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
...that while some of these articles describe fabulous people, they'd probably not survive a round at AfD, as their assertions of notability are noble but rather weak and, er, self-referential. And maybe slightly incorrect. · Katefan0 (scribble)/ mrp 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
he admits it. If you don't block him, you will play into the hand of an already building arb com case against you, sandboxed, and created by another user until such time as you don't exercise equal and fair duties. you need to block this user as you'v eblocked me for the very same violation. Jonah Ayers 06:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
In general, I am not in favor of deleting userspace talk pages for the reasons you indicated, but in this case Davenbelle asked me by email to do so, and so I honored the request (I indicated this in the edit summary). If you or any other admin wishes to undelete that page, go ahead, but please leave a message there justifying your doing so. -- Viajero | Talk 14:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You made a post on the David Drier page regarding the 2006 elections and the possibility of him running for the senate. Could you please repost the information with a source or could you make a personal post on my user page regarding where you heard this and where I could look for further information on this. Thank you. Dapoloplayer
Hi, I'm messaging you because you're listed as having recently edited this article. What is going on with this article? I saw that the name changed again, its been protected, is tagged NPOV disputed, etc. Is it coming into shape, or what? Per some discussion starting with the article's AfD a couple weeks back, I created a project structure to address this article, here: User:Herostratus/Pedophilia I'm not now up to speed on article, so I'm asking current editors -- Do you think this would still be useful, or what? Thx Herostratus 14:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You've probably already noticed, but I'm asking the editors who were squabbling over Save Our State to look at my proposed version User:Rockero420/Save Our State. Would you mind doing the same?-- Rockero420 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
See Arcadia Bandini de Stearns Baker. Please fill it out, if you know more, as she's more of a LA-area figure than San Diego Dananderson 06:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This concept didn't exist in 1950. Also, at 16 years old, that's pushing the boundaries a bit. But this "label" is not going to stand in this case. We aren't going to go rewrite history with modern concepts. You can revert it, but I'm going to put it back and we'll call for mediation. I've let a lot of stuff go, but inventing material like this is starting to go too far. Please respond at the Cat:CCSO talk page or at my page so we can find a way to work together and not at cross ends. I think it is more a matter of definition than personal ideation. -- DanielCD 15:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to the discussion at Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders. Thanks. -- DanielCD 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes when I try to sound assertive, it comes across as a little too agressive. Lately I've been concerned about quality in Wikipedia, and I'm trying to find a niche where I can focus my efforts on improving things such as definitions and citations. I am able to agree to disagree as well; so if we disagree on something, I don't in any way see that as a threat to our friendship (which I hope we can say exists). I gave up on the Ped. Advocacy article because it seemd like everyone is arguing "apples and oranges". People are using the same words, yet each meaning totally different things, and this is why people can't reach consesus.
In this regard, I'd like to refer you to the commendable efforts of Herostratus at User:Herostratus/Pedophilia. This is exactly the kind of "can do" "take the initiative" spirit we need right now (IMHO).
Anyway, peace and goodwill. -- DanielCD 21:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Did you mean to delete the John Birch Society link when you were reverting that uncommented text deletion earlier? If so, why? If not, I'll be happy to add it back. Dick Clark 23:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&action=purge#phpBB_entry_dispute
I guess it is being used as a sandbox. In that respect it does serve some purpose.
Pizzadeliveryboy 22:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you help me with a simple question? Just for my information, because I really don't know, when editing a controversial topic, is it allowed to insert comments by critics based upon editorials? Or does that constitute NPOV violation? You can answer here, but to get an idea of what I mean you can look for more info at Talk:Samuel_Alito#Opponents_of_the_unitary_executive_theory and at Talk:Samuel_Alito#Requests for comment.-- Nomen Nescio 07:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Will Beback, your support on this issue is really appreciated, I didn't expect such a quick response!
Hi, Will Beback. I was about to contact an administrator about this issue but noticed your note on Quartz's page. I didn't recognize your new avatar but remember your previous one well although I don't recall working with you directly.
Thank you for your supporting comments on the talk page for Peter Deunov. I added cleanup tags to
Peter Deunov and
Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov and justified those tags on the respective talk pages.
Great White Brotherhood and
Paneurhythmy seem to be edited by the same anons as well, and have similar problems. I'm inclined to wait a bit on those rather than trying to do everything at once. I'd be grateful if you would take a look at what I've done and make any changes or comments that you deem appropriate. This isn't one of my areas of interest or expertise, but I'll work on it as I have time.
What do you think of asking Sam Spade to take a look? He is interested in religion and Christianity. The article would benefit from his involvement, I think, and it might provide him with a good outlet for his considerable energy. I'd welcome your thoughts. Best wishes,
Walter Siegmund
(talk)
06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Per your experience as a mediator, there is a couple having a squall at Henri Poincaré (see the talk page). I was hoping you might help me decide how to deal with it as I'm not a mediator and know little about Henri Poincaré. I refered them to RfC, but I don't know if that will take or not. Suggestions? -- DanielCD 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I didn't realize I was writing on an archive page. And you're right. I need to research my sources again, but my memory generally serves me well when I come up with these historical anecdotes. This is why I didn't even attempt to edit anything at this point. I had a good talk with one of the curators of the El Pueblo Monument one time, and we discussed alot of material which surrounded Olvera Street and all the history about it. At the time he was working on a Master's thesis on the Pueblo. I even began translating the Avila Adobe brochure into three other languages. I came upon a lot of information that was new to me and had been more recently researched than the Britannica of 1911. Nor am I saying that the Britannica is not factual. But I have found a lot of modern-day research that retells stories from sources that have never before been uncovered. And I am not referring to history revisionism, just newer research brought to light.
Mmanning 07:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Mmanning
The same editor who keeps reinserting the removed content on Virago seems to also be editing Asian fetish. Perhaps you would like to take a look. -- cesarb 16:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You say "We don't use titles in article titles". This is ridiculous! An article title is a title. Georgia guy 20:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
In case you didn't see my last post, could you take a look at Asian Fetish? Thanks. Sunray 03:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Zen-master is actually banned from "title renaming" discussions. He just got blocked a 2nd time for discussing WP:Conspiracy theory. Don't worry. You didn't cause it. :) Just a heads up. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 12:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Winter x
User:Vomus titus
-- Sojambi Pinola 23:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Elvis troyko -- Sojambi Pinola 23:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Skunksville
User:Dimes for eyes
--
Sojambi Pinola
07:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Willmcw, is that you? -- Gramaic | Talk 02:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)