Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!-- otherl left 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Will Beback! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 902 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 19:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mark Ellmore. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ellmore (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Next time I'm around there and the weather is reasonably clear, I'll get a photo of the Clarion Hotel.-- ragesoss ( talk) 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You're discussion on the Canada study is very confusing. You began by asking to have the study shortened and moved which was done. You indicated Luke's edit was too long so I shortened it as much as I possibly could while still retaining the most basic information about the study. In between you have shifted the discussion to deal with whether the study is WP compliant, and now you are including all of the studies. You seem to be attempting to create a framework into which you can quickly slot in any study. I don't support that kind of editing.The Canada study is not particularly important to me but attempts to create a framework for all studies is, and is a concern. I don't know what your agenda is or why you have conflated al of these different issues but perhaps you could clarify.( olive ( talk) 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC))
Just to let you know that the probationary articles on Elan Vital, Divine Light Mission, and Prem Rawat (inter alia) are in need of amending:
Elan Vital in the UK has changed its name, and the reference on that page now links to http://www.hdsk.org.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revera ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Will, In response to your cmt on my User Page: The phrase "Tag team POV editing" was made in an Edit Summary. It was not a formal accusation or assertion, just a simple comment about a one-two punch edit by you and another editor that decimated my original entry which was a balanced quote and turned it into an out of context, one sided piece of text. That was probably not your intention but that is how it was perceived by me and so I described my feeling. As you know I also wrote in my Edit Summary that if my summary was not clear to "please start a talk page thread" so we could discuss it. On a related topic you have become, in my opinion quite overbearing and controlling in your editing style in regard to the TM and related articles in the past weeks and you are very quick to criticize, change and on occasion delete content. I am not accusing you of doing anything outside Wiki guidelines I'm just saying that the intensity and voracity with which you are editing has created an intimidating atmosphere on the articles and its not comfortable nor is it conducive to progress and harmony. This is just my subjective feeling and evaluation and something I am saying to you in what I hope is a gentle and constructive manner, not to start a debate. Today in particular, when I tried to be friendly and humorous with you on the talk page you reacted with a administrative reprimand and you perceived mal-intent in my playful comments, when there was none there. So, just to summarize. I am not accusing you of conspiratorial editing and in a friendly way I am suggesting to you that you slow down and lighten up a little bit and take a day off when you can. Relax, go for a hike. It will be good for you and all of us. Best Wishes, Peace!-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
How is a short-lived chan (who is surpassed in Alexa ranking my many other chans that ARENT listed) almost entirely devoted to raids and restoring project chanology relevant enough to merit it's own section on imageboard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.161.15 ( talk) 02:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Will, I hope it's OK to add this new section. Please feel free to delete.
I just wanted to share a very preliminary beginning of the references in the TM-Sidhi program article, and their independence (esp. re: WP:FRINGE), along with other issues, like reliance on newspaper and other print articles for promotoing a non-mainstream, non-established fringe ideas. This is about half of them so far in the TM-Sidhi entry. I have not added all the magazine and newspaper entries. I'll add them all if this looks like a direction worth heading in.
Here's the summary table so far. [1]-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 15:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking everyone to take another look at [3] based on recent changes to the article. Upsala ( talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! -- Jayron 32 01:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Will. I'll get to the sources request within the next few days, have had a very hectic and full time since mid-December. Slowing down a bit now. Thanks for the patience. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Will. I don't think the PPA editor you reverted is taking the hint: [4] - Legitimus ( talk) 14:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This is very ackward because of all the deletions of my own comments, this is the only one that has been met with any particular objections. I may have overstepped my bounds deleting an entirely unrelated comment I didn't write, but what I did write is not something I want around anymore and it is about a common misuse of a term which is no longer on that page. I delete my own comments all the time and frankly I am pretty shocked that anyone would claim I do not have the right to delete my own comments. However, the other comment, which was unrelated to mine anyway, could stay if it's that important. 01:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The reasons I give for my deletions are this: Since the subject I post about is no longer on the page, there is no particular reason to keep it because it is no longer relevant. This is hardly the first thing I've written which I have deleted for this reason. I was especially glad to delete this one, since I was always less ambivalent about the now-irrelevant (at least to the page) issue I raised than to the subject of the page itself, and time has done nothing to reverse this. I also believe that, whatever you or I is or is not officially allowed to do, simple civility and common decency demand that you allow me to edit comments I have made which do not interfere with others, as Wikipedia has done countless times before. By the way, if I have ever said anything in the past to you in some silly argument that perhaps fell outside of what "simple civility and common decency demand," I apologize and I would like to put that behind me. 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Fine, but what about my signature? 03:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
And, if I may say so, it's about time. Thanks. I will be on my best behavior. Fladrif ( talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I can say wholeheartedly that my intentions are to abide by these Wiki ideals with every edit I make to any article on Wiki. I consider myself still a relative novice in Wiki and may make mistakes and am happy to be corrected when I do by more experienced and seasoned editors and administrators. This is the beauty of Wiki - the ability to participate as a novice and to learn from others in the process.
Once can see from my participation in Wiki that I have edited in a neutral manner. If I have doubts about edits, I bring them to the talk pages of the article first to get input from others (Beatles section of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as an example) and have participated on the talk pages, both to give my opinion and to learn how and when certain Wiki policies could/should be applied. I have been a strong advocate for keeping the focus of attention on the content (message) of the discussion, and away from the editor (messenger), and have expressed this directly on several occasions. This is not always how other editors behave, unfortunately.
Recently, when I brought some comments by another editor to your attention on your talk page, rather that address the specific situation, you instead began to advise me on COIN editing and implying some wrongdoing on my behalf. (You comments have been posted on your talk page) My request was a direct and genuine request for you, as an administrator, to address the growing tendency of Kala, a fairly new editor, to indulge in name calling and using an aggressive and dismissive tone in his approach to other editors. No doubt Kala has raised valid concerns that need to be addresses, but, in my opinion, the tone of the discussion has deteriorated since his arrival. You were not at all sympathetic to my request to do something about the name-calling, and in fact you trivialized by request to you and insulted me by implying I was acting like a child. This was a disappoint to me as I felt you were a mature and experienced administrator, from whom I had learned a great deal over the past 8-10 months.
Again, I reiterate that I have acted honorably in my editing of all Wiki articles and have done my best to adhere to Wiki policies for NPOV, neutrality, etc. Where I have made mistakes I have address the errors quickly and responsibly. I have engaged in the talk pages and sought advice from editors and administrators, and participated on the talk pages in a civil and respectful way. My editing record bares this out, I believe. Thanks. -- BwB ( talk) 14:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Please. Your editing shows a bias toward fundamentalist Christianity (or the version adopted by the religious right in this country) and also a pattern of denial concerning GOP obstructionism, greed, theocracy and cronyism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.96.198 ( talk) 15:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Right now there are only two categories at the bottom of this article, and I believe this gives an incorrect impression. These categories are: "Aesthetic Realism | Changing sexuality"
Can we also have the following: Philosophy, American Philosophy, Aesthetics, The arts, and Education?
All these categories are relevant. Aesthetic Realism belongs to them. They are needed for people to search for this philosophy in the categories to which it actually belongs.
In fact, the matter of "Changing sexuality" is really long past, and should probably not even be there.
Thank you for considering these matters. B.K.S.J. ( talk) 19:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC) B.K.S.J. ( talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Will - I've never edited wiki entries in this particular field before. I have contributed to wikipedia on other topics, for which I (legitimately) use a different account for privacy reasons. All of my edits in this field have been, and always will be, under Psychword. Psychword ( talk) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Psychword
Will - Why is tinyurl not allowed on Wikipedia? Is there any way to compress a long url that's allowed? Thanks. LoreMariano ( talk) 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Michael Lee Shaver, Jr., an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lee Shaver, Jr. and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. - Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey! :) Could you please check the history of the article, and prevent the re-adding of the unbacked, unsubstatiated claims of von Mises sympathizing with fascism? It's simply not true. Many revisions ago, the IP who kept adding it linked to this as a source, I read it and nothing in it says anything about Mises supporting fascism. He noted that fascism arose as a responce to marxism, but expressed no favour towards or sympathy with fascism whatsoever: http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp
Furthermore, you should note this edit, it's quite insightful: 11:57, 12 January 2010 Closedmouth (talk | contribs) (26,375 bytes) (→Criticism: removing paragraph, this is a "criticism" section, not a description of his personal views; references are also vague concerning his actual belief in fascism and don't come from third-party sources) (undo)
Thanks! :)
-- Dark Apostrophe ( talk) 14:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I will, but how do I do it? B.K.S.J. ( talk) 21:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
– MuZemike 08:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, David F. Haight, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David F. Haight. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Will. I suggest you do not accuse me either. I do not have to deal with personal attacks from Kala. And if you want a clarification of the COI Notice Board ask me on my user page. I will be happy to give you a clear explanation although In have neither the time nor the desire for a discussion. I have a right to ask for civility. And if you want to compare that to a Notice Board were once again its a free for all of nasty and untrue comments, well sorry, just doesn't cut it. You attack. I defend. You make a comment that isn't right. I will clarify as I see it. I'm a civil editor but i'm a little tired of being attacked.( olive ( talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
Will, come on....a brand new lead has been posted on the Aesthetic Realism entry by someone who doesn't really know what he/she is talking about. It's not malicious, it's just not accurate. If the lead is going to be stubbed until there is a consensus, it should be stubbed. Can't it be locked down? LoreMariano ( talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Will. Just have a couple of questions regarding your latest nomination at Did you know .... Kindly Calmer Waters 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Sent.( olive ( talk) 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
I don't want to get involved in editing another walled garden, but since you've gotten involved in yet another contentious subject, you might want to check out these sources on one of your current projects. [6] [7] Almost all of them are Letters to the Editor at the Village Voice, and as such don't qualify as Reliable Sources. But, this LTE [8] probably qualifies as a reliable source for what how the inventor of the subject described it himself. And this one, which is not a LTE but an actual article, [9] is sufficient to dissuade me from getting any further involved, at least without getting an unlisted number first. Good luck. Fladrif ( talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)