In Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fwww.mlmwatch.org.2F I commented how the behavior of one editor was similar to another a while ago and then got this in my talk page. Based on User_talk:Lambanog#Continued_edit-warring_and_ownership_of_Mary_G._Enig and its outcome I feel this is a mild continuation of the behavior described in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard where editor's talk pages were cluttered up with actions that in retrospect likely fell under Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system but I wanted an administrator's opinion on this.
If you cannot look at this at least direct me to a third party administrator who can as this is gone way past ridiculous.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Will, just wanted to stop by, and say I'm going to step back from Wikipedia editing. The whole Santorum thing and the growing contentious feelings of editors at some of the articles where I'm editing just leave an unpleasant taste in my mouth. I am going to spend my time doing more pleasant things on the Internet and in real life. So for now, and possibly forever, I am retiring. I leave you with one last comment: You might consider why I'm leaving, and consider the effects that Wikipedia might have on your own happiness. May you have a pleasant time whatever you do. → Stani Stani 16:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
For the barnstar! Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello -- the vandal is back on the Sahaj Marg page and posting on my page. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AReneeholle&action=historysubmit&diff=432520299&oldid=350222208 I suspect it's one of the banned users who has used several socks as he's posting an old page. As you probably recall, several people worked together to create the page I restored the version to. I'm not opposed to changes and would be happy to discuss them; I just oppose vandals who constantly revert. Thanks, Renee Renee ( talk) 14:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Will -- thanks for your message. Here is an important issue:
Is there anyway to do away with the redirect and go back to the original "Sahaj marg" page? This same IP, who now appears to have registered under yet another sock, cleverly redirected the page to "Sahaj Marg" -- effectively eliminating all of the discussions, agreements, and archives. It would be useful to have all of those as a record on the page.
Thanks. Renee ( talk) 14:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I was just updating the original wiki link to my new blog host. The source data was the raw database of election results. I processed that db by hand and published the reports. So, as far as I know, there wasn't a break down per community with an exhaustive listing of each community for San Diego. The newspapers only published one or two top communities and the overall results - from the preliminary results and not from the actual finalized vote totals. I waited until all votes were counted before generating the reports (unlike the newspapers). So all of those percentages came from my site. If you need to remove that entire section, then I don't know of a good replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesewelch ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a heads up that Lgmagone is back and editing disruptively as an IP again. He is very possibly gearing up for an edit war at the Greg Mortenson article. See this, this and this for evidence. Thanks. Lhb1239 ( talk) 05:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Against my advice, the above user (formerly editing from the account Lgmagone) has created a new account and is now editing as WhereTimeStandsStill. I tried to explain to him that creating a new account could equate sockpuppetry in the eyes of some and that having his previous account name changed was a better course of action. He ignored my advice and is already editing with the new account. Since Fastily has been involved in this mess somewhat, I am also notifying him of this latest development. Lhb1239 ( talk) 21:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Clearly an article that's completely unsourced can't just live on forever, so your prodding of "Plans and interiors of Mentmore" was reasonable enough. Still, I disagree. Had I noticed it, I'd have removed the prod notice in time; but I didn't notice it, and therefore ... well, please see this, which I hope seems constructive. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
GL with that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.135.254 ( talk) 10:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there Will Beback, I just wanted to thank you for your contributions on the Ross talk page. Your input is definitely appreciated! FWest2 ( talk) 23:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Will Beback for removing TimidGuy's attempt to continue the Transcendental Meditation myth of a settlement in TM's libel suit against JAMA, Dr. George Lundberg, and me. Saying "the suit was dismissed without prejudice" says pretty much what the unnecessary text TimidGuy keeps trying to add. The suit could have been refiled at a later date if the plaintiff chose to. That's the meaning of "dismissed without prejudice." The lie that we had settled with the TM plaintiffs was perpetrated by Deepak Chopra's attorney falsely telling Newsweek that we had settled the suit for an undisclosed amount of money. I called the lawyer to complain only to be mocked, "What are you going to do about it? Sue us? Go ahead." Newsweek printed a retraction a couple of weeks later.
There was never a settlement, secret or otherwise. Not a penny was paid. Not a word of my articles on TM in JAMA or ScienceWriters was retracted. On the contrary, I continued to investigate and report the dishonest practices of the TM movement. Still, the TM movement keeps claiming, whenever the landmark expose in JAMA comes up, that they sued us and obtained a settlement.
If TimidGuy persists, I suggest adding a sentence about TM's JAMA settlement myth, citing Chorpa's attorney's false statement in Newsweek along with Newsweek's correction that there was no settlement. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NWEC&p_theme=nwec&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EC05F701FE8B5A4&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM TM's strategy is clear and repulsive: Hit critical journalists with a SLAPP suit and then declare victory even when the suit is dismissed.
did you try to find a source before making the 4 post stating you would remove the sentence in talk/tea party? if so, where did you look? since the link i post was the second result for google, the 1st link you rejected even though the title was, The GOP, Ron Paul & Non-Interventionism. this is especially perplexing since you had been informed weeks ago ron paul made that very statement in the 2008 primary debate. even now, you still seem to resist removing an incorrect characterization of his as an isolationist. Darkstar1st ( talk) 05:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
For a partial answer and chronology on this question, you might take a quick glance at User talk:Arthur Rubin#Neo-Isolationist. Fat&Happy ( talk) 23:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice stuff on the GA review. I waded in and fixed a lot of problems.-- andreasegde ( talk) 17:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You might wonder at some of the supposed 'polishing' I'm doing, but I've done quite a few GA articles, so I know what reviewers complain about the most. Having said that, they always come up with something that you didn't think needed working on, as they all have their own pet foibles or hates. :)-- andreasegde ( talk) 13:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the California Barnstar, Will. It's quite an honor.
You are linked as they person that deleted the Wikipedia article for for Hans Rudolf Herren for "copyright" issues.
WHY ?
I work with Dr. Herren and have added new honors and description of the English language page. I was not aware of any copyright issues. If there were any, why delete the whole page ?
PLEASE restore this entry. I know little of Wikipedia protocol. Please contact me at A....com.
Thanks,
Alan Drake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.123.245 ( talk) 06:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
As someone who has edited the CounterPunch article in the past, you might want to comment on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Moving_on BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I started working up a combined draft of the points made by apparently like-minded people at User:Wnt/User_Faction/santorum#A_mutually_compatible_point_of_view. You're one of the 11 I think should be compatible. I'd like to get as many points as possible that everyone involved can agree on completely, so I'd much appreciate it if you could endorse the statement, and/or specify which points you reject or need reworked or explained. (and in all fairness there are a few I can see need work). Interested? Wnt ( talk) 20:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Moray An Par ( talk) 10:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you participated in a deletion request at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Wikipe-tan lolicon (2007-01-04). The same files are now being considered for undeletion at commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:LoliWikipetan.jpg. If you're still around we'd appreciate your opinion and feedback. Thanks! Dcoetzee 23:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Ronz seems to be Stalking me. ([ [1]]) This behavior by this editor MUST STOP. NOW!-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 21:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 08:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC).
![]() | This user helped promote The Beatles in Rishikesh to good article status. |
Keep up the good work. SilkTork * Tea time 11:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Recently, an unsourced statement was added to the Greg Mortenson article. As a BLP article, unsourced should be removed immediately. I've attempted to remove this material and am now accused on edit warring. Not sure how to proceed as I believe the unsourced information is original research and cannot be backed up by a reliable source. WhereTimeStandsStill ( talk) 22:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts at the Mortenson articles, but what Lgmagone/WhereTimeStandsStill continues to do is, in my opinion, blatant edit warring and gaming the system. He's now playing the "I don't like it card". I'm done for the night and will not be reverting or editing them anymore until at least tomorrow (if not longer than that). My assume good faith is spent with him. Please talk to him, mentor him, something. He's not getting how to edit cooperatively at all. Blocking at this point would only seem punative to him (in my estimation) and bring him back with a vengeance when his block is up. Can't you or someone else take him under your wing for a while? Thanks. Lhb1239 ( talk) 01:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
No referenced material was deleted by me. Please provide the reference that I deleted. Thanks. -- BweeB ( talk) 08:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Please note that you edited through protection, where you should have found consensus first. I have now reverted to the status quo as at when protection was placed, which happens to be the same as your edit. As TheKohser is blocked by ArbCom, and they made no determination over the state of the talkpage, please address any proposed change to them. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 12:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Somewhere in the article we probably should deal with the Logan Act accusations if we can source it properly, which may be a problem, ie getting sources related to the BG explaining that the act doesn't cover the meetings. Dougweller ( talk) 07:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Will, would you care to chime in about the use of the spk title for Greg Mortenson? I think your insight would be beneficial. WhereTimeStandsStill ( talk) 15:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
There were some superfluous (add obvious) additions to the *countries* assigned to the rajas (like: New York, Minnesota, New England) connected to irrelevant references, as well as irrelevant additions to the list of the Purusha Rajas, which I removed. ΕΜΦ ( talk) 07:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
In response to your comment on my talk page re the MSAE lede edit: "I didn't mention it at the time but I was concerned about this recent edit of yours which also deleted material for insufficient cause.[11] Will Beback talk 11:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)"
Wiki policy on the lede WP:Lede reads: “The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.”
Since the text that I removed from the lede “ Ashley Deans is the Executive Director and Bevan Morris is Chairman of the Board of Trustees.” [2]] was not included anywhere in the body of the article, it seemed inappropriate to me that the text appear in the lede. This was my sole motivation for its deletion.
In a comment on my talk page you said: “That's a spurious and "peremptory" cause for deletion. There's no question about the veracity of the material. Your edit was disruptive to the project.”
How could an edit in line with Wiki guidelines be “spurious” and “preemptory”? How can a simple edit to bring the lede in line with Wiki guidelines be characterized as “disruptive to the project”? Your comments on my talk page are making a mountain out of a mole hill and a complete mischaracterization of my edit.
About 90 minutes later, you restored the text to the lede [3], which seems to me to be contrary to Wiki guidelines for the lede. -- BweeB ( talk) 08:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattybsoul ( talk • contribs) 12:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Will, any chance you can address Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Livestock conservation? It needs access to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette online archives. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Will, I’m concerned about your recent behavior on the various talk pages and noticeboards. Over the past month you have made a series of accusations about conflict of interest (COI) and asked editors to either “disclose” information about a possible personal relationship or “refrain from participating”. It appears to me that you have no evidence of a COI violation (per TM ArbCom) and that through your posts, you are attempting to create a narrative about COI, when in fact, no issue exists. This kind of behavior is disruptive to the talk page process and impedes overall progress, so I ask that you please consider correcting this pattern. To understand my point clearly please have a look at these diffs:
If you choose to respond, please post here as I have your talk page on my Watch List and I like to keep these discussions in one place. Thank you, — Keithbob • Talk • 10:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the COI problems the TM topic, your list does show how hard it has been to resolve these problems. I really don't understand how folks are interpreting the COI guideline, but the impression I get is that no one involved in that topic believes it applies to them. May I ask you a purely hypothetical question? Do you think that the COI guideline applies to people writing about their employers, friends, colleagues, or spiritual leaders? Will Beback talk 10:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I normally like to keep discussions together, but if you want to reply do it where you most feel comfortable.
Mr. BeBack;
I've not been around in a while. We never had huge overlaps in areas of editing, but I'd like to think that there is some mutual respect. For lack of a more accurate phrase to describe a constructed person, I like you and have always valued your opinion. So I hope that I can say this in a way that's helpful: I think you're going too far. I like the simile above of the calm elephants, but I feel that you're trumpeting loudly enough that it's actually doing the opposite of what you're intending. (Wait, that made you one of the elephants, but, I, ahhh... damn rhetorical devices, how do they work?)
Aaron Brenneman (
talk) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
That article was a mess of unsourced bigotry. Your cleanup helped a lot. Thanks. i kan reed ( talk) 14:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, on the PR talk page, I see that Alison reverted a banned user's input, but the input is only by an IP, how does she know that's a banned user, and if it's the banned user I would guess it is, and we/you/she/they/etc know who it is, does that mean we should point it out to whoever is in charge to have that user's ban reset (again) to start over, or at least log the infraction? -- Maelefique (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikibombing (SEO)#Typical Wikipedia editing activities that can be misinterpreted as Wikibombing - satire? Prioryman ( talk) 00:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you be referring to old David Rockefeller's biographical information, about him being an illuminatus? Well, I will be sure to add a reference to his own biography in which he admits it. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia solid. GeoffreyBernardo talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffreybernardo ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Your request for clarification has been closed. The Arbitration Committee has indicated that User:Thekohser is community banned. For the Arbitration Committee -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 17:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Greetings!
As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.
Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!
Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC).