Hello – I am an employee of Dairy Management Inc. (DMI) and posted some requested edits to our company description last week. I was unfamiliar with the process for correcting inaccurate information so thank you for the input received last week. There is actually an inaccuracy in the opening sentence describing Dairy Management Inc. that we feel is important to remedy to properly describe our organization.
The opening currently reads "Dairy Management Inc. is an offshoot of the U.S. Department of Agriculture dedicated to promoting the role of American made dairy production."
DMI is actually not an offshoot of the USDA; and is actually funded solely by America’s dairy farm families. In addition DMI actually does not use any government or taxpayer dollars to promote dairy products.
Can we please change the opening line to reflect this proper description?
I would suggest the following:
"Dairy Management Inc.™ (DMI) is the nonprofit domestic and international planning and management organization responsible for increasing sales of and demand for U.S.-produced dairy products and ingredients on behalf of America’s dairy farmers. DMI is funded solely by America’s farm families."
Please advise as we would like to ensure that the accurate description of our organization is posted as soon as possible. Thank you very much.
RoseDMI (
talk) 20:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if I ever had anything to do with OTRS. Probably not. I have deleted the content at Kerry Bolton because it was a whole chunk of stuff without a single valid source. I wouldn't object if you reinsert the material. I assume that you know about how to use primary sources, or opinion pieces. News articles from secondary, independent sources who build their reputation on accurate reporting are always best. Cs32en Talk to me 22:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I only reverted twice. Why did you warn me citing to the three revert rule?-- WikiPolicyExpert ( talk) 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Good day sir, Thank you for your welcome however I do not thank you for removing my posts regarding documentary Conspiracy of Silence about which I had hoped to initially gain some further information after stumbling across it a while back on line. However the Wiki page was redirected to the "Franklin child prostitution ring allegations" page. After this I went to the Boys Town (organisation) page to see if there was any mention or acknoweledgement of the documentary there. There wasn't. I then tried to research Lawrence "Larry" E King (one of the persons that the documentary (note; the documentary, not myself) did allege to have been centrally involved in child abuse. There was no page dedicated to this individual despite the fact that the documentary states this individual was given a lengthly custodial sentence for a multi million embezzlement purpetrated against the Franklin Community Credit Union. For this prominent or "rising star" of the Republican party during the 1980's, there is no dedicated page which considering the allegations and conviction against him, is an omission. The entry that exists for the aforementioned "Franklin child prostitution allegations" does not acknowledge or make any reference to the documentary "Conspiracy of Silence" even though it says it's a redirect. What concerns me is that at the beginning of this documentary, it is stated that the film was comissioned by the Discovery Channel and filmed for this channel by Yorkshire Television in 1993 and due to be aired on the 3rd May 1994. It was also stated that the film was listed in the TV listings magazines and newspaper supplements at that time. Despite this, the film was never broadcast and those involved in its production were reimbursed the production costs of approx 1/4 million dollars. Those involved in the production are not as I am sure you can agree, small scale operations prone to the sole entertainment of the paranoid or pandering to the fantasies of conspiracy theorists but, when a film is on the web that says it was effectively banned due to US congress pressure, I am going to attempt to research this further although this is difficult when there seems to be limited information about the whole affair from the mainstream press. So, Will Beback my questions to you are thus; (1) Please highlight or explain to me exactly what part of the information was defamatory considering that the information was not presented as a direct accusation / allegation made by myself about Lawrence "Larry" E King, the Boys Town Organisation and / or John Decamp. As I would like to repost my edits in a manner that is mutually agreeable. (2) Please explain why the "Franklin child prostitution ring allegations" page is locked from editing and is sparse of information regarding the subject matter, appears bias towards dismissing the scandal as a hoax without consideration to other aspects of the case and does not even mention Conspiracy of Silence let alone describe in any way the contents of the documentary. (3) Please confirm exactly which sources about this topic are considered "reliable". Would Wikipedia consider as unreliable the following;
www.beyondweird.com www.justice-integrity.org www.infowars.com http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com or the Thursday 29th June edition of the Washington Times (front page)?
I understand the pillar of assuming Good Faith however can you not see how the apparent supression of a subject might appear in this instance. So with respect please give me some pointers and justifications for your actions.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbero ( talk • contribs)
Subject/Heading: "Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health" and "Andrew A Skolnick" biography
Hi Will, I am puzzled as to why you are so adamant that the subject pages should not include what appears to be the actual outcome of "The Lancaster Foundation -v- Skolnick et al" case. According to court records the recorded outcome appears to have been "This cause of action is hereby dismissed without prejudice and with leave to reinstate if settlement is not effectuated. All pending motions are hereby moot".
The impression that I have from the exchanges that I have seen is that you are a lone voice wishing for that factual information to be hidden from others searching for facts relating to the Lancaster Foundation and Andrew Skolnick. So far I've found that TimidGuy and Keithbob wishing to retain it and only you and Andrew Skolnick wanting it removed, but I see no good reason given for hiding this recorded fact and isn’t that what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be a source of “ .. encyclopedia articles focus on factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands .. ” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia)?
Your comment on 14 May 2011 @ 23:05 is odd “Let's not even get into the question of why a Wikipedia editor has a copy of this document, which does not appear online”. Why shouldn’t an editor of Wikipedia (or anyone else for that matter) have a copy of any document in which they have an interest?
Maybe your persistent objections to Wikipedia presenting important facts without providing any convincing justification for doing so. “ .. leaves one concerned about POV pushing .. ”, as you suggested to TimidGuy on 16 May 2011 @ 11:09.
Best regards, Pete Ridley Pete Ridley ( talk) 15:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Good afternoon. Thank you for you advice regarding my queires about the Franklin child abuse scandal and the documentary "Conspiracy of Silence". I will endeavor to garner some further suggestions from the page you have suggested. I apologise that my initial communication with you was a rant, I was just somewhat annoyed about the deletion. Thanks once again. ( Webbero ( talk) 11:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC))
Hi Will, thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia and for the advice about WP:BLP (Biographies of living persons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP),WP:V(Verifiability - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V)and WP:NOR (No original research). BTW, please can you advise how I can insert links to WP:BLP, WO:V, etc. I tried the "insert" facility but couldn't find iany guidance.
I understand that you are an elected voluntary administrator of long-standing at Wikipedia. I draw your attention to the subject entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick) and respectfully suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for such comments. The unwary expect Wikipedia to be a source of reliable information, not petty arguments and there are plenty other places for comments of that nature, including one's own blog.
As it says in the footnote to each "new section" edit page "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view".
On that topic of being unbiased, isn't it unreasonable to expect the individual covered in a biography to be unbiased? I suggest that caution should always be excercised when changes a made by the individual in question. Where there is a contention between the individual and others then there is a need for unbiased arbitration over the validity of any edit to be clearly demonstrated. I am not convinced that this always applies.
Best regards, Pete Ridley ( talk) 16:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I am stating the facts. Not imposing my views. Even though this is wikipedia and known for controversies like this. With all due respect, You don't seem to know much about the Iranian history. This guy is not a member of the pahlavi family. Has been expelled from the royal court in 1974 after taking up arms against the royal family. His father's marriage was not recognized by the court either. Any one can claim royalty, It won't make them so.
Most of the material in the last edit is from this article from The New Republic: http://www.tnr.com/article/white-man-the-job-bushs-imperial-historian.
Sorry I broke the ref, I didn't realize it was used more than once. Thanks for fixing my mistake.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Will, why don't you actually help on these things instead of devoting so much energy to endless nitpicking, battling-in-disguise, verbal maneuvers, spinning to try to amplify every small small problem, and denigrate solutions, and verbal maneuvers trying to spin everything as negatively as possible?! This is getting old! ! ! North8000 ( talk) 01:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The title is inherited. The one who disputed it and called for citation suggested that the titular inheritance may be in question because the child was born out of wedlock, however has cited no basis for such reasoning whatsoever. If every other descendent of this House is given such a title, why is there suddenly this double standard for this particular figure? brilliancetime ( talk) 04:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
For extraordinary tenacity and eloquence in defending the Wiki against misapplication of policy at David Ogden Stiers. Rivertorch ( talk) 07:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
I'm loath to change your edit, Will, but didn't you leave out a "not" before speculate? "When the subject makes a declaration that he is no longer gay then we should update the category, but we should speculate on his orientation based on our own judgments of his behavior."-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You earlier stated that you were going to restore information about the sexuality of David Ogden Stiers removed from the article by various editors. I've twice asked on the BLP noticeboard if you still intend to do so, but you have yet to answer. Would you mind stating your intentions there? The discussion seems to have reached a natural conclusion, but if you intend to restore the material, it would be helpful to say so before the discussion gets archived. Thanks! Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 20:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. Unfortunately I've been extremely the past few days. The main problem are there are no really good sources on the Fraternity system at RPI (or at least, there wern't last time I checked). I created the page from a merge / from a list I found somewhere. Right now I'm planning to reduce it to a list/table, similar to List of fraternities and sororities at Arizona State University, but with the date of founding and an external reference/link. Most of the information is promotional blurbs/ irrelevant, and will be removed. I will start a lead paragraph though, with some general history (I came across a good presentation online with some historical information). I will have time to work on it starting on Friday. I'm assuming nobody will mind if the page sits for a few more days in this condition. Thanks Danski14 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably a technical glitch [2]. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 12:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
G'Day Will, thanks for your reminder about interspacing replies - I will endeavour to do better in the future! MWadwell ( talk) 13:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Really stupid question here, how do I get a page to be protected against IP (anonymous) editing? NECRAT Speak to me 07:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Have some documentation as requested but do not know how to insert. Also, I have first hand knowledge of the info I inserted because I was part of that event. Fredahick ( talk) 01:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a copy of the document sent to LaRouche with the 119 names of everyone leaving the org in October 1981.It's available on Google. Also, I was a member who was part of the split from LaROuche. Fredahick ( talk) 01:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It's the first Google search result. My married name was Freda Hilty, which is already on another piece of Wiki documentation. I believe there was some lawsuit or something I can't even remember. Fredahick ( talk) 01:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
sorry. try
http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-detroit.pdf
That's the actual pdf. Fredahick ( talk) 02:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem I'll expect your deletion. It won't change what we all know we did. Thanks anyway. Fredahick ( talk) 02:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I recognize one of the names, but I'm not familiar with the book. I've tried to stay clear of all things LaRouche. I only thought of the Split because I ran across the doc while searching Google for a long lost friend. And it reminded me that the 30th Anniv. was approaching. I have no interest in embellishing anything else to with the NCLC. Thank, WIll. Fredahick ( talk) 23:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Will
Appears that 209.52.148.150 is engaging in an edit war on [ [4]]Sahajmarg again. I as well as other editors have tried to engage and discuss these mass-edits with him, but we get nothing. I'm 100% sure this is user 4d-don who was once barred from editing this article (who also uses caps randomly and makes controversial leaps of logic in his writing).
Just wanted you to know. Not sure what (if anything) can be done here. Thanks!
-- Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 19:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The editor in question reverted my edit simply because it was mine. I would consider that to be uncivil. Dbpjmuf ( talk) 04:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Will, I wonder if you might be willing to take a look at James O'Keefe. I've posted a notice to the BLP noticeboard here. Cheers, DickClarkMises ( talk) 14:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Since you refused to address my request on my talk page, I will bring it here. If you want me to not have access of the "vandalism" button, then please remove access of just that button via the TWINKLE preferences page. It doesn't give me the option, so it is probably admin only. I am trying to meet you half way here, but throwing more threats and going on a fishing expedition isn't helping things. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
What are your plans for the self published websites now, are you going to remove them all? There are quite possibility thousands of them that are used including ones like Online Gotha, Monarchies of Europe etc. - dwc lr ( talk) 20:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok well if I make an edit to an article that uses one and I have a book, which I have few of, that has the information in I will replace a website with a book reference. - dwc lr ( talk) 16:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
please don't change a policy while you're being accused of misinterpreting it to match your definition - take it to talk
anytime id good for improvement - take it to tslk -its clearly an improvement - do you disagree with anything specific apart from that I made the edit? Off2riorob ( talk) 07:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Simple beneficial changes are unworthy of discussion. Off2riorob ( talk) 07:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I can find the case if you'd like, but Jossi was sanctioned by the ArbCom for changing policies mid-dispute. Make a proposal and get s consensus for it on the talk page. Will Beback talk 07:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't give a fuck about jossi or previous crap - a simple improvement its just that Off2riorob ( talk) 07:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Back off dude - you are startin to bother me. Off2riorob ( talk) 07:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up that NPOV talk page posting. I saved the first copy but there was an edit conflict and the post didn't appear, so I redid it. No clue what happened so that there were two posts( olive ( talk) 23:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC))
You're welcome ... that article, along with all my other recent Aspen NRHP articles, is one of several fruits of my stepbrother's wedding there a little over a year ago (the ballroom photo, in fact, is early on in the rehearsal dinner). I knew a little about the building's past then but I wish I had known more ... I would have gone to the J-Bar for a Crud, and perhaps gone upstairs.
And there's a lot of color to come. I haven't even gotten to the recent ownership controversy. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It's done now, with that and the ghosts.
Do you live in Colorado? It seems from your userpage that you do. I'm wondering if you might be able to go to Aspen and get some more pictures to round out the article a little bit. I think it could conceivably get to GA or FA but it could use more pics. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thirty years ago ... that was a different Aspen, I gather.
I have looked on Flickr ... this pic of the J-Bar might be one I could persuade the owner to relicense. I'd also love to have pics of an Aspen Crud, and Room 310. Dream pics would be one of Thompson at the bar or other partying celebrities.
Who knows? I do plan to email links to all the completed articles to the Aspen Historical Society when I'm done, just for external peer review if nothing else. Perhaps they can be helpful ... it seems Aspen is that way. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to add some balance to the Joan Ryan article by restoring the expenses info. I'm glad you liked my version of the text although I'm sure it can be further improved and I'm sure you'll make a great job of it. The patience you've shown on the article's talk page is highly commendable and it's a real shame people have resorted to directing personal attacks at you. I know what it feels like to be bullied on Wikipedia but please don't ever let it put you off from making such important contributions. Keep up the good work.-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 03:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
This is just to let you know that I've renominated an article you once nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft seat map (2nd nomination). Best, ╟─ Treasury Tag► pikuach nefesh─╢ 17:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 26 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Golden Domes, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that hundreds of people daily practice Yogic flying in the Golden Domes (pictured) in Fairfield, Iowa? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Golden Domes.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Dealing with an article of this complexity, simply, is difficult. I'll format something later today. I'm not attached to the article in anyway but my concern is that an article that is more of a journalistic endeavour rather than encyclopedic become a standard on Wikipedia. In the meantime you might look at the article with a critical eye and see of you can see the "coatrack" aspect. If this is the way Wikipedia wants to go then the article may be fine but I haven't seen that.( olive ( talk) 14:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC))
You commented on my talk page "Medical articles and BLPS are covered by special rules. The article in question is neither." What are the "special rules" you are referring to here? -- BweeB ( talk) 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi please don't alter the focus of the discussion - if you don't likee the question open a discussion about it - it was worded neutral and the wording is fine - I am looking to get some update to the BLP policy to stop this repeated battle over this issue - please attempt to take the discussion in a friendly way - using words like absurd is never going to find a solution - thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 04:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realise you wanted to discuss - I posted there for quite a while - RFC ... Rfc? I will go sign it - Off2riorob ( talk) 04:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
What does "peremptory deletions" mean? -- BweeB ( talk) 00:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
On my talk page you posted this text - "PS: I see that this is the third notice regarding peremptory deletions in as many months." Can you please give me the specifics of these three notices? Many thanks. -- BweeB ( talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This statement you made concerns me in context of support of Doc James past removal of Reliable Sources. "Medical articles and BLPS are covered by special rules." What special rules apply to peremptory deletion of reliable sources per MEDRS? This statement also implies the rules governing removal of unsourced content in BLPs parallels removal of sources under MEDRS. As far as I know this is not accurate information unless I'm missing something. Could you point to the policy that allows for peremptory removal of RS sources per MEDRS?( olive ( talk) 18:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC))
Please answer the plea of a hard working wikiped. Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 18:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Davison Associates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davison Associates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Edcolins ( talk) 19:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I am in the process of going through a few sources regarding the subject of Falun Gong. I hope to expand and improve the quality of the content based on those sources starting, I sincerely hope, later this week.
The primary concern I have regarding the subject is, unfortunately, the fact that few if any people who know much about the subject or are in any way interested in it would really qualify as neutral. Li has told FG practitioners that "fa"-rectification, which, basically, means activism and evangelism to a degree, is the only way people of this era have a chance of achieving "consummation." So, not a lot of neutrality there. Some sources indicate that about 40% of the Chinese diaspora community agree with the PRC that Falun Gong is an evil cult, and, based on what I've seen about this content earlier, that includes a lot of those editors interested in the topic. So, not much neutrality there, either. And, unfortunately, the amount of academic content relating to the topic is a lot less than I would like, even if I can understand why that would be the case.
Right now, I think that JN466, myself, and, maybe, Vassayana, might be some of the only editors actively dealing with the topic who aren't in one of the two groups above. You have been involved in some similar content relating to the LaRouche movement, and I think the group would very much benefit from the active involvement of another senior, neutral editor. If you would be interested in helping, or, even, maybe just answering some of the doltish questions I seem to be in the habit of asking, I would very much welcome it. John Carter ( talk) 21:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I realize that category talk pages are not the usual place for discussions, but I think this is the best place for this discussion. It covers all of the townships in Pennsylvania. There has been much discussion lately about how township names in Pennsylvania should be titled. Some go for X Township, Pennsylvania. Others want X Township, Y County, Pennsylvania. Of course there are many Washington Townships in Pennsylvania so they and others like it will need to include the county name in the title. The townships in question are the unique ones like Horton Township and Plunketts Creek Township. I think it is best to limit this discussion to Pennsylvania. If other wikiprojects want to do it differently that is fine. The status of townships vary greatly from state to state.
Hello. You have
a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.
You are mentioned in a discussion here: [5] Writegeist ( talk) 01:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: RFC/U [6] "I see you're adding a lot of 'evidence' that was already reviewed by the ArbCom in the June 2010 TM case, especially related to COI. Is it your intention that we review all of the COI evidence that was already covered in that case? That seems like it would be unproductive, but if that's where you want to go with it I'll start preparing evidence in reply. Will Beback| 06:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)"
Keithbob, I'm certainly not trying to intimidate you. I am trying to tell you that opening cans of worms is sometimes unhelpful in dispute resolution. Since you seem intent on following your path I'll make you a deal. I'll grant permission to publicly post my private email to you if you will give complete and honest answers to the same three questions that user:NuclearWarfare has posted on the talk pages of user:TimidGuy and user:Littleolive oil: [7]
Let's settle this COI issue for good. User:Will Beback 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Will Beback please stop messing with Tucker Smith. Obviously Your Pa. born Smith is dead. He impostered the actor. As well as any bar owner posing as him. Tucker is handsom and healthy in the O.C. Write to us, Tucker Smith and I at; [email protected] or call me; 949-467-0407. Please have the respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugettelaine ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)