User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive10

User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive1
User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive2
User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive3
User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive4
User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive5 July 2005
User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive6 August 2005
User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive7 September 2005
User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive8 October 2005
User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive9 November 2005
User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive10 December 2005

Ken Mehlman / Barbara Mikulski

Transfered to talk:Ken Mehlman --Asbl 21:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Til later

Well looks like we both might get railroaded. Have a good vaction til I get back. nobs 01:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate info...

Appreciate the info. Got one of those wireless keyboards, batts. are a problem.Martial Law 03:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the troll "CantStandYa"

Is in need of a fact check and a face slap on List of Eagle Scouts and anything related to Jack Murtha.

Please note this is from an anonymous and profane vandal. Also has a rotating anonymyzer to conceal his identity.CantStandYa 04:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Thank you for correcting my Charles Murray quotation. Is blockquote the preferred style? Are there other formatting conventions I need to know?

Your newbie friend, Elabro 17:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible offensive question

71.28.253.197 made the offensive insinuation of me being a racist. Told this person that I am NO racist. Maybe he/she is a vandal, maybe a newbie. Could'nt find much on this person. Is this vandalisim or someone curious ? Do'nt want to bite a newbie, nor go after someone on insufficient evidence either.Martial Law 00:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that you aren't, you can forget it unless he comes back again. -Willmcw 00:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My keypad is acting up, may explain a few things.Martial Law 00:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checked this User's contribs. It appears he or she may have a history of sorts already.Martial Law 01:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Hughes edit

Thank you for the welcome.

I don't understand the comment related to my edit of the Howard Hughes page. My initial edit merely changed the birthplace from Houston, Texas to Humble, Texas.

His date of birth on wikipedia was originally September 24, 1905. The page was later changed by someone else to reflect a Christmas Eve date of birth. I did not see any supporting evidence regarding this alteration. It has never been proven, since Hughes lacks a birth certificate, that he was born on December 24. In fact, the only document supporting his birth date, resides in his baptismal record at Keokuk, Iowa, which indicates that Hughes was born on September 24, 1905.

I never stated he was born in Keokuk, Iowa, only that he was baptised there, in support of my change. I don't understand why my edit to restore the birthdate to September 24 (which was the date originally) requires me to provide proof, while the change to December 24 does not require the proof!!

The following are various websites which reference Hughes' birthdate as September 24 (There are too many to list all):
http://www.flyingclippers.com/postflight/howardhughes.html
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Howard+Hughes&lastnode_id=17677
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/Ho/Howard+Hughes.html
http://www.filmbug.com/db/344547
"Howard Hughes: The Secret Life" by Charles Higham, ISBN: 0312329970
From http://www.theage.com.au/news/Film/The-high-flyer/2005/01/28/1106415746450.html :

Howard Hughes, according to his own account, was born in Houston, Texas, on December 24, 1905. The vaguely biblical feel of the date was probably intentional, because it wasn't true. Baptismal records show he was actually born in September of that year in a small Texan town called, ironically, Humble

Plus, all the archives from the previous years the birthdate has been September 24:
http://howard-hughes.wikiverse.org/
http://www.encyclopedia-online.info/Howard_Hughes

Not to mention, the commemorating of Howard Hughes by releasing the DVD "The Aviator" on his 100th year anniversary, September 24, 2005.

"Hughes, The private diaries, memos and letters" by Richard Hack, page 21. The book's source is page 120/121 of the baptismal record at the Saint John's Episcopal Church, it reads:
Howard Robard Hughes Jr.
Born: September 24th, 1905
Baptised: October 7th, 1906
Parents: Howard R. and Allene Hughes
Witnesses: Mrs. W.B. Sharp and Rev. R.C. McIlwain

Also, on page 22 it notes that his aunt Annette signed a notarized replacement birth certificate in 1941 that had December 24th, 1905 listed as his birthdate. This date was the date carved on his gravestone.

-Scott 63.198.220.4 07:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would it..............

Would it be vandalsim to state in the article:Immigration Reduction that one reason to reduce, even halt immigration is to prevent the spread of contagion, such as the Bird Flu,TB,AIDS,parasite control ? Also why is my designation "Martial Law" being taken offline ? This mess could cause ME to be accused of being a sockpuppet. Is HTML Tidy acting up again ?Martial Law 08:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi chum

Was wondering if you could take a look at Talk:Lothrop Stoddard when you get a chance. I'm having some difficulties with someone who I think is a little confused and I'm not eager to break 3RR. --Fastfission 18:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmotheism

Hi Will. Remember the message you once left on my talk page. Looks like User:Anon has copied what you typed before, altered it a little, and saved it in Talk:White supremacy were we are discussing the Cosmotheism issue. What do think of that? Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 22:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brainwashing and Mind Control

Please take part at the merge vote under Talk:Mind control#Merge vote --Irmgard 16:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style

Will, since you have previously expressed an opinion about the issue of what the Manual of Style has to say about links in the title, I'd like to invite you to talk a look at the further discussion that I have had with User:E Pluribus Anthony at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Links_in_the_title.

I disagree with the "compromise position", which I think reflects only his desire to water down this rule. I would like to hear your view. If you and others are happy with the compromise, then so be it, I will leave it alone. If not, then let's change it back. Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should try to be consistent as much as possible, but that some flexibility is inherent in all Wikipedia "rules". Since it is inherent, it doesn't need to be made explicit. That said, I couldn't see a problem with the current version, but I'm not sure what the changes have been or where the current consensus is. I'll keep an eye on it and see how I can contribute. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the flexibility should be inherent, and need not be explicit. It currently reads,

As a general rule, you should not put links in the title, although this may be acceptable with complex titles or verbose leads, such as those concerning multiple concepts.

I would amend it to read:

As a general rule, you should not put links in the title.

Adding in what "may be acceptable", I fear will give carte blanche to those, like E Pluribus Anthony, who would rather scrap this rule altogether. Ground Zero | t 21:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mehlman saying "Southern Strategy"

Why did you revert my edits compare versions here? I fully explained in the discussion page why I reworded it. --Asbl 22:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-communism

yes, i include a lot of entry in this new category. KKK is included as a racist organization that shares a general ideology, i.e. "anti-communism". We can argue about the relevance of this inclusion, but I think anti-communism characterize many far-rights organizations that can be, as such, included in this category. Should it be in a sub-category inside the "anti-communism" category (as in "Neo-Nazis organizations"?) Maybe, but i generally think - am I wrong? - that all articles in a sub-category should be listed in the category page as articles, as a quick-wiki reading means you're probably not going to look at each little sub-sub-categories (beside that with hyperlinks, this sub-sub-sub way of looking at categories is wrong, since it can also go horizontally). Maybe this new category will get too big - however, entries need to be categorized a lot if you want the index to work, and i don't really understand why a category could list too many articles, if those articles are indeed included with good reason in it. Is it the case for KKK? I think so, don't you? Of course, I could have gathered all this entry in an already existing "Cold War" category, but it doesn't sound exactly the same (as anti-communism, as an ideology or group, continues to exist today).

Another reason having articles only in sub-cat is bad: you want to have a quick, world-view on anti-communism. If on it the "US history of anti-communism" appears only in a sub-cat (which exist), then McCarthy won't even appear on this anti-communist list of articles...

User:Kaliz (by the way, if you want to have a look at Traditional Catholics page, you're in for a laugh...

Sockwhacker Barnstar

Awarded in recognition of diligent attention to duty during the LottClone Wars of 2005

Gzuckier 20:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cosmotheism

Replied on my talk page. (Sorry about the delay.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medcom

Hey! I'd love to have you aboard (Slim too, I've been poking her). For a template see WP:MC/S. Leave me a note when you post, as the only page I'm checking right now is my talk. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Harbor comments

WILLMCW:

I put comments to your request on the discussion page for Attack on Pearl Harbor.

147.240.236.9 22:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome message

Thank you for the attentive message. I look forward to contributing! BrownPigeon 00:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will!

Two new users: User:BrownPigeon and User:Brown Pigeon. I can't be bothered to keep them straight. For the record, neither is me. On the page of one is a notice that it may be a sock puppet of me. There is also discussion designed to make it look like "one is Jonah, imitating the other one." My suspicion is that they are one and the same guy, being confusing again. Someone named "Brown Pigeon" left his third or fourth call on my home phone last night as well. This started in late August.

It seems logical to keep records of these things. Sojambi Pinola 15:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, User:Brown Pigeon has been vandalizing my user page and claiming I'm a sock puppet. Which I am neither. I am a former user involved in the debate about Biff Rose and decided to use a new user name to avoid my other edits being vandalized by user:Jonah Ayers. I'm sure you can figure out which user I am if you care to. I do find it alarming that someone is making crank phone calls to harrass other Wikipedia users. Especially in my name. BrownPigeon 16:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apichatpong Weerasethakul

Thanks for the note WILLMCW - should already be in the article on Weerasethakul. I've tried to be careful with all contributions to the page (the List Of Gay And Lesbian Individuals); in Weerasethakul's case it's also backed up by an interview in 'Cineaste,' with that reference cited on his page as well. I'll double check his page; unless someone's done some snipping very, very recently, the mention should already be in there. Thanks for getting in touch however, and for keeping a close watch on the page, it could easily get out of control.

I haven't made a huge number of contributions yet here; feel free to look the other articles over and offer some pointers if you have the time or inclination to do so. Some of the articles I've contributed to (in particular) need a lot of work, and I haven't gotten around to any sort of clean-up efforts yet.

hello Willmcw

I can't seem to add anything to wikipedia today have I been blocked?

grazon 02:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Adminship ?

How would you like to be a Admin. ?Martial Law 03:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I thought I already was. -Willmcw 10:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did'nt know this.Martial Law 23:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biff Rose

The situation on this article seems to be going downhill. I just banned two suspected sockpuppets of user:Sojambi Pinola created to avoid 3RR; see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Sojambi Pinola. As you seem to be more involved in this, I'd appreciate your help in figuring out this mess. There seem to be two parties to this dispute, and neither of them is innocent. Feel free to add or remove socks to the category; I'd rather avoid protecting the article if I can. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 23:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I figured you'd be familiar with the situation. Feel free to change the relevant ban messages and rename the category, as you see fit. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 23:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

anon edits of Daryn Kagan

Some anonymous editor (whose IP address keeps changing) keeps re-adding the spurious info about her "nadir". I see you reverted it once and I did twice. This time he is adding a vague reference to some subscription site called tvspy.com --rogerd 01:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is at it again. Since I have now reverted it 3 times, I can't do it again. --rogerd 20:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also maxxed-out for the time being. Do you want to ask for page protection? -Willmcw 20:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Thanks --rogerd 21:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption Is Not Always Negative

Thanks for the comment, but I am here to right the world's wrongs. That is who I am and what I'm all about. I'll use whatever sources I can find to make sure others know the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bumpusmills1 (talk • contribs) 15:58, December 11, 2005 (UTC)

If you don't convey your message in a manner that is appropriate to the medium it will simply be discarded or ignored. You have to tailor your style to fit your audience. In this case you are working on an encylcopedia. Unencyclopedic comments won't be accepted. On the other hand, there is a great need for editors from all points of view. Please take the time to learn how things are done around here - read the Wikipedia:Five Pillars and read other articles to see how they are worded. It'd be great if you could contribute positively. -Willmcw 21:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sumner

Thanks for your kind words. I personally admire Sumner, and it's a shame that his biography had to be 90 percent 1911 for so long. Warmest regard --Neutrality^talk 22:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyman G. Rickover

Thanks for stopping by, but I don't think that the TMI allegations (re. Carter's mods under Rickover's influence) to post-TMI studies is well-sourced, if at all. That's why it was previously deleted. Suggest you reconsider that addition.

On the other hand, good luck with the CEE info. I had developed & hopefully improved that section, but someone keeps deleting it...apparently for some personal/emotional reasons. I gave up after the 3rd deletion or so.

--AustinKnight 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I noticed that you were in the edits of two seemingly random of my own edits. As I've had some trouble with an individual online, and now here at Wikipedia, I have to ask you, out of caution, how you seemed to find your way onto two of my edits. It would be incredible if this were just coincidence, as neither topic related to the other. Care to explain yourself? Perhaps I have found my stalker? Luckily with the attention abounding about the Wikipedia process I feel a bit more safe from this kind of thing.Mary Hope

I edit lots of articles. Can you tell me which ones you are asking about? Thanks, -Willmcw 01:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mellow

Maybe I haven't been mellow enough. I suppose I should remove that from my user page, because it's just going to be a source of disagreements about what is "carping". I should have known that from the outset, but I was hoping I'd be uncontroversial enough that it wouldn't be an issue. Everyking 09:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dominick

I request assistance with user Dominick, who has been stalking me, sabotaging my work. The animus stems from a dispute concerning the entry Traditionalist Catholics, which is about to go into mediation. Meanwhile, Dominick is following me around removing 100% relevant, on-topic, informative links to various pages of a traditional Catholic site he does not like (he is a conservative Catholic posing as a traditional one) -- and he has been doing this repeatedly. A few examples:

Removed a link to the page "Religious Life" http://www.fisheaters DOT com/religiouslife.html from the entry "Nuns."
Removed a link to a page on Twelfthnight http://www.fisheaters DOT com/epiphanyeve.html from an entry called "Twelfth Night".
Removed link to Epiphany customs http://www.fisheaters DOT com/customschristmas8.html from the entry "Epiphany."
Removed another link to the page called "Religious Life" from the entry "Religious Order."
Removed link to site's index page http://www.fisheaters DOT com from the entry "Catholicism"
Removed link to the site's index page from the entry "Apologetics"
Removed link to page on the Feast of St. Anthony DOT com/customstimeafterpentecoststa.html from the entry "Anthony of Padua."
Removed link to page on the Feast of St. Brigid DOT com/customstimeafterepiphany2a.html from the entry "Brigid of Ireland."
Removed link to page called "Votive Offerings" DOT com/votiveofferings.html from the entry "Ex-voto."
Removed link to page on the Day of the Dead DOT com/customstimeafterpentecost12ac.html from an entry "Day of the Dead."
Removed a link to a page on Catholic funerals DOT com/funerals.html from an entry called "Requiem."
Removed link to a screen capture of EWTN's priests calling the Novus Ordo a "complete fabrication" DOT com/ewtnedit.html from the entry "Novus Ordo Missae."
Removed a link to Jewish-Christian relations section DOT com/jcintro.html from the entry "Jewish-Christian Reconciliation."
Removed link to page summarizing Catholic doctrines about Mary DOT com/mary.html from a page called "Immaculate Conception"

He summarizes the above links as "link spam" or "POV," and has been accusatory in summaries, basically slandering me and the website I link to which he hates.

I don't necessarily want the guy banned, but I want him to stop undoing my work, removing perfectly relevant links, and slandering me and the website in question. I want him far away from me. Used2BAnonymous 19:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collablorative editing project, and we don't get to pick and choose our collaborators. Regarding your links, they all appear to be to the same website. That's a red-flag. I suggest you seek mediation. -Willmcw 19:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are to the same site, but to different pages -- each page being perfectly relevant to the entry in question. But, in any case, I will be going into mediation with Dominick over the Traditionalist Catholic entry, so we'll see how it goes, I reckon. Thanks for reading. Used2BAnonymous 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann's RfA

Hi, Willmcw! I want to thank you for voting to support me in my RfA. I know I'm very late thanking you, but I've been a bit caught up with college work. I hope I'll live up to the expectations of those who voted for me. I look forward to working with you as a fellow admin. Thanks again. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radicalsubversiv2

No, it's not me, and given the content of some of the edits, I think it's quite likely that it's a sock of Reithy or Chuck. RadicalSubversiv E 01:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virago

Have you asked slrubenstein for input on whether this is real or not? Steve's an anthropologist, he may be a good one to ask. Guettarda 13:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, I've posted him a note. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virago

Look at the article now, and read my explanation on the talk page, and let me know what you think. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy to oblige. But let's keep an eye on it and see if any POV warriors return. And if you discover anything that gives you more insight into what happened to make it such an awful article, please share it with me, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jenkins (Cut & paste)

My apologies for cutting & pasting the Michael Jenkins article. I was unware of the "Move" tab until you pointed it out to me. It won't happen again. Thanks! Amchow78 22:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wright (Cut & paste)

In a related note, prior to cutting & pasting the Michael Jenkins article, I also did the same to the Tom Wright article. I cut the original Tom Wright article and pasted it into a newly created "Tom Wright (Theologian)" article ... and in the process, changed the original article into a redirect to the "Tom Wright (Disambiguation)" page. If you could also fix that up as well, that would be great. That said, another apology for making your wikipedia life harder ... and I stress again, this will not happen again! Amchow78 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Wow, what a few words can do on this site. Thank you for your support. It looks like the comment has been retracted. Got a nice letter from both parties. I'm going to be plucking a few gray hairs after all of this. - Lucky 6.9 23:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith

I replied to your comments, hopefully you like my suggestion :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help on the TM page

) The page is a mess..... and we have a new editor who is posting his comments about the article and his personal opinion about the TM organization. Myself and a few others have taken his comments out, however, he keeps reverting them.

I started a RfC user conduct: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/149.152.216.49&action=edit

And I think you are an admin, any advice or help would be appreciated.

SAT! Sethie 21:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Can the article: The Legend of Boggy Creek be examined for any problems ?Martial Law 23:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The DVD was titled in "This Format" in the DVD and as was the original movie. Corrected some errors, any more of them ?Martial Law 00:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just did.Martial Law 00:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does the article look to you ?Martial Law 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done the other matter, how do I delete the other matter ?Martial Law 02:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I had done that. Must be a bug.Martial Law 04:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is some kind of bug going on. Placed 4 spaces after each "." and each ",", then when I look @ the article, it looks like nothing has been done. You "see this" in the Edit box, and when you save the edit, you "seethis" in the saved article. What is going on ?!Martial Law 04:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate this help. Hope this has'nt inconvienced you.Martial Law 05:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Texarkana, AR/TX is one town that is on a state line, like Kansas City is in both MO. and in KA. Is this what you had in mind ?Martial Law 05:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got it.Martial Law 05:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC):)[reply]

Texarkana, Arkansas/Texas is relevent to the article. It tells where the movie's creator came from.Martial Law 05:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC) :-) :)[reply]

Can you indicate ? I am unfamiliar w/ some of these, such a deletion and other formatting.Martial Law 05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC) :))[reply]

I have a copy of this matter and it is titled: The Legend of Boggy Creek. also have two media websites on my copy. Want them as well ? If, so, they are:Uvaco homepage and Entermagic Homepage.Martial Law 05:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now how is it doing ?Martial Law 11:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What of " No.# 3", and how is this comming along ?Martial Law 22:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The title above this one, want it fixed, or will it be vandalisim ?Martial Law 22:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Had seen suggestion, acted on it.Martial Law 22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heading ?Martial Law 01:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) :- )[reply]

Had been hit by a vandal, so I placed my user page and talk page on a Admin.'s watchlist. Hope this has'nt caused any inconviences.Martial Law 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, how is the article looking to you ?Martial Law 05:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article status ?Martial Law 05:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What of non-internet sources, such as the book and the DVD itself ? Article status ? Too many ????s Martial Law 05:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just did'nt want to land into trouble, like inadvertantly posting material not suiting Wikipedia policies, just being careful.Martial Law 06:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC) :) :) :) :)[reply]

Do appreciate the help, your patience. Cheers.Martial Law 07:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

Yes I have. Where is the Admin.'s noticeboard ? I have a bug acting up that could cause me to be falsely accused of using sockpuppets.Martial Law 09:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate this info, honesty. By the way, most early "Alien Invasion" literature HAS Mars as the origin of the malevolent aliens, such as the famous War of the Worlds, while the newer literature, such as Independence Day has the bad guys originating someplace else. Again, do appreciate the help,patience, honesty. Cheers.Martial Law 21:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

In Mars Attacks, the UFOs were also weapons platforms used by the aliens as they destroyed everything, and these ships were similar to the ones featured in ''Earth vs The flying Saucers. Can I safely incl. this one(The latter title) in the UFOs in Fiction article ?Martial Law 22:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

Now how does the UFOs in Fiction article look to you ? Found a fictional work underway that is actually based on the Phoenix UFO Incident, and incl. this as well.Martial Law 23:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA

Willmcw, thanks for supporting my adminship bid - I'll do my best as an admin to help make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream! BD2412 T 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Please stop making lies about me and spreading them around Wikipedia. I never claimed to be Walter Block. I am a loyal follower of his just as I served Murray Rothbard. Please stop deleting my informative posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblacklarl (talk • contribs) 09:22, December 15, 2005

Theblackarl

Willmcw: I have reverted Theblackarl's vandalism of the Walter Block article twice today, and I thought I would confirm with you that this user's contributions to this article have amounted to content deletion which can be considered an exception to the WP:3RR, which states that the three-revert rule "does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism." Thanks Dick Clark 18:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change and Adminship

I have no problem admining a new account for your name change, but I can't de-admin the old account. I suggest you write to User:Angela (you can say I told you) because I think she can change your account over to a new user name. If not, she can do both the admining of your new account and the de-admin of the old. Cheers Cecropia 04:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you posted on User:Cognition's user page

The prohibition on using "fair use" images on user talk pages applies to every editor. -Willmcw

Out of interest, when did this policy come into effect? It means that I violated it at one point! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When? Er, uh, lemme see, I'm not sure. Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy says,

The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates ... or on user pages. [emphasis in the original]

The theory is that we can only use fair use when we are commenting on an image (etc) as part of an article. This may have come in during the summer. -Willmcw 10:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

self-reference

When you have a page about yourself on Wikipeida, (whether you wrote it or not) you have already are already making a self-reference. But Sabattini is notable in his own right. It is a service to the reader to make this clear by implicitly asking the question: This person is directly invovled in Wikipedia, so do you think (s)he is notable in their own right?

I also list his Wikipedia username because I am killing the live User; link and I want to make up for it somehow to the readers who wanted to click through to his Wikipedia user page. It is a cut/paste tha ocassionally will have to be done, but not very often.

If you have a better compromise, I am all ears.

Also, you might be amused by Special:Undelete/Notability

-- Fplay 14:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism

As you can all see, the user DickClarkMises has made numerous comments regarding me. I will not insult him here because I do not want to be kicked off of Wikipedia. Please just know that I see things very differently from him. Again, my name is Sean Christopher Marinara and I am a college student at Holy Cross. Dr. Block used to teach here, and I learned about him through that. My friends and I are all libertarians. We have personal information about Dr. Block that we learned from his former colleagues here at Holy Cross. When I tried to post this information, some users, including DickClark, deleted it. The information is 100% true. I ask that you please carefully consider the situation before making any decisions which might be considered rash. (unsigned comment by User:Theblacklarl)

Article II

How does the article UFOs in fiction look to you ? Someone made a article request.Martial Law 23:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Appreciate the info,patience. Did read it.CheersMartial Law 02:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC):)[reply]

By the way, you've been vandalised, or the complainant forgot to sign his complaint @ the bottom of this talk page.Martial Law 02:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got red links, how do I fix them ? the're valid links.Martial Law 00:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early science fiction had the aliens in UFOs invading Earth, while Modern Science fiction w/ the exception of the latest War of the Worlds, does not. The latest movie out, other than this is Signs and Sci-Fi Channel's Alien Siege. Both featuer UFOs, and ST:TOS had the Enterprise featured AS a UFO in the episode Tomorrow Is Yesterday. Signs feature UFOs as well as aliens who attempt to raid Earth to obtain food.The do NOT invade the planet, just raid it.Martial Law 06:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voltaire Network

Willmcw, I appreciate your reasons for reverting the edits by Rkevins82 in the external links in the "Center for Strategic and International Studies" article, especially considering the less-than-NPOV explanation he offered in the edit summary. The Voltaire Network page to which the artcle linked, however, is both poor in resarch quality and in composition-- besides making several assertions regarding the organization that it cannot support with even circumstantial evidence. It does not present a "significant point of view," and should be scrubbed from the article in this particular case. I am hesitant to do so, however, without first discussing it with you ALC Washington 02:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that editor removed the links from a couple of dozen articles. Of course that begs the question of how they got into all of those articles. In any case, I took a cursory look at the Voltaire Network articles. They appear to be sourced, though I haven't evaluated the quality of the sources. As for composition, I'm not sure that that's our concern. Can you provide more spcifics about their faults? -Willmcw 02:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

Why the hell are you accusing me of being blocked? I am not some user who has been blocked so watch the freaking accusations buddy.

Willmcw , who is this that is accusing you of this ? Should I have a Admin. look at this to assist you ?Martial Law 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MY investigations show a User:12.210.161.141 is the one who had used profanity and had made some sort of claim against you.Martial Law 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either he/she forgot to sign this, or did not want to sign this matter, but I found this in your "History" section.Martial Law 00:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a anon. account. I suspect that a sockpuppet is being used. I cannot prove this.Martial Law 00:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. I wouldn't worry about it too much, though it is inappropriate behavior. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Childlove movement

Why are you reverting me on the childlove movement article? I was reverting this edit, which was itself a revert to an older version with excessive external links and spelling errors. I also added {{dubious}}, because someone on the talk page was saying just that. So..? 24.224.153.40 22:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion did far more than fix spelling errors. If you want to fix the spelling then I won't revert that. If you want to make major changes or turn the article into a linkfarm then you'll need to discuss that on the talk page. I'd respond on your own talk page, but you've developed a habit of selectively removing posts from there. -Willmcw 23:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Wikipedia into a linkfarm, hmm? I assume you must have misunderstood something. I wasn't fixing anything. 70.182.219.158 reverted to an earlier version of the article, specifically, he reverted back to an old edit I made to the article ([1]). Presumably, this was done as a clear-cut to restore the external links which you choose to delete here. After 70.182.219.158's revert, user:The Land made an edit removing some of the external links that 70.182.219.158 restored, but saving the clear-cut. I reverted 70.182.219.158's clear-cut, and the edit The Land made to it after that, and added a dubious template. The version which I reverted to contained the links you chose to stay in the first place.[2] I hope it seems clear where your comments are flawed now.

As for your last attack, please elaborate. I do not remove comments from my talk page except to place them in /archive, after they are obsolete. 24.224.153.40 23:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your page or a shared IP. It can't be both. -Willmcw 23:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The archived comments were addressed to me. 24.224.153.40 23:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were addressed to 24.224.153.40. Unless there is only a single person who uses that IP address, then it is addressed to the IP address. If you don't give other editors a fixed manner to refer to you they can only address the [shared] account of the IP, and we have no way of knowing whether you are the person we are addresing. -Willmcw 23:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the template notice to be more accurate, or at least more specific. I'll try to edit Wikipedia using the username "Paroxysm" as of now and forword. Paroxysm 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -Willmcw 01:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willmcw, please explain which parts of the original reversion you disagree with so I can revert 70.182.219.158 without the risk instigating more of a revert war. Paroxysm 02:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The parts which weren't spelling corrections and source additions. Please discuss your changes on the talk page. -Willmcw 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willmcw, please check out "Professor Von Pie"'s manners and whatnot in the talk page of the Ricky Martin entry. Not only are his claims preposterous, but he's downright rude and going against Wiki's policy and guidelines; at least, that's what I see. -Elp gr 06:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Austerity

Here is a small selection ([3][4][5][6][7][8]) from the over 20 million references to "physical economy" on Google where there is no connection whatsoever to LaRouche. Willmcw, despite the extraordinary and inexplicable leniency shown to you by the ArbCom in your recent case, I ask that you desist from your highly unproductive harassment. --HK 14:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least several of those sources use "physical economy" as an alternative to the internet ecomony. That is clearly not the meaning that you were using. Speaking of Google, what are the first entries that you get for "physical economy"? Yep, all LaRouche. -Willmcw 19:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude case. Raul654 21:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoliberalism

I had to stop by and say how impressed I've been to see your diligent scholarship in Paleoliberalism. I know you'd (rightly) nominated it for deletion, which failed, but now you're executing a "save" with your hard work. That shows not only good editing but also good sportsmanship, if the term may be applied. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia; they're appreciated. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have to say, I find it weird that the people who wrote the version I nominated for deletion have not been forthcoming with any citations to back up what they wrote. Surely they got this all from somewhere. I mean, you don't just randomly say that a term was coined by a particular individual. I went into this expecting, OK, I'll probably be able to cite their stuff from something like Reason magazine, and then I'm finding that even Reason doesn't use the term that way! -- Jmabel | Talk 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

I'll always support you. You are one of our better admins. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Anne Linnet

The article is just a stub. I might expand it, but it would be weird to only mention her sexual orientation until there's a real biography there. I did provide an external reference tho. (Entheta 22:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

3RR

Thanks for the compliment. But, don't me and the other guy both fall under this rule? And, isn't it technically vandalism if he's removing correct information? Vulturell 22:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, no. See Wikipedia:vandalism. -Willmcw 22:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, what would you propose as a solution? Me and him are most certainly spamming the discussion pages with this endless talk, and all he seems to be doing is making accusations instead of responding. Vulturell 23:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DR. A common step would be to make a request for comments from other editors. -Willmcw 23:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will, do you forgive me? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 06:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is prety simple. It is not vandalism. I amusing methodology and verbiage used by the US census and contemporary social scientists in the US. I am using the techniques usied in Italian Americans. I was responding to user above removing the designation category Greek Americans from someone with a dirct quote who has Greek ancestry as outlined by the US census, and who has self nominated in quotes, who specifically asked. The other other in question, removed this desingation multiple times based on his defintion, which is at variance with the U S census (and this is an american, and more to the point the peson's own on the record quoted self nomination.) he seems to be running into problems with other uses on ths issue elsewhere.DaveHM 08:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So how are you going to resolve the dispute? Is there a way to accomodate both viewpoints? -Willmcw 09:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page List of Italian-Americans was in the minority with its lack of details as to the persons' specific Italian background. This has now been changed and adjusted. Vulturell 18:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

andrew cohen

I note that you have reverted my changes again with no discussion. I don't wish to start an edit war but it would be polite for you to set out your thinking on this matter in an ongoing conversation instead of just changing it again. Go on, convince me that Falk has any merit whatsoever for inclusion.

Nofalk

RfAr for AustinKnight

Your input would be appreciated.[9]Cognos 14:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thought for the day

<Yawn> --AustinKnight 18:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your insight. -Willmcw 23:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UFOs

Yes, it is true that most UFO related fiction has aliens invading this planet, either overtly, like in War of the Worlds,Independence Day or covertly, as in the old TV show The Invaders, X-Files".Martial Law 00:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR - personal attacks

Hello again, Maybe you can help. User:216.175.114.219 has once again started deleting items from the Biff Rose talk page and has been making aggressive personal threats to random users who revert his edits. Check out his edit history. He has also reverted the edits at least 4 times in a 24 hour period. I know this is getting tiresome, and I'm tempted to just let his edits fly, perhaps what he craves is attention. Marcuse 15:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked that account and 216.175.115.53 for 3RR violations. We really should move forward with getting the editor banned. It is obviously just one persos causing all of this trouble. -Willmcw 17:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year - Guettarda 15:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racist does not necessarily equal White supremacist.

Oops. Hit enter too quickly, making a quick edit...

A white supremacist is someone who wants to rule over others... A white nationalist is a racist who wants a homeland for people of their own ideology / race. The two are not the same thing... and adding white supremacist into Council of Conservative Citizens amounts to not keeping a NPOV. Other sources may label them as white supremacists but does that really mean they are? Rchamberlain 20:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied your comment to Talk:Council of Conservative Citizens and will respond there. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch

Yes. I'm protecting, but it's returning as unprotected. I've blocked the account to stop more of these edits. I'm also going into the history to remove them, unless you would like me not to do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see the user name was blocked, but then someone added a 48-hour block, and the shorter block takes precedence, so in fact he was free to edit. The talk page remains a problem as you said, and I can't get it protected. I had this problem once before with a page where I had to get another editor to do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I should try reading sometime, though I do wish people would stop changing things. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've got that right. Why, I remember the good old days, when we edited Wikipedia long hand. -Willmcw 00:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! You're just a young 'un. I remember hacking policy pages out of solid stone. That stuff should be gone from the history, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biff Rose

Don't forget to put the sprotected tag on the article when you protect it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -Sojambi Pinola 05:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mootstormfront

Hey Will, I would like you to take a look at this. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 03:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits style etc.

Did I do them wrong? Ithought I was formatting them correctly according to wiki style.Master of edits

- I see your point. I was up, and I ran into a few articles that just looked like crap, and so I wracked my brain for ones that might fit the similar structures, and also may have been ignored, and went at them, I caught the up late and can't get back to sleep blues, and probably was a bit overzealous in my usage of headings... But better to err in the land of the over structured than the not structured at all. Anyhow, Merry Christmas. Master of edits 18:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

John Lott

Your attention is requested at John Lott. Sockpuppetry Reigns. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willmcw, I changed it to full protection. Semi protection is only for vandalism. It's not for edit wars. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Igor Zeiger

Hi Will.

Thank you very much for welcoming me at Wikipedia. I hope I'll be able to be useful for community with sharing my knowledge.

I am still not very sure of how to use this talk system. Hence, I want to inform you about Gian Gastone's article you ahve concern about. I edit'ed the talk you've started for this article about the source of the material and I hope the information I've provided is quite enough. Please, inform me in case you require some additional clarifications.

Best Regards Igor

Why did you delete my addition to Antiwar.com article?

[Note protest over removal lodged on this article's Talk page]

I'm wondering what compelled you to take out what I wrote. (Your note says something about the material being "POV", but that's it.) I think what I added is anything but "POV". I wrote that a significant amount of Antiwar.com's content is news from the international press as opposed to opinion, which is true; I also wrote that the site is frequently updated, which is also true. In fact, I even added a non-POV statement that the site would be useful to people interested in the topics it covers regardless of their political beliefs, which I also believe is true. So what's your beef with this? Please explain. --ILike2BeAnonymous 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at talk:Antiwar.com. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my phone number as someone's user name

On 00:48, 27 December 2005, someone posted an innucuous revision on the Biff Rose page...using a new username consisting of my home phone number beginning with 718. This is serious. This is blatant stalker behavior and an invasion of my privacy. It is probably illegal as well. I would like it hidden from public view, yet kept or at least witnessed for the sake of future prosecution of the parties involved. Is that possible? thank you. --Sojambi Pinola 07:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What....

What is the protocol to become a Administrator ? Martial Law 21:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I had asked is that I'm trying to prevent a Edit War, and seek info on this posting. Cheers.Martial Law 21:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

Appreciate the info. IF I did end up as a sysop, my Law Enforcement heritage forbids me from abusing power. I'd be somewhere between the "liberal bleeding heart judge" and Judge Parker, The Hanging Judge, who once (allegedly) fined a executed criminal nearly $65.00 for some minor crime.

Again, apperciate the info. Martial Law 03:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC) :-)[reply]

IF I do run, and get the Admin position, I hope there will be people like you that can help me. Martial Law 23:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Cooke

Hi there. I was wondering why you'd reverted a couple of edits on the Alistair Cooke article with the summary "rv trolls". I can't see anything particularly troll-like in the edits, but didn't want to revert your reversion without checking. Cheers. --Whouk (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that the edits were the additions of headings using improper capitalizations, which I'd previously corrected user:Master of edits about. Similar edits have been made to numerous articles. On closer investigation, it appears that the editors were sock puppetes of user:Jonah Ayers and the edits were simply intended to build up an edit history. The edits themselves are fairly harmless and you can reinstate them if you wish, but if you do please correct the caps. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. --Whouk (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fromm

Thanks for cleaning up Talk:Paul Fromm and similar pages. I apologize for inadvertently deleting your comments. I think I'd probably hit the "edit" button while viewing a non-current revision. I realized this was probably the case shortly after my revision. CJCurrie 00:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judenhass

Willmcw, has been adding "Judenhass" as an example of a "political epithet" on List of political epithets. Based on the Talk: page comments, it seems pretty clear to me that it's just an example of WP:POINT, but I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look as well. Cheers, Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check request - User:Jonah Ayers

In connection to the incidents reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jonah Ayers, I am requesting a sock check to confirm whether these accounts use the same IP addresses.

Some of these haven't been used in months, so I understand that they might not show up. Let me know if this is request isn't made correctly, or if I should ask another ArbCom member. Thanks for this and all you do. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are his sockpuppets. He also created many more accounts. Fred Bauder 05:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will, where'd your page go? Hey, I received another nomination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_(third_nomination)! Surprised you didn't show up. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 15:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbard article

Will, I am headed out of town here shortly for New Year's Eve, so don't think that I am ignoring your suggestion re: the SPLC criticism of Rothbard. I'll be back in the saddle on 3 January or so. Happy New Year! Dick Clark 23:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NAMBLA/LGBT dispute

Hello. I have been trying very patiently to discuss the issue of whether NAMBLA is a "gay group" so that we might arrive at a consensus on whether it belongs in that wiki category. For months you were aware that the article for NAMBLA was a part of the category, and what complaints you raised you dropped, presumably because you understood that they were illegitimate. Now, for some reason, after other users have expressed reservations, you have apparently decided to jump on the bandwagon in order to force the issue once again. This makes it difficult for me to assume good faith regarding this matter.

The question you must answer is a simple one, if you expect me or any other wikipedian to accept your attempts to remove NAMBLA from the LGBT category: how can you claim that a group, whose primary aim is to end the oppression of relationships which involve two people of the same sex, is not a "gay" organization? How can you remove NAMBLA from the categories list and claim that the categorization is unsourced, when categories on wikipedia do not require "sources" -- but only the use of common sense? (Name me one category list on WP that refers to sources.) It is, after all, common sense that a group that focuses on "man/boy" love is homosexual/gay in its constitution. I will continue to include NAMBLA in the LGBT category. If necessary, I will submit this dispute through the arbitration process. In the end, the side with the backing of common sense will triumph. So I would recommend you make life easier on me and you both, and stop fiddling with the article's categorization. Corax 04:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.

And to make an end is to make a beginning.

T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"

Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willow! Where ya' been? Don't let 'em get ya' down! NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 05:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]