User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive5

• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive1
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive2
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive3
• User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive4

Re congratulations

Hello:

Yes, you are correct that I have graduated. I am currently studying for the state bar exam at the end of July, which is why I have not been making many edits recently. After the bar there are several articles which I am looking forward to cleaning up (starting with the mess in Contract and in Tort).

--Coolcaesar 1 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your supportive vote on my RfA. It was much appreciated. And you're right about violists; I haven't met many I haven't liked ;)! Thanks a lot! Gratefully, Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} July 1, 2005 01:12 (UTC)

Caption

Thank you for adding a remarkable caption to the photo taken from Islip Saddle. I think there are still many articles can be added for the magnificent San Gabriel Mountains i.e. Mount Baden Powell and Pine Mountain. Moreover, I will add a photo for Santa Monica Mountains tonite since I know you will add a fabulous caption for me. Besides, I owe a long due gratitude for you support to keep the UCLA snow photo, thanks! Geographer July 1, 2005 05:30 (UTC)

Pine Mountain? Which one? Neither seems especially notable. Mt Lowe, Mt Waterman, there are some other noteworthy peaks that need attention. We still need to do an article on the Verdugo Mountains. Anyway, thanks for all of your contributions. (and watch out for the anti-snow faction - they may be back in the late fall, using all kinds of methods to remove snow: shovels, salt, even snowplows! They'll stop at nothing.) Cheers, -Willmcw July 1, 2005 20:56 (UTC)

User Wyss and the article on Nick Adams

Could I possibly ask you to have a further look at the Talk:Nick Adams page? As a reply to your comment on this page, User:Wyss has written, "You clearly haven't read that link yourself. Why didn't you bother to check it? Maybe because you're so busy as a new Wikipedia:Admin?" This sounds very similar to flamings by User:Ted Wilkes. See, for instance, his reply to administrator User:Mel Etitis on his talk page: "Yet again I have to request that you read facts and know what you are talking about before commenting. I suggest, since this matter is in the hands of Wikipedia:Mediator Ed Poor, that it might be best for you to refrain from further comments and not interfere in the process." See also this user's attempts at silencing me by repeatedly deleting my posts. Why are users Wyss and Ted Wilkes so keenly interested to suppress every reference that Nick Adams was gay? See also Natalie Wood and Talk:Natalie Wood where the same information taken from a current biography has been deleted by user Wyss. 80.141.243.13 1 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

I think User:Wyss has now violated the three reverts rule, as he has again deleted my contribution to the Natalie Wood page. What is your opinion? 80.141.178.103 3 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

Alternative Media Project

Hi, Willmcw.

Given the complexity of all the issues and articles involved, I've decided it would be better for me to stay out of it, sorry. If I encounter run across any blanking on his part, I will revert, but chasing after this guy looks like too much work. ;-) Cheers, func(talk) 2 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)

Beastmen

LOL!! Chip Berlet right next to the Queen (dope-pusher). I'm a little disappointed that we've been left out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Between her and the "Sleazy-looking Avocado fascist beast-man Peter Camejo, backed by pro-dope globalists such as George Soros, in support of the very same genocidal program as the Cheney-Bush regime." Avocado fascist? That's one for the record books. -Willmcw July 2, 2005 03:55 (UTC)

It seems to refer to the so-called Avocado Declaration, [1] which became avocado fascists. [2] Green on the outside, green on the inside, I think. File:Meh.gif SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 04:52 (UTC)

Is this lingo so common throughout the movement than everyone uses these terms? I mean, Lunatic Isaac Newton is not an epithet you hear everyday, and that's the mildest one in the bunch. Anyway, this is a very clear case of promoting LaRouche theories in unrelated articles. Further, the editor exhibits considerable familiarity with Wikipedia along with an similar interests to a banned editor. This editor's contributions have not been NPOV. I think there may be a violation of the ArbCom's HK decision, but I don't have time to pursue it right now. Cheers, -Willmcw July 2, 2005 05:11 (UTC)

I agree about the familiarity. When I last heard, David Gerard's check-user facility wasn't available under 1.5, so we may have to ask a developer to check, and they're very busy. Anyway, I'm reverting edits, and if he continues, I'm going to start protecting. I've also left a report here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cognition. He's objecting to the Bertrand Russell FAC on the grounds that it doesn't say Russell was evil. ;-p SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 05:34 (UTC)

More than just 'familiarity.' There is a strong similarity in style. If not the same user there may be a guidebook passing around - how to edit on Wiki. But the more likely explanation is that it is the same user. -Willmcw July 2, 2005 06:22 (UTC)

A little less controlled than that person, though it could be him on drugs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 06:23 (UTC)

Or more likely, off drugs. Whoever it is, his bizarre edits have gained the attention of many editors. That increased involvement may make it easier to handle similar situations in the future. See, it's all for the good. Cheers, -Willmcw July 3, 2005 06:01 (UTC)

Barnstar

You

For working around the clock to defend fascism and synarchism, I hereby award you the "rabid dog beast-man Barnstar." Keep up the bestial work. Cognition 2 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)

Congrats on adminship, Will! (I was 2nd, remember...) El_C 2 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

LOL! Will's looking particularly rabid tonight. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 08:10 (UTC)

Peer review

Hiya! Sorry if I didn't seem gentle enough in noting the bad link (I wasn't trying to be harsh), the single-subject anon has been trying to insert unverified gossip into that article for weeks. Peer-review when it comes to Hollywood people can happen through stuff like a good review in Variety or Billboard, the NYT or Guardian or whatever. The book he cites in this case is widely known as a downmarket tabloid book much invented from whole cloth. The same author's done other sloppy, made-up rip jobs including a bio on Errol Flynn. It doesn't qualify as a source, my use of the term peer review in dealing with this particular anon editor is apt IMHO. Thanks for being interested and we can always talk about it when you want! :) Wyss 2 July 2005 08:42 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm ready and willing to mediate, so let me know when you'd like to get started. Andre (talk) July 2, 2005 20:22 (UTC)

Anytime that you like. Thanks for volunteering. Cheers, -Willmcw July 2, 2005 20:27 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience thoughts

I've been rethinking Category:Pseudoscience along someone different grounds than the common objections. I posted my thoughts to the Wikipedia EN mailing list a few days ago. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. --Fastfission 2 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Formatting

Odd though it may seem, the HTML command <blockquote> is preferred for block quotes. I believe that may be partly due to the way that the right margin is handled, depending also on the CSS being used. Wikipedia:How to edit a page. I, too, had "corrected" pages by removing the HTML before being set straight. Thanks for helping out Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw July 3, 2005 01:53 (UTC)

Odd indeed. Well, thanks. Have you rolled me back yet? Shinobu 3 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

No. If you'd like to make any other edits go ahead. It's really just a small thing. The right margin on my CSS is ragged so it doesn't even show on my screen. I wouldn't have mentioned it but you seemed to have gone out of your way to make the change. Cheers, -Willmcw July 3, 2005 02:10 (UTC)

Mootstormfront

Hey Will. I've just started this new article about the website, MootStormfront, which is of course an anti-Stormfront discussion forum. I think you should check out Mootstormfront, and probably expand it a little bit more. Regards, --Gramaic 3 July 2005 08:32 (UTC)

Eugenicists

While various people have supported or discussed eugenics favorably, the only people who I would call "eugenicists" as the first entry in their biographies would be those who have practiced eugenics (Davenport), or major theorists (Galton). Folks like Fisher or Fletcher are supporters or minor theorists and their roles as eugenicists are secondary to other occupations. It's tricky because "eugenicist" includes both those who do it and those who just talk about it. What are your thoughts? Cheers, -Willmcw July 4, 2005 22:17 (UTC)

Good point and I agree. The latter can have eugenicist listed after their "primary" professions if any, or one can write "a supporter of eugenics" or something similar. Also, because of reports about the Nazi German's activities, a some notable eugenicists have tried to avoid having their names associated with eugenics. Regardless of what is the truth, labeling these people as eugenicists may bring dispute from others who are familiar with the controversy. I have not scrunized some articles to strickly in these regards; there are mistakes which need a NPOV.--AI 5 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)

Déja vu

C Colden (talk · contribs) did this a lot. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 5, 2005 07:41 (UTC)

Ah yes, like here [3]. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 08:13 (UTC)

And deleted some links about it here [4]. Actually, I wrote s/he did it a lot, but in fact it was only a couple of times now I look at the history. But I remember it was his/her big thing on various talk pages: that Duggan shouldn't be included anywhere in the encyclopedia, either on his own page or elsewhere. S/he called it a "hoax." SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 5, 2005 08:27 (UTC)

Mediation

There's a difference, will, between simply "looking over one's shoulder" and actively stalking. If you were checking my work on two, three, or four articles of common interest, and myself vice versa, it would be "looking over one's shoulder." Unfortunately your activity extends well beyond the simple checks and balances that entails and includes actively following me around wikipedia to in excess of 50 different articles on topics of all sort and nature. A great many of your attempts to edit my additions are plainly made in bad faith and aimed directly at frustrating, deconstructing, and/or removing them even when they are more than sufficiently sourced per wikipedia guidelines. It is this breach of Wikipedia's good faith assumption that makes stalking problematic, and the hostile environment it produces is why so many editors frown upon the practice. It should also be noted that there is ample precedent on Wikipedia that stalking behavior constitutes "disruptive editing" due to its breach of the good faith assumption including at least one case where an editor was personally blocked by Jimbo Wales for stalking another user with edits that were primarily minor and inconsequential yet exhibited a consistent pattern of specifically following that editor. Per Wales' decision, the stalker "was making a pest of himself by harassing" the other editor. [5] I have addressed these concerns to you directly many times, will. I have explained and documented them in detail, and now I am seeking outside mediation to resolve them. It is unfortunate that we've come this far, but you've been completely unresponsive to my concerns and only intensified your problematic behavior as a response. Thus outside intervention has become the only alternative at this point. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, I have basis to doubt that you are editing in good faith built upon the very same stalking behavior that is the subject of this dispute and that is itself a violation of the good faith assumption. The simplest way to restore mutual good faith is to cease the stalking, and if mediation can accomplish that so be it. I favor mediation on this as it was suggested prior to arbitration. What comes next is dependent upon mediation's ability to resolve this dispute, and for that to occur mediation must happen first. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Will, I just wanted to say thanks for your support of my RfA :-) Craigy (talk) July 5, 2005 20:40 (UTC)

NPOV removal

That's interesting. Thanks for the rules clarification. It just so happens that someone put that tag on an article that I created without discussion. I wish everyone would follow the same guides!

The Phora

Hi Will, take a look at this article. Apparently when I was previosly listing The Phora, in the external links section in White supremacy, I was unaware that I was making history. lol --Gramaic 6 July 2005 05:45 (UTC)

Do you think you can clean it up? I'll support you. Cheers, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 06:39 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. By the way, I've just tried to go to home page of The Phora, and for some reason the sight isn't coming up. Are you having the same problem accessing the Phora? If the sight is gone, that means it would be best if the article gets deleted. --Gramaic 6 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)

The other guys on the VfD mention that too. Websites go up and down. Especially marginal ones. &amp;amp;quot;Nationalist" sites seem to get hacked a lot. But sure, as a former website it is even less notable. Cheers, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 07:48 (UTC)

Like you said in your summary, we should wait at least a couple of days. If the sight isn't up by then, I think we should change our vote to "Delete." What do you think? Regards, --Gramaic 6 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)

I agree. From the looks of that article, it might almost be easier to start over from scratch should we feel we need an article on it. Cheers, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 08:29 (UTC)

Trial by fire

I guess you found out: it's not easy being an Administrator. Well, if you need any help, don't hesitate to call. You're not the Lone Ranger - anyway, he's fictional ;-) - so ask the other admins for help. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 00:31 (UTC)

"No big deal" indeed. Thanks for your suggestion. Cheers, -Willmcw July 7, 2005 00:55 (UTC)

3rd opinion in Christian Exodus concerning SPLC

You are pretty well versed in the SPLC subject. Please add your opinion to the talk in Christian Exodus on my current edit.

Regards,

Guy Montag 7 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)

Eugenics

Thanks for your input on the talk page, I appreciated and agreed with it. Wyss 7 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

We've got a live one

User:Wanker001 has uploaded a "new" Defender of the Wiki barnstar that displays either as the normal barnstar or as a pornographic image, depending on whether it is displayed on a user page as a thumb or frame. I'm letting you know since you're an admin and can revert/block, and also because your user page is one of the ones affected. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)

In fact it always displayed as a pornographic image; clear your cache when you find an image vandalism which shows only on thumbs (or only on full size). --cesarb 8 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)

Okay I found that out - by switching browsers. (Opera's clear cache function doesn't always work right...) Thanks for the speedy revert CesarB. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)

Rick Ross

Hi, Will. Would you take a look at Rick Ross? I have made substantial edits, and would like your opinion if you think it needs some NPOV editing (although I tried my best to substantiate with references and citations, another pair of eyes will certainly help). Thanks. --Zappaz 8 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

Thanks for the gracious offer. I fixed some spelling and will make another review. The criticism section does seem a bit long, as not all entries are criticisms. Maybe we should split it off into "Criticism of Rick Ross". ;) Cheers, -Willmcw July 8, 2005 05:05 (UTC)

VfD regarding The Phora

Hi Will. It's already been two days, and The Phora sight is still down. Just to let you know ahead of time, I'm going to change my vote from Keep, to Delete. Again, thanks for the support you offered me. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 8 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)

Biff Rose

concerning Biff Rose. Don't tell me about Biff Rose. Or that the website I linked is derogatory, IT's his website, email him. He'll tell you. Loser. I'll have you banned . Idiot

unsigned comment from user:Jonah Ayers

Clay Aiken

Whew, thanks for that. Maybe we can actually get somewhere now. Although, I just looked at the article; it has the protected tag, but I can still hit edit? Not sure what that's about. Anyway, thanks again. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:15, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

My first protection. Sorry for not seeing your request sooner. Good luck. -Willmcw 22:26, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

ExxonMobil

Hiya! There's a question on Talk:ExxonMobil as to why ExxonMobil is in Category:Climate change organizations, and I was wondering if you might like to pop by and say a couple of words, since you added it to the category. Cheers! —Stormie 22:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've responded there. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Need update

Dear Willmcw,

Can you tell me what needs to be done next as to the editing of the Aesthetic Realism article? Things seem to have stalled. Should I write a comprehensive article using the various edits that have been suggested? --Aperey 17:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Cognition

So who are Charlie McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd? ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

See also: Edgar Bergen. -Willmcw 04:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Here's an interesting contribution: false edit summary, flowery language, link to HK's webpage, Los Angeles IP. [6]. -Willmcw 02:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

List of White supremacists

Hi Will. Thanks for the invitation to Nationalist Movement, I've put it in my watchlist and I'll work on it when I can. Anyway, of course you know by know as evidenced in Talk:White supremacy, I started a new article that is a list of all white supremacists. What do you think of this article, because I've noticed that some people are referring to it as highly POV. Do you think I should put up a VfD tag on List of White supremacists? Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 05:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

I'm curious. The addition by the anon was, I think, factually correct: Wilkes did make a point of timing his shot to go along with the laughter following the "Sockdologizing man-trap" line. Or no? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You are right, my mistake. "Sock" has come to have a special meaning on Wikipedia and I made a hasty assumption about its use. Thanks for catching it. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Command him, he shall do your bidding! El_C 23:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

So how did I come to be your sockpuppet? Oh well...what's my next assignment, Master? Guettarda 23:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW - nice dress Guettarda 23:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It was one of my proudest moments: being accused [7] of being your sockpuppet. I am honored! Btw it does look a little like me. Hope to see you on the 25th! (Oh, never mind, that's right, I'll already be there... ) Antandrus (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Aiken

No, I really think it's premature to lift the protection at this point, and here's why. For now the hostile editors have mostly gone dormant (they were primarily Miklos Szabo and what I suspect to be his sockpuppet, Marie Laveux). Some of the editors that came in because of whatever forum or blog comment seem to have gone away though it's hard to tell since the article's protected. But I think that it's important to have the agremeent of Jmh because he/she is representative of the community that's basically started the edit war over this, so I think whatever final agreement we come to should have his or her imprimatur. Maybe then Jmh can help us revert the inevitable drive-bys, or spread wikilove throughout the Aiken forums, I don't know. But I do think it's a bit premature. Soon, though, I feel like we're coming up on an agreement. As for your comments, I welcome them to be quite honest... you were right, and I had the same misgivings, so I'm glad you mentioned them. Please keep this one on your watchlist... · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Shared IPs

Please don't block shared IPs (such as 217.33.74.20) for 24 hours as it prevents many registered users from making edits too. If a block is required please just limit it to an hour at the most.

Pardon my error. How do I determine which IPs are shared? Thanks, -Willmcw 10:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

They usually have the {{sharedip}} tag at the top, showing the box. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 10:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The question remains: on the basis of what can such a conclusion/template be arrived at/inserted. El_C 12:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair use

I don't know if Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg is related to the above. I created it as a smaller version of another photo because the Fair Use was being challenged. One of the fair use criteria is that the image be reproduced at a lower resolution. Is there a specific reason that you don't think the fair use challenge was sincere or that we can reproduce the image at full resolution and still claim fair use? The discussion spread across many different talk pages, so it'd take me a little while to find all the previous discussions on this image, but I'd be happy to do so if you'd like to review them. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize it had been discussed. Personally I think the large version is sufficiently small (only 2 inches wide on a 300dpi printer!) that it's okay. If you disagree, feel free to change the two pages that use the image back.

By the way, I notice you've uploaded a bunch of great photos. It would be wonderful if you'd put them at the Commons instead! dbenbenn | talk 20:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If you think the image is sufficiently degraded at full size then that is good enough for me. I'll copy any extra fair use claim language to the larger image. Thanks for the compliment on the photos. I hadn't really though much about the difference between WP and the Commons. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Biff Rose

Hey, in regards to Biff Rose, I think that your deisre to be the lead man on this is weird, but because of that, you've put a little too much extraneous information and left out the real meat of the subject. Go to the first few posts. And suss out the real deal regarding rose, how he drifted into obscurity, and is relatively unknown now, trying to kick start a career retrospective despite tangles with law enforcement which for some reason are not inlcuded in any of the reports you are 'responsible' for.

Instead of aimless meanderings about who covered Molly, it may be betteer served to write about how his songs were covered by, and then lsit those people. If you can't get succinct, then you are certainly not a writer of worth, and the details you keep in the report are innocuous and relatively numbing.

Keep trying. You'll get there, if you stop trying to be the man.

I am the man. Who are you and why do you care about obscure Biff Rose? If you have any sourced information then go ahead and add it. Unsourced allegations about supposed criminal activities are libels and are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:02, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Page for Deletion

Willmcw, you are good at Wiki stuff--you should see this page and see if you agree it is a vanity/non-notable page that ought to be deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Tom_G._Palmer Nskinsella 19:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Your flower

Seeing that was a very nice way to start the day. Thank you. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:23, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade (talk · contribs · block log)

Hi, Will. Once again I need your advice. "You da man."

Could you, and some others like SlimVirgin, take a look at my exchange with Sam Spade (see user talk:Sam Spade and user talk:Ed Poor). I think he needs a wiki-break, because of incessant failure to adhere to NPOV - maybe even a block.

But lately, I'm hesitant about being unilateral. Some perspective would help. Uncle Ed 00:56, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I admire your patience and diligence in this matter. You are right to avoid unilateral action. Beyond simple persuasion are the other dispute resolution mechanisms that you are familiar with. Although I think that editors from many perspectives share a respect for Sam Spade's contributions, many editors also share a concern about his continued difficulty in maintaining NPOV and civility. Let's keep trying to work towards civil, NPOV, collaborative editing. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:Crosstar

I'd already been reverting his shameless spamming of dubious links. Look at this egregious example at Andrew Goodman: [8] It links to a made-up conversation with Goodman's mother which has to be read to be believed. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and Crosstar appears to have been permanently blocked by another admin (besides your block). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of White supremacists

Hey Will, I'd like you to check this out. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 05:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

TitleDisputed TfD

How can the Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory majority vote against "conspiracy theory" pejoratively titled articles be used as evidence that there isn't a legitimate title neutrality dispute? More than 10 voted against, which should be plenty to prove there is no consensus. Why didn't anyone complain about TitleDisputed itself until now? What about the point that {NPOV-title} is too general and includes too many unspecific "non title" possibilities, not to mention it is worded poorly? In your vote you said "its [{TitleDisputed}'s] use has been discussed at some length previously", that means we should delete it? All discussion centered around the appropriateness of adding the template to an article, not over the template itself. zen master T 10:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Too many thousands of words have already been expended on this general topic. I've added my vote to the TfD, as have you. I'm not going to change your vote, and you're probably not going to change mine either. That's ok. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:48, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hugo Heyrman

Hi Will,

I noticed your comment that there was a copyright problem with the Hugo Heyrman. Did you see the talk page? I spent a bit of time clarifying the potential copyvio with Dr. Hugo, so he added a statement that he was the original author and as such his edits would be GFDL. -- Solipsist 11:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. My brain got so tangled up trying to follow the name changes, etc, that I lost track of what I'd just seen on the talk page. Thanks for taking the time to clearing that up, then and now. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin B. MacDonald articles

The question has arisen as to why there are two articles; you might want to respond at Talk:The Culture of Critique series. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Heraclius 3rr revert breach

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert

Clear cut breach of policy.

Regards,

Guy Montag 04:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've given him a warning and if he reverts again I'll block him. -Willmcw 04:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I see he was previously warned. I'll block him for 24 hours -Willmcw 04:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

See earlier on the list:

Three revert rule violation on Palestinian terrorism (history · watch). Guy Montag (talk • contribs):

   * Previous version reverted to: [DiffLink Time]
   * 1st revert: [9]
   * 2nd revert: [10]
   * 3rd revert: [11]
   * 4th revert: [12]

Reported by:Heraclius 02:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

As an Admin you are obliged by the rules to treat both parties equally. I hope you will do so please. 62.253.64.15 06:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

If you are Heraclius please don't use an IP as a sockpuppet. That violates your block. -Willmcw 07:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I can assure you I am not a sockpuppet - I agree that would be bad. On a different topic doesn't the revert (to me by Guy on Tali Hatuel) below break some sort of policy too?

1. (cur) (last) 02:03, 19 July 2005 Guy Montag m (fuck off)
2. (cur) (last) 22:14, 18 July 2005 62.253.64.14

62.253.64.14 17:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks are against the wikipedia:no personal attacks policy. However admins are not empowered to block simply for violations of that policy. Other routes which can handle personal attack violations are wikipedia:requests for comment and wikipedia:requests for arbitration. -Willmcw 21:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on this. I shall not be pursueing this any further, nor would I have any interest in so doing. I provided it (along with the evidence of gloating over the other users block) more by way of illustration that this had got out of hand. 62.253.64.14 22:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Camillafop

What did you have in mind willmcw? I figured out how to undo some deleted material, none of it seemed a problem, I couldn't understand why it was deleted. Camillafop 09:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:Cite and WP:NPOV. Please read them carefully. -Willmcw 09:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you for your constructive criticism of my "treatment of jerks" :). I will do my best to tolerate them more than I do now. And yes, I have made a complaint on the noticeboard.

Regards,

Guy Montag 17:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope you note that he has also done a 4th revert in 24 hours (disguised under an inaccurate edit summary) on Iman Darweesh Al Hams coupled with a taunt about the other users "block" - he's clearly making a sport of this. 62.253.64.14 18:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Will, if you take a closer look you will see that those are edits on two seperate days. The person who reported me has been blocked many times for consistently breaking policy.

Guy Montag 21:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

If this referring to me then please note that I have NEVER been blocked for violating policy. 62.253.64.14 22:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you being even handed on this one

As a gesture of good faith I'm going to back away from editing for a few days to let tempers cool a little. Many thanks. 62.253.64.14 20:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well it would have been - had you been even handed. "short ban" - a lovely "weasel word" there. 62.253.64.15

Please see above for the reasons I gave "Lifeisunfair." Yes, an hour is a "slap on the wrist." The reason for the 3RR block is to break a cycle of reverting that can develop, usually between two editors. To block someone for an editing series that occured days previously is simply punitive, and that is not the point of the block. I realize that this editor is not always collaborative and sometimes makes personal attacks, but it is not within my capacity as administrator to do anything about that. Feel free to raise this in other forums the next time there's a problem-you may find other admins with different views. -Willmcw 07:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Revote On Kinsella

You nominated Stephan Kinsella for deletion. Mr. Kinsella recreated the page about himself. I renominated it. If would like to vote again the page is: Kinsella 2 --RyanKoppelman 21:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Is a staff listing necessary for James Hahn?

Do you feel a staff listing is encyclopedic or necessary for the James Hahn article? Hall Monitor 21:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Guy Montag

Guy Montag reverted the the Palestinian terrorism article five times in a 24-hour period, and has done so an additional four times since then.

This individual was blocked for violating the 3RR on three prior occasions, so I feel that a one-hour block is insufficient. —Lifeisunfair 00:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Lifeisundfair, you are right and I'm sure that the next time he does that he will receive a longer "time-out". (I just hope another admin gets the chore.) In this instance I chose 1 hour because it was already an old case, because the handling of NPOV tags is disputable and sometimes repeatedly removing/adding one can be viewed as vandalism, because neither party has clean hands, and because it'd be off my plate that much sooner. Please know that we do not impose these blocks as true "penalties", but rather as ways of trying to interrupt a bad editing behavior by giving the editor a chance to step away from the conflict. -Willmcw 00:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

All of this type of actions sends out out a message though. And yours is that being a bully, telling people to "fuck off", repeatedly breaching a 3RR and then reporting another usrs for the SAME violation - is all better than if you are (as you described Heraceus earlier) "a jerk" because of your POV. What a shame. 62.253.64.15 06:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There's lots of jerks on the Internet. Unfortunately there is no remedy in the Wikipedia toolbox to cure them. Do you think 2 hours or 24 hours or 48 hours is going to change that? Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, this isn't a popularity contest - we're just here to write an encyclopedia. Write concise, comprehensive summaries in an NPOV manner using verifiable sources. If you ever have a specifically sourced edit that you think has been improperly removed, then come to me and I'll look into it. If you want to whine about blocks then go to someone else. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

VfD

FYI Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Perverted-Justice.com SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks

I guess we're both a bit late in voting - but better late than never for a good policy. Thanks for leading me to it. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:46, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. I know you probably have been watching my actions and I know I have been very uncivil with personal attacks. I will do my best to refrain from any personal comments in article talk pages. If I have a personal dispute with someone, I will make sure to word my comments/suggestions/criticisms/etc to a user's talk page very carefully so they are not attacks. Also, I was hoping I wasn't violating any wikipolicies in my signing because I also voted on some surveys that seem months old. [9] Thank you for your patience with me. Aloha --AI 09:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you again for your second response. I do not see anything you wrote as personally against to me. Aloha --AI 17:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Spoken articles

I just wanted to say that I've been listening and re-listening to a lot of your spoken articles and that I really love your voice. I don't know what it is about it in particular, but I keep on consciously noticing how much I enjoy hearing it and reminding myself to write this message. This is especially true with the history of the world article. I hope you do some more spoken articles --Clngre 14:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Stephan Kinsella

...is basically a recreation of previously deleted material, and is presently written by its own subject. Several people have already noted in the VFD debate that this would be speedily deletable (not to mention a severe case of WP:VAIN, WP:POINT and WP:WORLD for Stephan). Since you undeleted the page history I was wondering if you'd agree. Yours, Radiant_>|< 17:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes to all of the above. -Willmcw 17:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

PS, while the article could qualify for speedy, now that the VfD is in full flower we should let it proceed. -Willmcw 17:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Not necessarily - speedy deletion trumps VFD. Especially given the way people are badgering the vote now. But I'll leave that to your discretion and simply vote to delete it. Radiant_>|< 19:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • The prior nomination as well as a related nomination (Tom G. Palmer) have been marked by voting by brand-new users, some apparently following blog links. That hasn't happened on this article's VfD yet, but I see that the subject has now posted a link from his blog. But the VfD process can handle that. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jacques Hébert (Canadian politician)

Hi,

I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to explain why you removed the Nobel peace prize sentence from this article. I appreciate the explanation.

--YUL89YYZ 18:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Processing copyvios

Hi Willmcw, your assumptions are mostly correct (also, see the instructions at the top of WP:CP);

1. verify the copyvio
2. revert to the oldest version of the article with no copyright violation -or- if the article started as a copyvio then delete. Most listings get deleted

We can leave copyvios in history if it's possible to revert to an earlier, copyvio-free version. However, we will remove the offending history if the copyright owner requests it (by deleting the article and restoring only the clean versions of history). This is very difficult for articles with long edit histories.

I find that a significant number of listings are mistakes, probably more than one percent; entries from the 1911 EB (PD), or the Catholic Encyclopedia (PD), or mirrors that don't credit us (they are violating our copyrights), etc.

When an author gives permission for Wikipedia to use their work- I usually ask that they reply to an email, sent to the contact address on the copied website, acknowledging a GFDL license. I include links to Wikipedia's copyright information. Legitimated claims are almost always replied to promptly. If the author is a registered wikipedian with some history I'll take their word for it.

What helps me the most is Firefox browser. I open a few listed articles in their own windows. And then, in each new window open the talk, history, referred url... in tabs. This keeps all the information for a listing together.

I haven't been doing much here for about two months (due to work) but am starting to get some free time again. We definitely need more admins working this page and I'm sure your efforts there will be appreciated. --Duk 23:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Mises vs SPLC

That is very interesting, and I won't pretend I know or understand any details. SPLC is not without controversy, as the article states (but I do admit Morris Dies heart is in the right place, despite having his head up his culu). At first glance it looks like the Mises Institute trashed SPLC in 1998 or 2000 with this [10], so the SPLC retaliated by calling them a hate group. Just a theory. Thanks. nobs 23:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The Appearance of inconsistency

While wandering around Wikipedia today I found the following entry by you on the talk page of List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people:

• "Al Reynolds, husband of Star Jones (of "The View") No source for this. This type of material, especially about people who are not widely and commonly known as gay or bi, should have some kind of reference, please. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:06, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)"

Now everyone I know thinks Reynolds is gay, and I'm not being disingenuous about this. However, I guess we need a source for that, so I googled "Al Reynolds" "gay" and got 3,680 hits as opposed to 15,900 for "Al Reynolds" unmodified. That's around 23.2%. Is the percentage of 25% you cited on the Aiken talk page a more persuasive figure for "sourcing" speculation? I'm astounded that you went out of your way to ask that the speculation be removed in one case, and out of your way to make sure speculation remained in the other. Your criterion is apparently "widely known to Willmcw." The speculation about Reynolds is rampant; you must have missed it. I've heard the jokes by comedians, seen the blogs and internet gossip.

I do not believe that unsubstantiated speculation about sexual orientation belongs in an encyclopedia; apparently you don't either, or do you? I'm confused. I'm not questioning that speculation about Aiken exists; I'm saying that there is no reliable source beyond this speculation: there's nothing but gossip, sterotyping, and a bunch of bad jokes.

Jliberty's rationale in "history" for removing a prior speculative entry from the Aiken page: "speculation and stereotypical behavior is not enough to add to an encyclopedia." You might also want to look at Jliberty's rationale on the talk page of List of Famous Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual people under "Debated Section Issues," as it is based around Aiken as an example of someone who should not be listed. He makes very similar arguments to some that I made on the Aiken talk page; how I wish I had found this sooner! I know you are familiar with the page, as your contributions are all over it! Do you disagree with Jliberty about speculation as a source? (I haven't read the entire page; it's long, contentious, and complex.) Actually, now that I read some of your entries, it appears that your argument is that a citation in the Wikipedia entry justifies addition to the list: Wikipedia becomes a source. Are you planning to use the results of the dispute you just participated in to add Aiken to the "debated" list as well?

I also learned today through the "history" of the Aiken entry that the current round of controversy began when another (post Jliberty deletion) "gay speculation" passage was added by an anonymous IP who was never to be seen again. It was removed that day by another anon IP, who replaced it with a smart remark about Aiken being "hawt." Those comments were then reverted to the first version as "vandalism," while the other drive-by entry remained and was protected with vehemence from then on by various editors, none of whom appear to have ever made a substantive contribution to that entry before or since.

"History" on Wikipedia is a fascinating thing, and the much-touted neutrality is looking mighty questionable to me. I think it is all about who argues best, and last. -Jmh123 04:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll have to search long and hard to find any names that I've added to the List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. My time on that article is chiefly spent removing names of people spuriously added, like Prince Albert II of Monaco. I personally don't know a thing about Al Reynolds, never seen or heard of him outside the context of the article. But the standard, now voted on and approved, is that anyone with an entry in the article needs to have an article which clearly describes their orientation. Reynolds didn't pass that test, so I removed his name and made a comment on the talk page. I'm not sure what the problem is. Do you think we should include that type of stuff without references? Or just based on rumors? I don't. The case of Aiken is different. I am not familiar wth the history of the Aiken article-I only got involved because of the edit war, and I've never edited it. There are three sourced, verifiable assertions in the new paragraph on that topic, as I recall: that he has denied rumors, that he joked about it on SNL, and that there's a forum devoted to the topic. To my mind none of those would be even close to sufficient to include Aiken on the list. Anyway, I'm not sure if you had a question and if I've answered it. Let me know if I can clarify anything. -Willmcw 04:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

PS, regarding the incidence of gay rumors about Aiken, the Google numbers give a reason to mention the rumors, but numbers are not references themselves. If Reynolds has hundreds of rumors about him being gay then maybe an editor should mention it in the article if they can find a proper source, like him denying the rumors. -Willmcw 04:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. No I don't think you should include "that type of stuff" without references! The case of Aiken is only different because people who want to "out" him when he might not even be "in" found a way to introduce the speculation into his entry. Were I interested, I could probably find instances of engagement with the rumors by Reynolds, but I have absolutely no desire to do so. Sorry for misinterpreting your role - this place is just one big mess of confusion for a newbie, especially someone who came into it under the circumstances I did. No one involved in the edit war had ever edited the Aiken entry, except for reverting disputed parts and fixing a few very minor bits of punctuation, misspelling, and the like. Post-war, I'm the only one to make any substantive contribution to it so far.

You answered my biggest question, which is that you don't plan to add Aiken to the list. I hope you would also oppose if someone else did. Another perception I have seems confirmed by your response: that the articles' "editors," who are self-appointed, are the ultimate authority. I guess that's the idea of Wikipedia, but it allows for a lot of inconsistency from entry to entry. -Jmh123 07:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, we're all the judges of our own behavior, and each other's. This is a self-governing place. Regarding the list, the criteria that we established (a mention in the subject's biography) means that those editors interested in that person would have the opportunity to discuss, include, or exclude the information. That makes it much easier for those of us maintaining the list because the matter can be dicussed elsewhere, by those who care and are knowledgeable. The editors involved can decide upon how to handle sexual orientation issues of their subjects. So, in essence, it is the decision of the editors working on the bios, not the editors of the list, that determine if a particular person is included. Anyway, if you need help with anything, let me know. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. So I need to direct some of my frustration at those editors who were actually working on this entry up until April of this year. So it goes. It could've turned out a lot worse than it did; I'm reasonably satisfied with the result, though it wasn't at all my preference. I can't say that I enjoyed the experience; probably not the best way for one who isn't fond of conflict to be introduced to Wiki-ways. I appreciate your response. Cheers back atcha, -Jmh123 09:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Deletionism

While there is a time and a place for deletions, as with any autoimmune system, too much of a good thing can lead to disorder. After reviewing the link you provided, it looks like it may be Braun or one of his supporters who added his link to the Neurodiversity article, so deletion may well be deserved. On the other hand, a battle over the link to the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health seems to have triggered an undeserved series of VfDs, for Holonomic brain theory, Elliott Valenstein, Moral compass, and Thought police. Please, could you review the articles, their histories, and their VfD discussions, and as an admin weigh in with your opinion? Ombudsman 02:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Crosstar (the user and the article)

Thanks for the clarification about his/her track record. I'd seen some of it, but for whatever reason he/she is content to continuously blank that single image out now. I'm tempted to just point that article at the Nationalist Movement and put that it was inspired by the Arrow Cross... but no, that's not Wikiquette.

By the way, could you remove one of the previous incarnations of Kittens.jpg... Its the first change after the original upload. Thanks -Schrei 08:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

As for the Crosstar symbol: that is exactly what we should do. We don't have to say that it was inspired by the Arrow Cross, just that they look alike. (It sure doesn't look like one of Betsy Ross's five-pointed stars). It isn't notable enough to have its own page, and I frankly doubt that all of the history is exactly correct (since he's the only source we don't know). As for user:Crosstar, I see he stopped in to vote to delete the

Regarding the "Kittens" - deleted. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

At what point is it safe to just go ahead with the merge? Wikipedia is democratic, but we're the only two people who seem concerned enough to say anything. In terms of democracy, our voter turnout is worse than a US presidential election. I think we won, now let's think like the president: User:Crosstar attacked us, so therefore you need to block User:أسامة بن محمد بن عود بن لادن. -Schrei 11:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

There's no particular hurry for the merge. It's a housekeping-type issue. My basic concerns with it have been the POV/verifiability issue, and the self-promotion issue. Both can be addressed without a merge. In general, if additional input on article is sought there are ways of generating interest, an official way being to file a Wikipedia:request for comment, which asks other editors to give their opinions. Regarding the user:Crosstar, he was willfully and repeatedly breaking our core policies to the detriment of the project. Blocks serve two chief purposes: to give an editor a "time-out" in order to encourage them towards less problematic behavior, and to protect the encyclopedia from further mischief. Except in special cases they are temporary and usually short. If he wants to return and contribute sourced, NPOV material in accord with the community policies then he'll welcome back. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

contributions, general discussion, and help

Willmcw, as a fairly green Wikipedian, could you please help w/ the following? 1. Is there a general place here for editors to talk and ask questions? Such as the following-- 2. You have a list of your contributions--articles started, articles contributed too. do you have to manually enter that or is there some automatic way of seeing or listing that? Thanks, Normie. Stephan Kinsella 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

1. The Village Pump, accessed through the Community Portal. 2. The page is created manually. "My contributions" lists all edits. -Willmcw 16:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, the "Community Portal"...?

Rick Ross

I would appreciate your help on the 3RR violation by anon on Rick Ross. Thanks. --ZappaZ 00:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I see that he's just been warned. If he makes another rervert let me know and I'll give a block. -Willmcw 00:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

He just did. --ZappaZ 00:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that was prior to the warning. 00:33, July 23, 2005 revert versus 00:39, 23 July 2005 warning. -Willmcw 00:45, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. If you could, please restore the version we were working on. I have already used by my three reverts. Thanks. --ZappaZ 00:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Illegal Immigration

I'd be okay with redirecting the "illegal immigrant" article to the "Illegal immigration" article. I'm not really working on it anymore. Sorry.

Hinduism

Unfortunately my knowledge here is close to none. mikka (t) 20:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Shehzad Tanweer

Will, do you have an interest in giving a third opinion about the introduction to this article on one of the London bombers? I feel the intro should include that he was one of four bombers carrying out a joint mission and the number who died overall. User:Sherurcij feels this is POV, and that we should refer only to the number of people Tanweer killed directly. He also feels the intro shouldn't include the CCTV image of the bombers because it's POV. Here is my intro with one pic [11] or here with two pics. [12] Here is Sherurcij's. [13] There is some discussion on Talk:Shehzad Tanweer. I value your intuitions about the NPOV policy and so would appreciate your opinion (but if you don't have time, don't worry). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. I read over the article and the talk page and it looks ok as of now. I'll keep an eye on it. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

JEM

i kinda want to remain anonymous here in terms of RL stuff. people i know don't use wik but i personally wanted to delete my comment there. J. Parker Stone 02:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Just say you're an interested party. That's all that's relevant. -Willmcw 08:02, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Karl Rove

Could you help with a problem on this page? User:Stevertigo froze the page a few days ago over an apparent 3RR dispute, but he seems to have gone AWOL (on this and other pages which are waiting for unfreezing). If you look at the Talk page for Karl Rove, you will see a lot of good faith efforts to solve the problems. But User:Stevertigo is nowhere to be found! The page, unfortunately, is becoming stale. Can you help? 68.1.168.96 13:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It appears that another admin has removed the protection already. I've added it to my watchlist. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

LvMI

The page did need some sprucing up. It certainly is fair to have more descriptive material than criticism, and I think the page is moving in that direction, but with better edits by the LvMI fans.--Cberlet 22:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Slurs

I added most of them after a conversation with Dante (I think) a few months ago. The new one, "tac-tac head" is new to me - it looks like it was written by a Trini (since "tac-tac" is a large black ant) but I don't think it is very widely used. Slang expressions arise quickly, and usually have a short life-span. I would probably delete it as non-notable. Guettarda 05:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

WP policy violations

Will - Over the past several days you have repeatedly misrepresented the attempts of myself and several other editors to remind you of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that conflict with your edits as "personal attacks" on you. On the Ludwig von Mises Institute talk page, where many of the efforts to inform you of the Wikipedia policies you have violated were posted, you have also asserted that such corrections should not be made there, falsely accused persons who have criticized your editing behavior of making "personal attacks," and generally ignored any and all attempts to calmly and rationally inform you of the problems many of your edits there are producing in light of Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines. Please be aware that Wikipedia has explicit policies and guidelines for a reason, and that you are repeatedly being directed to them on the LVMI talk page and in other articles because a large number of your edits there are highly problematic when considered in light of them. Informing you of this with an appropriate link, asking that you rectify it, and asking that you cease in your attempts to reinsert materials that violate WP standards is not a "personal attack" on you as an editor, but rather an attempt to bring your edits into compliance with the appropriate policies. Please do not mischaracterize these critiques of your edits as "personal attacks" and please cease and desist in your misrepresentation of myself and the other editors who have corrected you for your edits in order to bring them into compliance with Wikipedia policies. I would also appreciate it if you would abstain from making these false insinuations and allegations on both the article talk page and my personal talk page. While making note of WP policy violations in another's edits and urging him to stop those violations is not a personal attack, falsely labelling another editor with such allegations could reasonably be construed as the very same. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Rangerdude 18:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this to my user talk page. Discussing editors is not a good use of article talk pages. "Personal critique", call it what you like, it does not belong there. I do not believe that I have violated any Wikipedia polices or guidelines in any of my edits, much less in a "large number of them." I view this as a long attack, not a specific citation of polcies:

It should also be noted that your editing activities on this and other related articles are becoming increasingly disruptive and irresponsible. Each are characterized by a common theme of attempting to (1) prop up material from persons and organizations that share your personal political point of view and (2) dismantle, belittle, or smear material from persons and organizations that disagree with your personal politics through blatantly POV guilt-by-association and original research tactics, excessive and unreasonable citation demands that exceed anything required by wikipedia itself, arbitrary, politically motivated, and inconsistently applied source screening, and an all around pattern of generally disruptive, harassing, and deconstructive behavior in violation of both the spirit and letter of wikipedia's anti-disruptive, civility, don't bite the newbies, assume good faith, and WP:POINT policies and guidelines. Given this recurring problem, you should seriously consider taking a break from this article until you can contribute in a more responsible, less disruptive, and more NPOV manner. -

This littany of offenses that you charge with, giving no specifics whatsoever, is one of the negative personal comments that you have been making. However even more explicit are the numeorus times that you've called me a "wikistalker". That is a clear personal attack. -Willmcw 20:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

This passive/aggressive baloney from Rangerdude is tiresome. He now rules the LvMI page with an iron fist, in a perfect echo of the undemocratic elitist arrogance of the Institute he fawns over. The iron first in the velvet glove--the perfect metaphor.--Cberlet 21:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you are objective and non-biased, Cberlet. Shouldn't your obvious bias disqualify you from making any changes to the Mises page? Stephan Kinsella 18:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikiepdia works. -Willmcw 18:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

L.A. Meetup Reminder

Don't forget! L.A's first Wiki meetup is TONIGHT at 7:30 at Philippe's in Downtown. Check out the meetup page for details. See you there! (If you can't make it, come to the next one! - Eric 22:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

No worries about not making the first one - it went very well. Help me make the second one even bigger and better. How about a Jimbo Wales lookalike contest?  : ) Hope you feel better - Eric 23:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It's your turn ...

... to need the flower. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I just got back from a trip and got an email from a student that a Wikipedia entry on me had been vandalized by a user named "Rothbard," who seems remarkably similar to Mr. Justin Raimondo (author of a biography of Murray Rothbard) and who added a link to a rather slanderous piece by Raimondo mischaracterizing my views (which linked only to itself, not to anything I had ever written or said). (The mischaracterization was carried on into "Rothbard's" vandalization of the entry on me as a claim of fact.) How does one deal with such things? I just changed the article to the last version that you had posted and kept the added link to an article that I had written about my last visit to Iraq. (I was opposed to the war, not in favor of it, and I wrote that "I am moderately optimistic about the possibilities for Iraqi freedom, provided that the new government is able to defeat the terrorists militarily" and that "I hope that the Iraqis find and kill the dedicated terrorists and dry up tacit support for the terrorist insurgency in the narrow pockets of Ba’athism and religious fanaticism.," which is rather different from what "Rothbard" had written: "He is a prominent advocate of the Iraq war, and is the author of a recent Cato Institute publication that calls for a "military victory" by the U.S. in Iraq.")

Any advice? Tom G. Palmer ([email protected])

P.S. from Tom G. Palmer: I just did some more investigation and found that "Rothbard" had both supported the deletion of the entry on me on the grounds of that I was the author of the entry (not, I'm afraid, true)That "Rothbard" has repeated Mr. Raimondo's charges, has linked to the same utterly false charges in signed essays by Mr. Raimondo, and has edited the entry on Mr. Raimondo reminds me of the phrase that the late Murray Rothbard frequently used to describe such behavior: chutzpah. I also note in the discussion section that you had asked if I were in the room; I was not, but will have to follow this in future. Nor was my late mother, as some other person asked.