User talk:Will Beback/archive72

72.204.224.77

When blocking this user, I noticed ya had previously blocked them for block evading. Since I'm not familiar with them, I wasn't sure if they warranted a longer block. If ya could clarify, or reblock if you feel necessary. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 08:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

IRS audit

You'll remember, we thought there had been an IRS audit of DLM in 1976. There's an account by Dettmers of that audit here (if you weren't aware of it). Not an RS, obviously, but perhaps useful as background. Cheers, Jayen466 14:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread about you

FYI: Marvin Diode has started a thread about you here.--chaser - t 07:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

AC-130

EXCELLENT CATCH!!! I missed the link and thought it was only four paragraphs long. Thanks!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image move request

Will, could you do me a favor and move Image:Wiki-rob clores.jpg to Image:Adam_MacDougall-Newport.jpg? When I originally uploaded I both misidentified the subject and forgot to change the filename from what I had on my machine. Thanks! DickClarkMises (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I learn something new every day about Wikipedia. I've uploaded the image to the following location, so please delete the misnamed version at your convenience: Image:Adam MacDougall.jpg. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Diarrhea

Am soliciting comment from various editors that have previously worked on this. If you have time, and inclination, please review a proposed re-write draft on my personal page and compare with current version. Comment on article's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks for edits. Hope you can comment on draft found on my personal page. It aims for more concision while retaining all content.Calamitybrook (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Warning

A month ago you warned User talk:Jonsuh, you might be interested in what's going on at Talk:First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana). Feerzeey (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana)

Would you mind if, only after I've set things up with the involved editors through talk page discussion, I unprotected the page? Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to try unprotecting the page because I'm going to be watching things very closely. Please let me know if you have any worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverts by 2o345h (talk · contribs)

[1] ?? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Serial_Reverts_by_2o345h.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 Jayen466 14:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Lemonsquares

He's requesting unblock. Your block message was "block evasion". I actually am not thinking of accepting it, but I just want to know: was this basically sockpuppetry? What's the master or puppet account? Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note

• Hi Will, I spotted both of these editors who seem to be giving you some trouble, La Secta All Star‎ (talk · contribs) and 2o345h‎ (talk · contribs). They're both blocked, but I think there may be an underlying IP. I was going to send it to checkuser, but I thought I'd ask your 2 cents first. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 16:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yea, I thought it was Primetime too, after seeing this, I just thought they might have been using a new IP, so that should probably get an IP block (but they might be using open proxies, which doesn't help) =/. You should probably have a look at this thread as well, it's been rather active today. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• This would appear to indicate a connection to Lemonsquares (talk · contribs), mentioned above. I am not familiar with the history, so you probably know best. Jayen466 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Grass Valley Public Library

Thanks for the comment. I appreciate it. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why banned user

I notice that in the history of Talk:Sahaja_Yoga where I asked why you had reverted the other user's edits you refer to me as "banned user", but I am confused as to why. Please answer these questions before deleting my edits in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.18.51 (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2008

Speaking of Sahaja Yoga, doesn't that article contain rather too many primary source refs? Jayen466 01:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware Judith Fox (= Judith Coney) has written quite a lot about SJ, that's probably the one you mean. Jayen466 02:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

1971 San Fernando earthquake

Hi Will: You removed the significant earthquake template from the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, but there was no edit summary and I wasn't quite sure why it was removed. Was it accidental or is there a concern? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Immigrant Deaths

The renaming of Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border is up for a new vote. Terjen (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

banned user editing under IP?

See 98.149.127.13, I think that he is User_talk:Rorry1, sock of User:Ericsaindon2. Before he was blocked as a sock, he was editwarring with you on one article [2], and he was making disruptive edits about the demographics of several US locations [3] --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

...again, for the assistance with image issues. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		This is in recognition of the many times since my first edit in March 2005 that you've answered my questions, cleaned up after me with your mop and bucket, and generally made me a better Wikipedian. DickClarkMises (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I'm no part in RfM/Prem Rawat 3. That means: no delegation either. Now Jossi is writing all this nonsense about me on the RfM talk page. Please deal with it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Laskarina Bouboulina

Hello! Please look at Laskarina Bouboulina article. An administrator revert a 6-month well-groomed article to a poor edition. - Sthenel (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The admin (User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) claims the Laskarina Bouboulina article was plagiarized from a website he names in his edit summary. Much of the WP article was clearly derived from this website, and there are repetitions of phrases here and there. I only examined about half the article, but my impression is that no entire sentence was copied, and the structure of the article differs obviously from the website. This is not a case of "copy a sentence, change a word or two, copy the next sentence, change a comma, and so on" RedSpruce (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for bothering you again. I added two more sources, I added material throughout the article, but User:Future Perfect at Sunrise reverts again and again my edits and threatens me with block. This administrator is always extremely severe with me as if I'm a vandal of wikipedia and this behaviour exists during my 1,5-year presence in wikipedia. He is always aggressive to me like he wants me to leave wikipedia. What's wrong with me? - Sthenel (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed Christian cult move

Dbachmann made a bold article move of "Christian cult" to "Christian-oriented cult", and edited the redirect to be a disambiguation page under the original name.
I explained the undiscussed problems with this move on talk, and tried to implement a compromise move reversion in the bold, revert, discuss cycle, by moving the disambiguation page to "Christian cult (disambiguation)". He prevented this by reverting over the maintenance deletion with a technical edit summary that evaded discussion of his intent (logged on the talk page).
I think he is edit warring to get his way without a consensus discussion of his actions that have problems. He has previously stirred up controversy - an October 2007 3RR block log entry, three RFCs (RFC Dbachmann 3), and an incomplete Dbachmann RFAR (Nov-Dec 2007) - with actions in which edit warring was considered.
I think that Dbachmann is attempting a backdoor AfD of an article on a notable but non-academic phrase ("Christian cult") by technical moving and splitting maneuvers. While he may have intended this on scholarship grounds, it has the side-effect of promoting fundamentalist POV. Fundamentalists dispute any use of this well-known phrase (69,900 hits on Google) as an oxymoron, given their ideological definition that Christians can't also be cults. Fundamentalist Christians clearly can be cults under other definitions. My impression is that Dbachmann is throwing his weight around on superficial scholarship grounds while seeming unfamiliar with the many homonym definition complexities of the cult topics.
Given his subtle evasion of consensus discussion by preventing the revert, the article is now in a slightly in-between state. I don't know what to do next, unless perhaps you take an admin delete-and-move action to complete my intended BRD revert: (db-g6|wording=delete and revert Christian-oriented cults (and talk page) back to Christian cult - see talk "Merge or move") Milo 21:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bill Lawrence (trademark)

I have nominated Bill Lawrence (trademark), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Lawrence (trademark). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Shell ^babelfish 21:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Silly spam - I know you weren't the impetus behind creating the article, so the spam isn't quite right, but since you were involved in helping work out the dispute I'd be interested in your opinion of the article now that some time has gone by. Shell ^babelfish 23:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Procedure for contesting a speedy deletion?

Hi, Will. Is there an established procedure here at wikipedia for contesting a speedy deletion, and asking that the page be undeleted? The page which I am concerned about is (or rather, was) Postville Iowa Raid (Agriprocessors Kosher Meat Plant), which generated not just local coverage here in Iowa, but national and international coverage as well. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have submitted a DRV --Ramsey2006 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Thanks for your many contributions to California-related topics. Wikipedia ia a better encyclopedia due to your efforts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Just missing la Patria vieja from the shores of the Mighty Ontario. TriniMuñoz (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocking

It seems that all these users that are reverting your edits are using a proxy. You may want to contact a checkuser and ask this to be checked... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was just going to ask if you knew the IP range, and I'd be happy to shut it down with a range block. This is "Primetime", right? Antandrus (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sauna

Some 12 months ago now you suppoted my adding a new section to the Sauna Article called Therapeutic sauna which cited about 100 medical science papers. That section is now under attack by apparent disruptive elements who completly reverted it on some POV comments, with the intention it seems of removing it completely rather than improving it. I would have no objection if the other party was interested in working to improve it, but that does not seem to be his intent. I wonder if you would mind commenting on matters hereso that a resolution might be found. Jagra (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Granada Forum

I have to take exception to you protecting a page with a PROD on it. It makes it difficult to remove the tag, as the template says, if you can only do so when you're autoconfirmed (PROD is supposed to be contestable by anyone so long as it's in good faith). I understand the previous removals were vandalism, but now that the vandals have passed, perhaps it could be unprotected? --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Nah, no actual issues with deleting it. I just wanted to make sure that if someone else did, they could. Thanks. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Jtjn6

Yes, I thought something like that was happening. Thanks for the info. De728631 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Primetime issues (some help)

Hi Will, I see you're having some issues with Primetime. Add these to your monobook, it should help. It's a revert all edits script. The code to initialise it is "rYes". Hopefully it makes things easier for you.

importScript('User:Steve Crossin/revertall.js'); //Revert all script

Best, Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Biden protection extended

As a heads up, I made the Biden article a full 24 hour protection, extending your previous protection. Simply a proactive measure. Happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 07:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your advice to me on AN

You misunderstand the situation. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to be done on-wiki; it's being taken care of, but thanks for the offer to help. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe

You placed a "citation needed" template after the statement "His relationship with the former colonial power, the United Kingdom, has been particularly contentious" in Robert Mugabe. As you may recall, the lede is intended to be a summary of the article. If you will take a few minutes to read the article you will find, for example, that Mugabe accuses the United Kingdom of promoting white imperialism and regularly accuses opposition figures to his government of being allies of white imperialism; that Mugabe withdrew Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth to protest a prolonged suspension by the Commonwealth; that When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown attempted to intervene into the election controversy, Mugabe dismissed him as "a little tiny dot on this planet"; and that the "Criticism and Opposition" section is dominated by commentary in British media. These are only a few examples. I might add that Zimbabwe, as Rhodesia, was at one time a British colony, but later rebelled. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

More on "Wilderness Diarrhea

I have been, unfortunately, foolishly I suppose, in a quasi-edit war with another editor there. We're totally hung up. I want to shape the article to conform with available research, and to place the subject in its larger context. I can't characterize his intentions and he doesn't seem to want to discuss them. We could definitely use some help, certainly on the little minor hang-ups, but also and much more especially, on the big picture. Calamitybrook (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Draft

Will, the revised Safe use. draft is complete but i would prefer someone else to check the copyedit changes before it is reinstated, thanks Jagra (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad news on LaRouche

As pointed out on the talk page, AnkaraCity has been confirmed as a sock of an indefinitely blocked/banned user. I'm inclined to take the suggestion there and de-list/resubmit. What do you think? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

After further discussion, I've closed the GAR on the article in favor of a new nomination. If you're available and since you were the primary editor, could you head on over to renominate? If you're not available, I'll renominate in your name in an hour or so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism dispute resolution

I'm not going to immediately undo your edit to Aesthetic Realism, but there's a dispute here that remains unresolved. There were no new comments on the talk page that justified your edit. I'd strongly urge you to seek involvement from other editors, rather than continuing to act unilaterally. Skoojal (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the conversion therapy category you just created for deletion. Skoojal (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

Would you mind explaining your latest edit to Conversion therapy? It seems wrong to me, and I plan to undo it. Skoojal (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis

Will Beback, I'd like to ask you again why you have not added the Conversion therapy category to Psychoanalysis. It's just as "relevant" to psychoanalysis as it is to aversion therapy, so by your own logic you should add it. Why haven't you? Skoojal (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly urge you to answer this question. I've asked it several times, and consider it perfectly reasonable. If you create a category, it is your responsibility to explain what articles (or kinds of articles) it should and should not apply to. If the Conversion therapy category is kept, the question of adding it to Psychoanalysis will arise sooner or later; you may as well adress the issue now. Skoojal (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not place my comments in places where I didn't put them

Will Beback: this is a formal request to not place comments by me on talk pages where I did not place them. It makes it look as though I deliberately made certain comments in a place where I did not make them and have no wish to make them. Modifying other user's comments is usually inappropriate. It is certainly inappropriate in this case, and also very unhelpful and unwelcome. Skoojal (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Is not about winning

Hi, I saw Niels' page linked back to it and your question. I have no idea who that guy is, and I didn't create the essay for any one specific group/school/conflict/cabal/theme/topic/anything. It and it's redirects were just a general observation and essay. :) rootology (C)(T) 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Populism#Merge proposal

Arguments in favor of merging have been presented by other editors who responded to the RfC. Please respond. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Lucas (director)

Hello Will. The 72.76 IP is back on this article's talk page again. Is it time to consider semi-protection? (Last March it was protected for two weeks). EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistorian disappeared?

Hi. The anonymous multi-IP user (possibly the same person as Psychohistorian) doesn't appear to have been active since around August 15. I'm not sure what this might mean. Any thoughts? Richwales (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Esterson

Well, that might explain the strange edit. De728631 (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear meltdown

I wonder if we should move this back to the proper talk page (I note you're an admin...) Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify - what I was suggesting was moving a copy of our discussion on Alotma's talk page, back to the proper topic page. bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

IP requesting unblock

Hello Will. You blocked User_talk:60.229.16.214 as a reincarnation of Sfacets. Now this IP editor is requesting unblock. Inquiring minds need to know how to respond to his unblock request. Can you say more about how you identified him as Sfacets? My guess is it must have something to do with Nirmala Srivastava. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Cook

This RV of my RVing a vandal is confusing? rootology (C)(T) 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia War move

Could you please move 2008 South Ossetia war to a more suitable title. As it stands the title misrepresents the conflict which did not take place solely in South Ossetia. Russian-Georgian War seems to have the most support as a new title, but War in Georgia (2008) might be an appropriate compromise. Either way no good reason has been giving for keeping the current title and it runs against everything stated in every medium Russian or Western. Neither Russian nor Western media are calling it South Ossetia War and it's not backed up by anything else because it does not account for the expansion of the conflict beyond South Ossetia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed page moves

I'm going to move the cities back to their original names. Please follow the page move procedure and seek consensus before making controversial page moves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules recommends using simple names for cities? For example, Chicago is not at Chicago, Illinois, and Oslo is not at Oslo, Norway. Why do you object to making the articles conform with the guideline? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a specific guideline for U.S. places. It has been discussed extensively. If you want to change the guideline please use the relevant talk page to make a proposal. If you think that individual articles should not follow the guideline then make that argument on the relevant city's talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#United States. This is very confusing because it is a direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules. Perhaps this could be clarified so others don't make the same mistake... —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So New York City is going to be moved to New York City, New York, which is it's proper name? Huh? rootology (C)(T) 15:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Millenium73 poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Millenium73 poster.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Maharaj Ji Holy Family photo cropped.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Albert C. Martin

Thanks for the kind note you left on my talk page. It's been a lot of fun visiting LA's historic sites and buildings with my sons this summer, and working with them on articles about them. There's no a decent article on the overwhelming majority of the Registered Historic Places in the City of LA, and we're working on other parts of LA and Ventura County now. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement.Cbl62 (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm Lost, Catch Me Up Please

Amongst all the jumble of words and such that have been said in the past two months regarding such pages as Quixtar and Amway, I've noticed much discussion as per re-writes and/or mergers. Unfortunately my brain hasn't been able to fully comprehend and formulate a summary of the decisions made or pending. So if it wouldn't be too much of a bother, could you get me caught up to speed on the status of both articles, and what needs done or is looking at being done to each? Thanks a bunch!Infero Veritas (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you want to converse on your talk page or mine or both, but I'll post here. The merger is pretty much just a name change. The company will run the same in North America as it has in the past 10 years. So merging articles will be for namesake only. However, from what I've heard, the global markets will be working towards becoming more like the american market (obviously not completely as not everything is the same in other countries). Infero Veritas (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Need advice on how to avoid edit war

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia last year. I haven't needed your help until now. I'm having difficulty working with an editor on the Peace (Cult album) and The Cult articles. The editor believes that Peace (Cult album) should be deleted, but appears unwilling to use wp:afd. This being despite my suggestion at Talk:Peace (Cult album). The editor appears to work from 72.185.242.31 (talk), 72.185.241.73 (talk), and most recently an apparent SPA Nomorepeace (talk · contribs). Instead of filing an afd or responding to my talk page post, the editor deletes page content, threatens an edit war, and promises to ignore talk page posts.[4] Can you give me some advice on how to proceed with this conflict? Thank you. Noca2plus (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Reliable Sources

Will Beback: Could you give me advice about a couple of examples relating to the Wikipedia Reliable Sources regulations when you can spare the time to look into this.

1. I have posted on my own website passages from books written by John Stachel, founding editor of the Albert Einstein Collected Papers (with the author’s permission). The webpages consist of nothing else but the relevant pages from two of Stachel’s publications. As this is published material, by an authority in the field, would my posting them in an appropriate Wikipedia webpage (i.e., “Mileva Maric”) be within Wikipedia regulations for Reliable Sources, possibly as clearly within the remit of Reliable Sources, or at least as sensible examples of “special cases”.

I quote: “In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers. Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.”

The articles are here: http://www.esterson.org/Stachel_Joffe.htm http://www.esterson.org/Stachel_Einsteins_letters.htm

2. Also, posted on my website are pre-publication versions of some of my articles on Freud published in history of psychology/psychiatry journals. These are virtually identical to the published versions (which I was not able to post for copyright reasons). Do these constitute Reliable Sources by Wikipedia regulations?

Examples: http://www.esterson.org/Masson_and_Freuds_seduction_theory.htm http://www.esterson.org/Mythologizing_psychoanalytic_history.htm http://www.esterson.org/Myth_of_Freuds_ostracism.htm

Hope you can spare the time to check these out. You can see my website here (it is not a blog): http://www.esterson.org Esterson (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback: Thanks for your response, and the useful information. But I need further clarification just to make sure I have got it right!

You wrote: "Articles published in peer review journals are among the best sources available. The fact that an article is also posted on its author's website is irrelevant, but the citation should be to the journal and not to the website (though you can add a link to the website for the convenience of readers)."

My articles are not the paginated pdf versions (accessible by subscribers only). They are the final pre-publication versions (virtually identical to the published versions). Is it still okay to link to them? (Of course the journal reference would be given.)

Again, with reference to the two verbatim extracts from Stachel's books posted on my website: These articles contain no commentary by me, only Stachel's own words, but obviously the URLs are to my website. Of course in citing them I first cite the respective books by Stachel, noting the relevant pages. Is it alright to then add the URLs to the articles in question (enabling readers to see what Stachel wrote in the referenced pages), although the URLs are to my website? Esterson (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback: Thanks for your response of 12 September. As I wrote, the articles in question are the final pre-publication versions, so they are virtually identical to the published versions. (Only minor editing, alterations to punctuation and suchlike, and changes necessary for printing in the journal, e.g., the layout of references, are different.) With regard to the passages from John Stachel's books, there's no question of copyright violation, as I obtained permission from the author, who owns the copyrights. They are not lengthy, and are from academic books of a kind one would not normally find on local library shelves.

One final request. Is the following an appropriate website for citations? It is a reputable source of academic articles and book reviews:

Human Nature Review: Human Nature Review is a significant source of analysis and commentary for readers at leading universities and research institutes in over one hundred and sixty countries and is one of the most popular sites on the whole world wide web. http://human-nature.com/

The articles I have in mind are the following: http://human-nature.com/esterson/synopsis.html http://human-nature.com/esterson/esterson3.html

The first is a synopsis of a journal article that an editor of Human Nature Review invited me to submit. The second is a related article. Esterson (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

This discussion is about the suitability of the peer review process w.r.t. the Millennium '73 article, not about the content of that article. Consequently I suggest to move that discussion from Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1 to Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1.

I post this same suggestion on Jossi's, Will Beback's and Rootology's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Novice's question about deletions of posted passages

Will Beback: I have only now understood that terms like "Original Research" and "Reliable Sources" have a specific Wikipedia meaning, which means that some of the items I posted recently were illegitimate. I have been experimenting, and now know how to check "history" to see recent changes. I see that Editor "Skoojal" has correctly removed a considerable number of items of this kind that I posted recently, but on one or two occasions I believe he has gone beyond an editor's remit. Would you advise me on the following two instances so I am in position to make a judgement if similar cases arise in the future:

Mileva Maric Wikipedia page

1.With the explanation "removing statement sourced to Allen Esterson's blog; not a reliable source", Skoojal deleted my statement:

Stachel has argued against the claims about Joffe. -- Ref: Stachel (2005), pp. liv-lxxii: http://www.esterson.org/Stachel_Joffe.htm

It is quite evident that the statement is sourced to Stachel's book. I can understand why Skoojal would remove the link to my website, but as the source is a published book, what grounds does he have to remove the whole sentence plus book reference?

2. With the explanation "removing statements that seem to constitute original research when presented in this way" Skoojal removed the following:

"Einstein remained an extremely fruitful scientist well into the 1920s, producing work of importance long after separating from Marić in 1914. She, on the other hand, never published anything, and"

It seems to me that if this kind of statement is deemed "Original Research", a great mass of material would have to be removed from, e.g., scientists' webpages. I can see no reason why Skoojal should have deleted this sentence and a half. At most, he should have requested reference citations – but if one had to do that for every statement like this, the Wikipedia pages would become overcrowded with references.

(Skoojal removed the above without raising it on the discussion page, so I've only just found out about it. But that's not important here.) Esterson (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Stachel's book is in the Bibliography on the webpage, so a full citation wasn't necessary. Esterson (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have several comments on this: I'm not interested in entering into a prolonged dispute with Esterson over the Maric article. I realize that what I did there may be reviewed and possibly changed by other editors, and I don't have a problem with that. Honesty compels me to point out that, while one's own website is not usually an acceptable source, it can be so in some cases when material on it has been republished by a reliable source (which appears to be the case for at least some of Esterson's articles, as one can see here [5]). I may modify or undo changes Esterson makes to other articles in future (this is always a possibility on Wikipedia), but I have no plans to disrupt his editing simply for the sake of it. Skoojal (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Emotions"

May I ask you that you avoid attempts to gauge other editors' "emotions"? You have no means to gauge that, besides measuring your own, that is. It also places you in a position that seems a bit condescending and self-serving (as in "I am not emotionally involved, I am not biased, but everybody that disagrees with me is"). Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cloud computing

I was listing the sources (like this) in edit logs for this information (which, like most categories, is more relevant for people seeking articles than vice versa) but figured it would be ignored so I went back to using hotcat. It's important for the cloud computing articles and using a category rather than a list solves the notability issues, and if the subject of an article doesn't particularly want to list this information then they can easy enough remove it.

I imagine eventually the category will go away (in much the same way as a 'computer user' category would have been relevant 20 years ago, but not today) but it's very useful for the time being; the subjects of the articles have been happy enough to be quoted in releases, etc. so it's no secret.

samj (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, capturing the sources would be nice, but a list would be a massive spamtrap and means we have to include *all* users, which is not all that interesting. The ones listed on the google page have agreed to be listed and the reason it's google apps and not salesforce for example is that these deployments are across the board (eg all staff, all students). The idea is to give people an idea of who's using the stuff, and who's happy to talk about it. Anyway using a category was a conscious decision... samj (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephens City

Will, I seriously don't want to get into a "pissing match" over the OTRS agreement again. The agreement was reached, filed, approved, and tagged. It's over and done with. Plus, saying that a section I worked VERY hard to get added "should be removed" if "no editing is allowed" isn't the best way to start things off.

According to the OTRS agreement, no section of the "hosty section" (I am guessing you meant "history") can be removed. We can add to it, but not remove from it. - NeutralHomer • Talk 10:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have messaged another user to get clarification on this and I will wait for what they have to say before going any further. - NeutralHomer • Talk 10:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Millennium '73

On 17 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Millennium '73, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on criticism of IPCC AR4?

If you have time, could you give me your opinion on whether the addition of the Tom Harris/John McLean piece to Criticism of IPCC AR4 is appropriate? I'm tempted to add it back in, but I'd like to consider the opinion of someone seasoned and impartial first. Thank you. MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for sharing your comments with me. I did check the original source documents and discovered that the claim that I'm trying to get into the article is actually true. I looked hard for any refutation, anywhere, and basically there is none, at least not that's honest/accurate. The claim was also widely cited in skeptic circles, so I think that qualifies as a view that should be represented. Incidentally, I'm not a climate change skeptic, I just think that the charge that only 62 people reviewed the IPCC's main conclusion (that climate change is largely caused by human activity), when it's commonly presented as being the work of 2,500 scientists, is exceptionally relevant. So I'll revisit this when I have time. Thanks again! 220.33.190.79 (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Laundry man

Nice job cleaning up. I'll have to have a look at that Socktime tool. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric Arthur B.

As you have some experience with this fellow I thought I'd point out that sometime ago he added his own self-published book to the Cults article "books" list and has now added his email address to that listing. The publisher, "Axiom books" was a UK LLC owned by the book author, David Brear. Last time I checked the LLC was defunct. Note it is not related to various other established publishers with "axiom" in the name. This info can be confirmed with UK Company House. I'd edit it myself but I don't wish to get in to another firefight with him --Insider201283 (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request for NZ inclusion on GDS' article

In order to solve the revert war on GDS article over the inclusion of the banning from New Zealand, I have opened a request for formal mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Giovanni Di Stefano. Please participate on the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Santa Monica Mountains

Hi. Thanks for photo offer. Season is often important. Please see my list of Flora of the Santa Monica Mountains on the main article page. The list is a work in progress, about half finished. I shuold be done this week. I am basing the list on species that I know how to locate (so as to photo0, then I will go back and fill in the blanks from flora books on the subject. I hike run (barefoot) to the top of Griffith Park most mornings at sunrise. Tom Labonge is there then, as is Sol Shenkman. I also practically lived between stunt road and saddle peak as a teen mathematician. I also bought a property that goes down into the LA River near Glendale Rapids, and am working with a River Commissioner's volunteer group and FOLAR on cleaning out the non natives, then getting rid of the concrete if allowed. EricDiesel (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flaming Sword cover.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Flaming Sword cover.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats for reverting BLP Violation

Will Beback, I dislike being threatened for reverting a violation of BLP, and have therefore left a comment at ANI about this. Skoojal (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor error on ANI Noticeboard

Will Beback: Under the heading "Threats for reverting BLP violation at Jeffrey Masson" at ANI Noticeboard there is a slip in one of your posted paragraphs that could confuse other editors. You wrote:

"Esterson has not substantiated his assertion that Esterson and unnamed scholars are biased, which he has said is based only on his own impression of them.[157]"

I'm sure you intended to write that "Skoojal has not substantiated..." Esterson (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Email address for Axiombooks in Cult

* Brear, David: 'The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult', Axiom Books, London, 2005, axiombooks@wanadoo.fr

Will, you removed the email address 09:03, 22 September 2008, but it seems to be legitimate. I'm fascinated by the title claim, and I'm hoping someone will obtain and review a copy to see if he is actually onto something.

I did extensive research perhaps two months ago when this book was added. I found an article by the author, IIRC on the subject of his second book. He believes his brother is a financial ruin victim of Amway-as-cult. I recall my conclusion that email address (in France) is currently the only way to obtain the first book.

Is there a guiderule against an email address to obtain a limited edition book, centrally related to the article but not used as a reliable source? (Please reply here if desired) Milo 13:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The book is self-published and was added to the article by the author, both of which make it of dubious merit. The claimed "2nd book" he has been hawking around for years and is still not published. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How do we know it's self-published? Do we have a source for Brear owning Axiom Books? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/. I checked it back in July. Axiom Books was setup by Brear and Lottick (who also apparently wrote the forward to the new, as yet unpublished Amway book). Incorporated 2000, struck off in 2007. It'll cost you a couple of bucks to download the docs to confirm. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, a website with hours:

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/

"Access to the service is closed"

"Companies House is available from Monday to Saturday 07:00 - 12 Midnight UK Time"

←But ok, assuming Insider201283's research is correct, Brear was a part owner of the Axiom Books publishing business. That's not quite classic self-publishing, but it's similar.

Next question is, even if Axiom Books is too much like self-publishing, does it matter in an external book list? Since 'The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult' is not used as a reliable source, the standards for listing are looser. I didn't find any guiderules for external books, but here's a guiderule that might be parallel:

Wikipedia:External links#Links to be considered: 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Taking author David Brear at face value, he has two knowledgeable sources:

1. Brear has long-term observed his brother's experience with what he and many others believe to be a pyramidal business cult, possibly the world's largest; and
2. his former Axiom Books business partner and introduction writer, Dr. Edward Lottick, is a heavyweight in international cultic studies. (Lottick is a physician, medical inventor, 1993 co-winner of the John G. Clark Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Cultic Studies, was on Board of Directors of an International Cultic Studies Association, and was President of the old Cult Awareness Network. See Edward Lottick. Dr. Lottick became internationally notable because of his family's tragedy described in the May 6, 1991, Time Magazine article: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power.)

Dr. Lottick, the honored cultic studies expert, has endorsed book author Brear to the point of going into the publishing business with him. By deduction from professional medical ethics and business logic, Lottick has read Brear's book 'The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult', approves of its contents, and recommends it to be read by the public.

As an experienced Wikipedia cult topics editor, it seems to me the above are good reasons to list this as an external book. I may or not agree with Dr. Lottick's endorsement once I read what Brear thinks are those universal characterics of a cult, but with such a good endorsement, I think most people interested in this topic would like to know what Brear has to say. At the least, Brear might become a potential candidate for the cult checklist subtopic. No one checklist is perfect, but an academic study of the increasing number of them could yield a new scientific profile of what is a populist cult.

Wikipedia:External links calls for a summary of such facts to be presented with a link. With an email address for Axiom Books, a book listing becomes more similar to an External link.

That returns to the topic of the Axiom Books email address. If the author's heavyweight endorsement is established to motivate WP's external listing and reader obtaining of a book, is listing of an internet email address substantially different from listing an internet web link? Given that the email address is the only way to obtain the book, does it make sense to list the book without it? If the email address is somehow unacceptable, would a personal website link labeled Axiom Books be any better?? Milo 02:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, without getting in to the silly "business pyramid cult" rubbish and how one persons experience with one person out of tens of millions could make anyone remotely an authority, the fact remains this is a self-published book, and the author, not a third party, attempted to add it to the wikipedia article. (As a side note, that direct experience with 1 person is 1 more than 3 other supposed "cult" authorities have had with Amway, but that's another topic!). Anyway, if we are to consider it under "external link" guidelines, then it would appear to fail Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Insider201283 (01:02): "...if we are to consider it under "external link" guidelines, then it would appear to fail Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest" Since that section discusses only website links, your position presumes the Axiom Books email address should be treated the same as an External link to a website. I request Will to join our consensus on that point.

Insider201283 (01:02): "...the author, not a third party, attempted to add it to the wikipedia article." Not a problem.

Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest: If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

Whomever added the original, I can delete it and recreate, as I noted previously, a commented version guided by External links: "Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." Milo 05:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I question any self-published source or book as an addition to an article, but especially when the person adding it is the author (smacks of self-promotion) or hasn't even read the book (smacks of POV). Wikipedia in general frowns upon self-published material of any nature. If a book is to be listed, then it should have it's ISBN number noted. If it doesn't have an ISBN number, then it's notability is questionable. As it is, the book is listed in the bibliography for the article, but is not referenced at all and was added to the listing by the author. Clearly this is a questionable approach to editing! --Insider201283 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Insider201283 (19:06): "I question any self-published source or book" ... "Wikipedia in general frowns upon self-published material of any nature." Also not a problem. Your own research established that the book was published by a commercial corporation of whom you named two known owners. But, ok, if we pierce the corporate shield, the book was co-published by corporate owners Brear and Lottick.

In either case, the book is not literally self-published. Accordingly, you will need to drop claims suggesting that Wikipedia in general frowns upon this situation, since, as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia guidelines do not discuss this situation.

Insider201283 (19:06): "notability is questionable" I can locate no notability guiderule for a corporate or co-published book listed with an External link/email address.

Insider201283 (19:06): "the book is listed in the bibliography for the article, but is not referenced at all" I can locate no guiderule that all or any books in the bibliography must be article references. However, as I previously noted (Milo 05:41), your position presumes the Axiom Books email address should be treated the same as an External link to a website. So, these may be reasons to move the book and its email address to the External links section.

As an External link, the significant reason for listing the book remains: Wikipedia:External links#Links to be considered: "4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." I previously listed the knowledgeable sources (Milo 02:38).

Insider201283 (19:06): "hasn't even read the book (smacks of POV)" I've read as much of the book as I can – the title – "The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult". The title claim, if true, is a significant claim in cultic studies (see the Cult article for why).

I want to read more, but I can't afford to buy it. The next best thing is to recommend that others who can afford it, read it and review it. If several neutral reviews of the book turn up significant problems with it, I have no problem with eventually dropping it from the list.

Understand that this listing isn't merely my personal point of view. My recommendation is supported by Dr. Lottick's co-publication of the book – his international cultic studies prestige and notability are behind the book. Milo 06:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've little knowledge of Lottick, but having had numerous online conversations with Brear, his endorsing of Brear does not bode well for a positive view of Lottick. Indeed, a brief review finds Lottick appears to have little "prestige" outside the rather insular and self-reinforcing anti-cult movement. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

WP:ANI#Clay_Aiken – iridescent 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I commented out my edits to Clay Aiken pending the magazine coming out later this week. An undo/rollback wouldn't have worked as other people had edited the text. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the link that Bugs found (which I elaborated on), it seems pretty much resolved now. To be honest, I'm not going to worry too much about it. I added the CNN link to try to avert further edit warring, but now somebody thinks I'm trying to game the system. (sigh) Oh well... I should just refer myself to Wikipedia:Dude, it's a frickin' online encyclopedia. Chill out, already! and move on :) caknuck _° is geared up for football season 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi there. Just thanking you for your welcome.212.84.122.28 (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am new to Wikipedia and have not learned everything about it yet. I'll not change anything else until I have a firm grasp of Wikipedia's policies.212.84.122.28 (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

NumbersUSA edits

These look good -- I've been afraid to Be Bold, especially when a revert war seems to hover on the horizon. I was planning to embed the criticism section into the article like you did. I think we're awfully close to being able to remove the POV bug. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afowler (talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A question about Margaret Sanger

Hi! I see you keep watch on the Margaret Sanger page...was wondering if you could give me your informed opinion of this edit [6] and the source used. I see no mention of evolution on her article. The IP in question also added some other mild POV edits, so I'm a bit suspicious of it. Will watch here for your answer. Thanks in advance... Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the source, the material appears irrelevant to the topic. I've deleted it and left a note on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated! :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool

I've been involved in a mediating a rather minor dispute between two users at this article, and looking through the history I saw your name and was wondering if you could possibly see something I'm missing. User:Rock8591 and User:WSmithPC/75.66.253.96 engaged in a brief edit war on the article, with WSmithPC claiming to be the Winston Smith affiliated with the show, but not Harold Covington as is widely believed. Rock8591 countered that WSmithPC was removing sourced information from the article (which he was) and that he was trying to whitewash the program's nature. After they continued their argument on my talk page, I thought things had ended when I suggested to WSmithPC that WP:OTRS was the best way to handle his problems. The whole exchange left me feeling suspicious, especially when a new IP removed sourced material about the Smith/Covington connection followed shortly be a second removal of the information by Rock8591 who has decided to, "give Winston the benefit of the doubt". This little gem makes me doubt Rock's authenticity, and this does little to relieve my unease. I'm not sure what's going on with these two, but something is off, and I'd really appreciate you keeping an eye on things. AniMate 04:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of me feels incredibly foolish, because I knew something like this was the endgame. Well, if I'm to be lumped in with members of a "nefarious organization" like the SPLC, I consider myself in good company. Keep an eye on the article, as he seems to be planning on exposing the evils of Wikipedia. AniMate 04:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A vandal?!

There is a vandal around here that is up to no good, as usual. The vandal's Ip address is 24.20.47.60. I see you've blocked the cad before and so request that you block him again. This user will only go on making more mischief if something is not done. Thank you--KnowledgeLord (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)