User talk:Will Beback/archive16

Archives

January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007

Hello Will, You opened a new COI on 13 March about Nicholas Stix, and a discussion ensued. Do you believe that this discussion gave you the information to proceed to the next step? Let us know if the item can be closed, or if you would like the readers of the noticeboard to do more investigation. Add your further thoughts directly on the noticeboard. EdJohnston 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "heads-up" about the possible sock puppets! I had noticed they seemed to have pretty much the same opinions, but didn't think anything more of it. -Aleta 02:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, so far I dislike some of what you change that I put, but given that you edit fairly, I pose my question. Now, I saw why you removed my post. My question is, what if it is true? The reason I did not yet put up a source is I have it from the LaRouche guys as a reader of Executive Intelligence Review and share their dislike of Al Gore. The problem is, it seems, Wikipedia have decided not to accept a lot of stuff sourced to LaRouche and his organisation. I am merely waiting to get the free time to find out their sources for this and to add it. This has been published in EIR and can be found on the LaRouche websites. Al Gore worked with the FBI as part of Operation Frühmenschen. The question is, will LaRouche be allowed as a source? --Nemesis1981 01:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to an Arbcom decision:

Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

If, by following references in the LaRouche material, you were to come upon reliable sources from non-LaRouche publications, they might be considered. EdJohnston 02:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides what is a reliable source? It seems that there was a 'Democratic Party of Athens'-type decision regarding LaRouche, yet I have never seen a legitimate complaint that he is wrong, or any slander actually upheld. If I find these sources, I will see if a Kafkaesque fight is forced upon me. Do I also have the right to demand answers from "impartial" administrators who change my edits?

--Nemesis1981 20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to understand why you deleted the Dimitra Ekmektsis article! I stemmed it from the Aaron Sorkin page, who is central to her memoir, Confessions of a High Priced Call Girl. Can I get a reason, please? That lady is at the dawn of a new era in her life and she deserves her article back! Just give me a reason, that's all I ask! ToxicArtichoke 05:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If I owned a restaurant I'd fire a chef who didn't show up in clean clothes at the start of his shift, and I'd also fire him if his clothes were still clean five hours later."

I like this a lot—it seems to say what is needed! Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, I don't know all the Wikipedia rules, but it seems SlimVirgin and I are not agreeing on some stuff, and I have been pushing for answers on other pages, and although I contend that this might have contributed to a lack of dialogue between us concerning the page on the German LaRouche Youth Movement's party, the Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität, I am now adding direct reference and detail as to where people might find reference to what I write. My concern is that this administrator will just change my stuff back, since the said administrator has not responded to my writing on the talk page, nor even elaborated on what was wrong with what I added. Rather than starting an edit war, which is against Wiki-rules, I thought I would ask you to mediate as to what I can add and what the said administrator can delete. Would you do this? Or at least ask Slim for justification and to give me a few days to either credit the claim or remove it, as I did for her. Thankyou. --Nemesis1981 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the message the first time. You've chosen not to address any of my concerns, or enter in a dialog with me in any way. What's the point? [1]

If you had bothered to ask, or looked into the situation, you'd have found that I've already decided to try a different approach - refactoring others' comments less, using strikeouts in my own comments more, and looking for an alternative to Wikipedia. The harrassment here really sickens me. The fact that it's ignored by most, encouraged by others, sickens me more. --Ronz 15:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "eminent" is used in Hans Eysenck's biography on Wikipedia.

The man is considered "eminent" by almost everyone ... that is not controversial.

Why is it not okay to refer to Hans Eysenck as "eminent" when he comments on Rushton's work in the biography on Rushton?

Mstabba 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's been been heat on both sides. I don't claim to speak for 70 -- and I understand the admin's mission to enforce policy -- but I feel that this action only worsens existing hurt feelings. Please, please reconsider. Yakuman (数え役満) 16:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia project, not a schoolyard brawl. The language contained in this diatribe [2], and in several others, is not acceptable and is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL. The same user has had the policies patiently explained to him and he has only gotten worse. The "heat" has not been on both sides, as you indicate (and if anyone else has used similar language they should get a block too). The editor has been extremely disruptive and the block is intended to prevent further "hurt feelings" by those who this editor keeps attacking. -Will Beback · † · 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute has clear ideological overtones, plus this guy has been wikistalked and chased from page to page for some time. Discussing policy seems a bit tiresome if it is only enforced in one direction. Yakuman (数え役満) 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if anyone else has used similar language they should also receive a block. Many disputes on Wikipedia involve ideology but we still require editors to act in a civil fashion. -Will Beback · † · 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's bigger issues involved here. He claims an group of editors follows him around, reverting his edits for months. That might make one a bit testy. Right or wrong, he should be allowed to say it, especially on his own talk page. This month-long block just reinforces the conflict. Also, since you have fresh edits on William Shockley, J. Philippe Rushton, Kevin B. MacDonald and several other race-related articles, he can easily say that the block was ideologically motivated.

To lurkers: To clear up confusion, let me repeat that I am not 70.*. For one thing, I'm not in Brooklyn, NY. Besides, if I were COI, I could simply slip my own clips in among thousands of other edits across a wide variety of topics. I have, however, advocated for him. While I am not AMA, I have a good faith desire to resolve this dispute. Yakuman (数え役満) 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the language used by this editor is acceptable? Do you beleive that he has not violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL:? -Will Beback · † · 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the punishment fits the crime. Since it was 70's own talk page, policy requirements, while still there, are looser. Also, the other major statement was on a noticeboard and deleted for length, so I'm not sure that it counts. I understand your frustration, yet I also understand his. There must there be a better way to handle this. Does he need a whole month? How about seven days? Yakuman (数え役満) 17:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where the incivility is located. There's been plenty on pages all over. The block needs to be long enough to change the behavior. The three previous, shorter blocks did not result in any improvement If he sends me a note saying he regrets his former incivility and promises to mend his ways I'll unblock him immediately. -Will Beback · † · 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He can point to incivilities directed against him (vandal, racist, sockpuppet, etc) and ask why you never acted there. Or why you never did anything about the obvious instances where 70 was chased from page to page (wikistalking). He can even probe your unusually large number of edits on race-related articles. I hate to say this, but one might question whether you really want anything to change. (He would.) In fact, it seems as if if you are trying to push him hard enough, so that he will respond in a way that gives you the rationale for a permanent block. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in what "he can point to". He has been given many opportunities to resolve disputes and has instead inflamed them by his rhetoric. If you can provide evidence of him being stalked then we can deal with that separately. Likewise if you can assemble evidence of personal attacks against him those too can be dealt with. None of those are defenses of his own behavior. I take offense at your assertion that I pushed him into his use of crude and uncivil language. My dealings with him have been entirely circumspect and proper. He is responsible for his own actions. -Will Beback · † · 18:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guess I should gently bring up the AGF issue on your part, which I question. You clearly have some interest in this, which goes beyond mere adminship. If he drew up evidence (again) and posted it, I suspect you would take his conclusion -- that a cadre is wikistalking him -- as a personal attack and justify that permanent block. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are now questioning my good faith and honesty I won't keep this discussion going. If you'd like to ask other admins to look into the block it has been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by 70.23.199.239 -Will Beback · † · 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you are central to all this, you have some responsibility here. If there is some downward spiral, maybe you have contributed to it. I regret your inflexibility. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nadine_Gordimer&diff=prev&oldid=121629375 Talk:Nadine Gordimer for the same posting. But, btw, I've never heard that standards are looser on a talk page for one's own userID. The talk pages are wikipedia conversation about the user; I see no reason why we are freer to have personal attacks and be uncivil on those pages. The talk pages are not our personal property. --lquilter 18:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the talk page, 70 wasn't hurling insults as a substitute for explaining "what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it." Nor did he threaten anyone, post personal details, or make legal threats. His rhetorical hyperbole, however ill-advised, fails the test. He shouldn't even be blocked. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Eysenck IS eminent. It is not a case of him "asserting" anything. Eysenck's reputation speaks for itself. Anyone who has studied psychology knows of Hans Eysenck and his excellent reputation.

Your adding in the information (in Rushton bio) about Eysenck having received Pioneer funds (and your removing the word "eminent" with respect to Eysenck) reflects a lack of neutrality on your part ... implying he (Eysenck) cannot be objective or counted on because he received some funds from Pioneer.

Mstabba 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no possible reason to add this material here that is not racist. Your post is :extraordinary, mr./ms. anonymous 70.23 etc. This is sickening. Sickening. You obviously make it your business to go around adding this kind of crap. I bet you've never read a word of Nadine Gordimer. " (DianaW, 1 December 2006)

"This material is not particularly notable, and is written in an obvious POV manner to try to make a subtle racist claim." (LQ 1 December 2006)

They are responsible for their own actions. Many disputes on Wikipedia involve ideology but we still require editors to act in a civil fashion. This is an encyclopedia project, not a schoolyard brawl. These extremely disruptive attacks are not acceptable.

You told me your dealings are entirely circumspect and proper. Is the language used by these editors is acceptable? Do you believe that they have not violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? Yakuman (数え役満) 07:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you find the language and behavior of 70.23 to be acceptable? I asked you before but you dodged the question. Apparently, you find his civility laudable.[3] If you really believe his behavior to be worthy of special award then I'm sure your definition of "civility" also includes saying that an edit tries to "make a subtle racist claim". If you think calling my behavior "vicious" is OK and comparing Durova to a prison gang rapist is fine, then I suppose that calling someone's edit "sickening" probably meets your standard for civility too. I don't see what logic can find fault with these quotes while endorsing, defending, and rewarding the whole of 70.23's behavior. If your standard for civility is 70.23, then these guys are veritable diplomats.

Yes, my dealing with 70.23 have been entirely circumspect and proper. -Will Beback · † · 08:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD. WP:IAR; what you call a diatribe was a serious grievance, humourously stated. To the extent that 70 is trying to uphold civic culture and free inquiry, he deserves that star. How long a block did you give those two for violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL -- and starting this mess? None, for several months of damage. No wonder 70 is upset.

Nothing you have said shows a desire to settle this matter. Since you intend to carry on the same activities, ostensibly to "enforce policy," I can't get away from discussing these issues. Believe me, I want this to stop, but you hold disproportionate power. You force me to spend hours and hours putting out fires. That’s not fun. Yakuman (数え役満) 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to block anyone for something they wrote five months ago. I've left a note about the more troublesome of the two. "Serious grievance, humourously stated?" The kind of humor that's based on insulting other editors isn't appreciated by me. If it was a one-time thing, then fine. But this editor has been hurling personal attacks for months. Your advocacy of his insults doesn't reflect so well on you either. Your involvement in this matter seems more inclined to inflaming the rhetoric than to seeking resolution. If you really think that 70.23 deserves a "Barnstar of Civility" then don't come whining to me about incivilities from five months ago.

The matter is settled. Not a single other user has come to the defense of this user. Let's just let things lie low for a while. I'm not forcing you to do anything. -Will Beback · † · 10:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

should A&F Fragrances be deleted? i just nominated it, and then saw that you had said it should be to User:Hpfan1, and i agree with you. but that was about 2 months ago, so i'm unclear as to the reason an article which basically looks like an advertisement is still up? let me know, thanks.--Kmccusker2 10:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the quick response! ^whoops on the left out signature, added that in just now, but yeah, definitely does not belong, just as i feel the whole abercrombie.com section of the [Abercrombie & Fitch] article should be removed if you wanted to check that out along with talk for the page as well. (placed by same user as fragrance article) thanks again for your input.--Kmccusker2 10:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Talk:Hollister Co. page, one user has been deleting sometimes relevant, some simply pointing out vandalism, and off topic posts from the talk page. It is my understanding that deletion of other users talk posts is not allowed, unless there are certain circumstances, which i do not believe their deletions meet. let me know the status concerning that, and if some of those deletions may be tolerable or not. thank you --Kmccusker2 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did read that, but i didn't see anything appropriate concerning the deletions which were made to the page, so im not sure whether or not they were in line with the talk page standards, for deletion anyway. Kmccusker2 19:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Whisper and I have both verified it with the source herself. This probably violates no original research, but I know that a local publication has put out a story about it this week, so once I find that source it can be used as a reference. Evan7257 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I know you are busy, but I notice you have been involved in COI issues and some at the TM related articles. I thought the COI noticeboard resolved the issue in determining COI applied, but now I believe there is a chronic, still unresolved COI issue in the editing of those articles that needs clarification. I've asked some of the Noticeboard editors for comment, including yourself:

(Tearlach): "Is it just my perception, or are infringing editors getting wise to the idea that nothing much is going to happen if they don't actively break major policies? We seem to be getting a lot of "I hear what you say but that doesn't apply to me because ... fill in excuse"."

Considering oneself neutral and providing character witnesses are thought enough make COI a non-issue. Besides the criticism of the COI Noticeboard editors in claiming "an extreme misconception on the part of everyone here: WHY would someone being at the TM university for decades be construed as evidence of COI in regards to editing the [Maharishi Mahesh Yogi] article?", and claims Paul Mason "throughly despises MMY", Spairig said:

"I gotta wonder at your obsession here, given that the description of COI says that one must be PAID or expect to be compensated in some way for editing the Wiki page in question in order for there to be a financial COI. The Maharishi University of Management employees are all posting anonymously because, as I understand it, the general policy of the various TM organizations is to "stay out of the mud" of arguing about TM in public unless you are a lawyer or PR person working in your capacity as such. None of the TM-related editors are being paid to edit this page as far as I know. the close relationships COI might apply, but only if you can demonstrate that the editors are not keeping a NPOV in what they post. That also doesn't seem to be the case. The fact that some "experienced Wiki editors" don't appear to understand the issue and support your claims is trumped by what the WP:COI page actually says."

I have Mason (both versions), easy to get. Mason "thoroughly despises MMY" seems both inaccurate and irrelevant. Mason states the TM organization fought publication but failed. Unjustified personal attacks on Mason from TMers are just one example on one subject of a COI undermining NPOV. One example of individual editors now feeling free to dismiss COI concerns based on personal interpretations of COI, with a sense of impunity and indignity. I see need for a global Wikipedian solution. Comments?--Dseer 03:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhydon 03:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Uh okay... Thank you for telling me about that. i am a new user and i need you to give me tips on what to do. Your talk page appears crowded and I would like to learn about Wikipedia and how it works. When you have time, go to my talk page and edit tips for me please. If you don't have time please come to my talk page and say sorry i can't help. Your help is greatly appreciated.[reply]

- Rhydon

Hi, You may delete the article on Key Poulan if you want. Unfortunately I currently do not have enough time to deal with it in the immediate future. Thanks --Horncomposer 07:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text is a mirror of the original ... I never got back around to expanding and improving the article. Thanks for pointing out its PD status. I guess I'll have to take some time and rewrite it. --evrik ^(talk) 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the user who made the edit in question, but is there any reason that you're keeping the term "white supremacist" off the CCC page? I ask because the organization opposes immigration of blacks and race-mixing; is it a stretch to go from that to "white supremacist?" I certainly don't think "paleoconservative" is particulary descriptive as an alternative. Maybe something like "white nationalist" or "white separatist?" Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "white separatist" would definitely be closer to a reasonable description, or perhaps "white pride," as they are listed in the White separatism article. They use "pro-white" here and use "white pride" throughout the site, including on t-shirts. Anyway, "paleoconservative" seems really incongruous. Thanks for your thoughts. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 23:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, and I am not sure it is notable. It apparently was mentioned once in the Wall Street Journal nine years ago, and Google shows mainly LaRouche cites. I see you edited the page once so I was curious to know your thoughts on it.--Mantanmoreland 16:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yr reply. Yes, it can be deleted I guess, but I am conflicted as to the notability issue. I'll see if I can get a better database search. --Mantanmoreland 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I am removing the nonsense on JDL. I highly doubt you sent your little warning to other users such as Denis D. There is a smear campaign going on. -- eternalsleeper

• Just checked Denis Diderot page to see if you sent him a warning. He posted more then I did today, what a surprise, you didn't. Why is this?

eternalsleeper

Something bizarre has happened to the article Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, CA. It loooks as though a new user, ES80829, has copied and pasted Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California to a new page. I have no idea what's going on, but thought it ought to be brought to the attention of somebody who knows how this stuff works (which I certainly don't). Thanks. Whyaduck 04:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just anticipating all these categories disappearing, if not now then as soon as the 'delete everything in sight' crowd get enough votes to delete them. Then it is a lot of trouble to find the articles again and put into good categories. As soon as good category names are found that will not be always challenged, then I would put the articles into them. What is a good name for 'anti-xx' 'critics of xx', both the general article and the bio articles when the WP category voters want to get rid of everything that looks like 'an opinion'. Other than science fact what is not an opinion? And I am not even interested in these subjects, pro or anti. I just think there should be orderly ways of grouping articles. Hmains 03:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else may be said about it, CounterPunch meets the test as a reliable source on Justin Berry, as well as a host of other subjects. On that, I think we agree. First JustinBerry then 204.194.37.241 have removed the links to the article on Justin Berry that appeared there. The IP user makes very similar threatening comments ("do not add again, you've been warned") to JustinBerry. Can you (a) cross-reference the IP to JustinBerry, and (b) think of something that can be done to head off a pointless revert war over a gold-standard example of an external link? I'm at my wit's end. If the IP is Berry, I don't want to do the whole warning process with him, as he's obviously sincere, and I just couldn't bring myself to warn/worse a sincere (albeit misguided) editor. Any ideas? --Ssbohio 22:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: WHOIS shows that the IP belongs to Hayes Computer Systems, a government contractor an ISP in Tallahassee, FL. Berry's official website has him at a speaking engagement in Tallahassee. It's not probitive, but it's suggestive that they're one & the same. --Ssbohio 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I felt I couldn't justify treating JustinBerry that differently from other editors, so, in this edit, I applied the mildest of the content removal warning templates. Please review my action, and, if you think it is at all improper or precipitous, feel free to remove it. Please contact me, on or off-wiki to discuss this further. --Ssbohio 13:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing this up while it's still a minor thing, so it doesn't become anything more. I've noticed a couple of instances where the edit summary doesn't seem to reflect the edit(s) made. Based on your reputation here, my feeling is that these are oversights, since the edits themselves are good, but I commend to your attention the edit summary help page which says edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial. The two recent edits that concern me are:

• This edit was summarized as leave part that mentions Berry although text mentioning Berry was actually removed. There was a good basis for the removal (I supported it on the talk page), but the summary essentially gave an account that was 180° off from the underlying edit.
• This edit also appears justifiable, since the information was not referenced. The change to the text included changing a description of a TV episode apparently inspired by this case into one that may have drawn inspiration from this case. Without the first version having been sourced, it was prudent to alter the meaning. However, the edit summary indicates that the edit only included ce, wl (copyediting & wikilinking). A change in meaning would (arguably) appear to go beyond copyediting.

Summarizing an edit is an area with a fair amount of wiggle room. Given the prior (& current) contentious nature of this article, though, I'd ask that the edit summaries err on the side of being overly accurate & descriptive. Thanks. --Ssbohio 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help please? ERcheck asked me to update the fair use rational but since he uploaded it another admin has to remove the disputed tag. The discussion regarding this Image:TITN BOTW cover.jpg is here [4] and here [5]. Thanks - Maria202 23:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why only this image in this article - the same should hold true for all other singers with album covers shown and it doesn't. In fact most of the ones I checked don't even have a fair use rational. - Maria202 00:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen that. The only people who have used that contact information so far have used it to warn me about the post, no actual harassers. I think most of them have enough sense to be ashamed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi Will -could you have a look at this user talk page? Edits have been made (like a vandalism warning) but they seem to be invisible. thanks - I wasn't sure where this kind of thing gets reported, so I'm told finding a friendly admin does the trick... Tvoz |talk 05:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And - it did do the trick! Thanks Tvoz |talk 17:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Will, I found your response to my editing of "notable black supremacists" and you stated that "You need to have a source that calls them 'black supremacists'. You can't just decide on your own." I appreciate your input and the need for intellectual intergrity. However, as discussed in the article on black supremacy, no prominent figures who are black have self-identified as black supremacists. Rather, the label has been given based on public racist (anti-white and anti-semitic) rhetoric and actions. Both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have well cited instances of each in articles about them on wikipedia. I'm not looking to go into a diatribe in the article about black supremacists to further discuss Mr. Sharpton's and Mr. Jackson's public speaking and racist actions but I do think it is important to list the two of them as they are vocal racists who likely do not represent what many or most american blacks believe. Would you please consider adding them to the list? Federal15 15:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot fathom why admins such as yourself continually violate policy on Wikipedia (for example, your reverting to put unverifiable content back in an article or your reverting content without providing a reason in line with Wiki policy (this one's actually a guideline - be bold)) Is policy just a suggestion? -75.179.159.240 21:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Will, I created this map but there are considerable quality issues I would like to fix, such as the black spots that appear. Any help and suggestions on this map are welcome, Thanks Jorobeq 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that in the LA pages we can use this map to illustrate the location of each community in their articles (ie. in the Westchester article we include this new map i made and fill in the westchester area in red). If you have any ideas on how to change this map (colors, additions, etc) let me know. Thanks Jorobeq 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had realized, while assessing for WP:FASHION, that navboxes for the many different subtypes of clothing would be a good idea. And this being fashion, we can't have them look like just any ol' navbox. So I looked around until I found {{Tables games}}, which was the right size and had an image space available, and just adapted it for the purpose. It's probably the most ambitious template I've ever created. Daniel Case 05:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks quite familar now. [6] Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sadly, by now I can spot LaRouche propaganda from a mile away. 172 | Talk 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at this diff and have a word with the user. If this were an article, he would be correct. I'm not sure he is given that it's a disambiguation page; I'm not into any more battles at the moment.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for interjecting, but the cited diff is actually an improvement, IMHO, though the reason cited in the edit summary seems fallacious. The 'See Also' section that was removed gives no general help on people with names similar to 'Chris Collins'. That's the normal reason to have a 'See also' section in a personal name DAB. EdJohnston 01:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will -- Maybe the reason frontpagemag.com works for you (and not me) is that your DNS is on top of things (and mine isn't). I switched from Comcast's DNS server to OpenDNS because they promised to decrease access time with caching, but one on the benefits they promised was spelling correction. This implies that it's technically possible to return frontpagemagazine's ip address automatically for frontpagemag.com requests. Or maybe frontpagemag is back on line and it's my DNS's table that hasn't been updated. All I really know is that I got an email from frontpagemag saying that they had "technical difficulties" and that I should use "frontpagemagazine.com". If you do, you get a lot of red "x"s and dead links because images are being served from and the content links go to frontpagemag. If you pull up the "properties" of a link and copy the address to the address line and manually correct it to ...magazine.cm/... the content does come up, albeit in a frame with red "X"'s and dead links.

OpenDNS makes money by replacing "Error 44" pages with a search page, and that's what I get when I try "frontpagemag.com". It reports "You tried to visit www.frontpagemag.com, which is not loading."

And I noticed on my own that Friday was the 9th anniversary of the site's launch, which led me to the fact that the registration of the domain name was scheduled to expire on that date. OR on my part, I guess, but what can you do...? I couldn't find a RS to quote online, just the mass email, and how do you cite that?

I could try using different DNSs... but I'll let it ride for now.

So, the answer is that I'm sure the phenomenon is real, but I don't know why it's fixed for you and not for me. Andyvphil 07:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please realise that holding a survey (not a vote) and then abruptly ending it without the overview of an admin is unacceptable behaviour.
Dove1950 19:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that the move to peso contradicts common sense, the admin said "Contrary to Berserkerz Crit, I would contest that waiting for an impartial admin to close the discussion would probably have been very wise indeed." That's a problem, isn't it?
Dove1950 19:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading it accurately but it may have been poorly written. Nonetheless, a consencus is not equal to a 10:3 majority, nor does such a majority change what's written on the currency. Have you ever seen a modern Philippine coin or banknote? I don't wish to get personal on this but it is intensely annoying to watch such an obvious fact overwhelmed by illinformed people.
Dove1950 19:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to write accurate articles is even worse practice.
Dove1950 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The survey does not change what's written on the coins and notes, so it is hardly controversial or disruptive to ensure that, when discussing the coins and notes, the correct names are used. Not to do so would be to generate a source of confusion, not something Wikipedia ought to be doing.
Dove1950 19:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you don't believe me when I say that all coins and banknotes have used the names sentimo and piso since 1967? If so, prove I'm wrong.
Dove1950 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, it might be appropriate to follow the example set on many millions of coins and banknotes and use sentimo and piso. Remember, you are going around writing about 1 piso coins when the picture proves it's a 1 piso coin. Do you really think that's sensible?
Dove1950 20:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this edit and I'm guessing that you're using an external edit to do the replacement. I'm not getting into the piso/peso debate, but apparently your editor is not 100% Unicode compatible. So the interwiki links are partially destroyed. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)��[reply]