User talk:Will Beback/archive23

Please clarify

I see that you removed my edit about Mike Gravel [1], saying that it was "not an activity by LaRouche." However, you did not remove "Jeremiah Duggan," also not an activity by LaRouche. What is the standard for inclusion? --Niels Gade 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

err...

OK, do me a favor. Track someone down from ComComm and find out why the previous submission of permission was rejected and why I never recieved anything. I sent, you know it, ComComm just ain't doing their jobs. If I have to copy the full damned email onto the talk page to prove it, I will. You know what, that's a good idea. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're an admin, you have been "involved" with this article from my beginning it's updating and you continue to. You want to see something done, you can help. Found the email, I will be posting it (sans addresses) on the Stephens City talk page in a moment. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the bottom of the Stephens City talk page. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check the OTRS inbox....I have resent the submission for permission. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this? I can tell you right now, they will only allow Wikipedia and only Wikipedia to use the history they have written up. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia-only permission not valid? They and I are only working with Wikipedia. They only want this on Wikipedia, hence the requirement for the link on the Stephens City, Virginia page. Again, are you talking about this? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, NHC is closed until about 10am tomorrow (small town, small town hours), so it isn't like I can run on down there right now and get the permission. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're just not going to answer my question, are you? Are you talking about this? Is that the way it is supposed to be written? If so, I can have them send it to the permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org email address themselves, directly from NHC in the morning. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then show me the letter, gimme a link and answer my question. Stop giving me some crap answer, and just work with me...or get me someone who is willing to. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the letter at the bottom is a "Typical request letter for confirmation", I am wanting a letter for permission. Also, I passed "chill out" about 20mins ago when you, Metros, and Mufka decided to do a nice gang-up/stonewall job here. I ask a question, you dance around it for 20mins. All I am asking, is a link to the "template", if you will, for requesting permission to use this history. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you 5 times for a link for exactly what this permission has to say for ComComm to consider it valid....and you refuse to show me. I asked you to work with me...and you, what, give up? Dude, you are the one that needs to chill out and learn to work with people. Patience, my friend, patience. Now...can you show me exactly what the permission is supposed to say so that ComComm can consider the permission from the Newtown History Center valid? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy hell, dude! That link you gave....was the link I included three times in posts to you on this very talk page. You sent me the same thing I asked about. Now, you want to tell me you were really reading my posts above, cause it appears you weren't. Do me a favor, from now on, unless you are going to actively pay attention to posts that people make and posts that are sent to you, don't help me out...please, save me the migraine next time. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With help from others, who didn't mind taking the time to explain things and show me what I had to send in, the gentleman in charge of the Newtown History Center will be sending in the submission for permission to use the history. What makes this even better, is that he is the person who wrote it :)

Once again, do have some better patience when working with people. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you haven't read your talk page very well....read the above post again. "the gentleman in charge of the Newtown History Center will be sending in the submission for permission to use the history." I post that and some two hours later you post "I understand that you are still pursuing permission" on the Stephens City talk page. I have to ask, do you actually read what is posted on your talk page? After last night and now this, I don't think you read what people write at all.

Do me a big favor, leave the Stephens City article up to people who will pay attention to talk pages and have the patience to work with others, it will save me a migraine. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would do me alot of good if you were willing to help, you aren't (the above shows that) so, it ain't getting us anywhere there. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Stephens City Talk Page. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Break

So...does this mean we can readd the "not-rewritten-by-me" version from July now? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verbatim version has been readded. This version is from the NHC website and last added in July. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I thought that the articles which refer to ethnic groups could be titled in plural. That's what I saw in other something-Americans articles since this is an encyclopedia and the article talks about a people, it's not a lexicon which gives the meaning of what a Greek American is. And the other point is that I couldn't move it because there was already a page with the name I wanted to move the article to.. - Sthenel 22:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

patience

Thanks for the compliment, funny you would say it because: I was thinking over the last couple days that I wish I had nearly as much patience as I saw coming from you. SaltyBoatr 15:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relata refero

I am the "incivil user" that supposedly drove away his previous avatar, Hornplease. Baka man 01:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens City

You have no idea how hard it was to find the word "bicenquinquagenary". Centennial, Bicentennial, and Tricentennial are easy to find, but try finding "bicenquinquagenary"....sheesh! - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always get the "it's" and "its" thing goofed up :) I have caught myself when coming to an "it's"/"its" part of a sentence and normally catch them, but sometimes they slip past me. Thanks for the correction though. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Neat! That one is a force of habit for me. I make sure the commas and periods are all in there. I even think I use, too, many, commas, sometimes. They say "ya learn something new everyday" and I just did. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lindsay ashford

I love how you warned me and not Squeakbox even though he did the same exact thing. Is that maybe because you agreed with him? Neither of you provided any compelling arguments for the edit that you were fighting for. --Ospinad 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may not spend my whole life on Wikipedia like Squeakbox does but I'd hardly call being a member for about a year and with over 1000 edits a "new account" besides I already knew of the 3 revert rule that is why I didn't do it a 4th time --Ospinad 21:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not spend my whole life on wikipedia and for you to claim that I do is incorrect, Ospinad. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not, you only average about 100 edits a day... anyway why don't you try explaining to me why it is so hard for you to understand that the sentence about Lindsay closing his site doesn't belong in the section about the police investigation because it makes it seem like they are related? Why do you want so bad to make it look like he is a criminal when all he is trying to do is survive? Ospinad 03:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err don't just make figures up off the top of your head concerning me. Try counting. Actually I do less than 50 edits a day on average and probably spend 2-3 hours a day on wikipedia, just an average hobby. We can talk about Ashford on that talk page, Will's talk page is not the place for it, but I am open to discussing this issue there. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I really don't care how much time you spend on Wikipedia, my only point was that Will said that the only reason why he warned me and not you was because he thought I was new to Wikipedia and I said that just because I haven't been here as long as you have that doesn't mean I'm new. It doesn't matter to me where we discuss it, we can do it here since both of you reverted me --Ospinad 05:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine not to care how much time I spend on wikipedia, what is not okay is to take some figure of the top of your head and present it as fact. I suggest you don't comment on how much you think I edit here. Will was referring tot he fact that I have been editing here for years and clearly no my way around wikipedia, and it is considered inappropriate to warn obviously experienced users about our policies or using templates. We need to discuss it on the article talk so other editors can also comment. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all keep calm. I was mistaken that Ospinad was a new account. Regarding the article, I suggest finding a third or fourth option instead of fighting over just two choices. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Garden Grove

I know you are an active participant in Orange County Community issues, and I wanted to let you know that West Garden Grove is experiencing problems just as a few of the other communities in the area have in the past that you have been involved with. Just giving you a heads up in case you want to add your two cents. Marinidil 03:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to vote on this issue? Marinidil 04:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and help. User:Alansohn has been hurling accusations at me all morning, most of which I've archived. I deleted what I THOUGHT were Marinidil's edits this morning and sent Alansohn a message, polite message actually despite his previous behavior. Instead of just saying "you made a mistake, I had previous fix it" he's been making numerous false accusations including that I deleted sourced material several times prior to this morning, claims my only motivation for deleting the WGG article is something too convoluted for me to understand, and claims I was vandalizing the page. Apparently accidentally deleting something you thought was added by a banned user is equal to spraypainting a building without permission. I'll gladly take a warning of incivility if you could also give him one. I've withdrawn the nomination based on his behavior this morning. I just can't be caught crying at the office. Any assistance would be appreciated. IrishLass0128 18:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. Obviously I'm not the only one he's nasty too. I guess it's a pattern and I shouldn't have taken it so personally. Again, thanks. IrishLass0128 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sheriff/Archives/2024/March#U.S.

Good move. I'll have to look into that later. I am watching this page. Bearian 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article protection

You recently 'protected' the Sahaja Yoga article - despite being involved as a party to the dispute, (valaya links for example). This is clearly a breach of admin privileges - and it is obvious that you endorse the current version. Simon had breached the 3RR after I reported it, and yet you still maintained his edits. Sfacets 22:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SYfacet, the protection has encouraged you to be serious about the discussion page, which has been a bit of a rarity lately. A lot of discussions are being held up by your non-participation. It seems you have time for reverts and complaints but not for discussion. Pls respond to the various discussion so things can move forward, rather than just having endless ongoing discussion that can be used as an excuse for blocking content. --Simon D M 12:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input?

Hi. I've been told by an IP editor on my talk page here that you might have some useful information on the urgent need to delete by speedy an article I've marked as prod. If there's history behind this of which I'm not aware (which, given the circumstances, seems probable :)), please let me know or (of course) feel free to handle it yourself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thanks for your comments. I think something has frozen over..lol. --Northmeister 01:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, journalists, and experts

Hi Will... I saw on the RS boards that you had very thoughtful and nuanced views on how expert views applied to BLPs. Would you mind looking at this on the BLP noticeboard? It reminded me a lot of the debate about the LaRouche page that DKing made, that is supported to be used as a source. As near as I can tell, the following happened. Paul Wolfowitz had a book written on him by this Unger fellow. Unger is an expert on Wolfowitz, as DKing (and Berlet) are of LaRouche. Wolfowitz's article makes note of an affair he had (heavily sourced) that affected his career negatively. David Shankbone interviewed Unger on Wikinews. In the interview, the topic of Wolfowitz, and later, the affair, obviously came up. Unger made some comments about Wolfowitz's situation. The Wikinews article was linked off of the Wolfowitz article afterwards, as what appears to me to be a supplemental or additional reference and source. Various fellows are now arguing that it fails everything from BLP to EL to others. Would you mind taking a look? It struck as similar in nature to the apparent issues surrounding the Larouche things you were working on, so I tried to compare Unger to DKing, which was apparently dismissed and DKing labeled to be in violation of WP:COI by Cool Hand Luke. Thanks for any help, its getting dense and confusing. • Lawrence Cohen 20:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No peronal attacks

Regarding your comment of today. Please accept my apologies. Thank you for the links. I really do appreciate your help and undesrtand your view and your concern in this matter. But pease tell me, what do we do when personnal attacks is not toward an user but toward People or Organization in wiki articles and/or toward leaving persons personnaly named in articles and/or talk page by a user ? --Agenor 77 08:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action

I have begun a thread on Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action. • Lawrence Cohen 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You tagged this user as a blocked sock...but the block log shows no block. Is this another phantom block (sometimes things don't appear in the log) or did you forget to apply the block? I just wanted to bring it to your attention in case the block was mistakenly not applied. IrishGuy ^talk 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wasn't sure what the issue was so I didn't want to step on any toes by doing it myself. :) IrishGuy ^talk 00:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olympiacos to Olympiacos FC

Hey! Could you please move Olympiacos to Olympiacos FC because there is already a redirect. - Sthenel 11:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we decided to split Olympiacos. It's now about the football club only so it should be moved to Olympiacos FC, while Olympiacos CFP refers to the multisport club. - Sthenel 11:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I think the redirect pages are ok. Olympiacos should lead to Olympiacos FC temporarily. - Sthenel 12:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LA barrio article

Beback, would you consider this article to be a citeable source regarding an opinion about LAUSD: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58713 - I would state "In the article Chinea states X" -- WhisperToMe (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar - although it seems that mostly what I do is revert vandalism on the hydroelectricity and hydropower articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses

Please refrain from poisoning the well against me - this is a form of harassment - why on earth would you want a ridiculous warning like "Note that by viewing the above website, you will be revealing your IP to its owner, Sfacets."? Any webmaster can see visitor statistics. Sfacets 23:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question

On WT:SOCK you say "If there's s presumption in the policy that users may create special accounts for creating or maintaining controversies then it would make it impossible deal with users who stop short of exhausting the community's patience and then switch to a new account, all while keeping yet a different account for making non-controversial edits. " I was just wondering: do you have any sense that this behaviour is in the least common? Are there any well-known instances in the AN/I archive I can look at? (I've been arguing for some time now that there should be a centrally searchable archive of restrictions on accounts together with links to the discussions that caused those restrictions.) Relata refero (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do actually believe you are right that the language of GHBH should reflect that socks acting in a manner that is collectively problematic is also a violation of the policy. Do, please, however keep in mind my very real concerns about the level of discretion that some of the changes would imply. I think we should try and find wording to express both concerns. Relata refero (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ongoing mess at AN/I served one useful purpose at least, which was to remind me that you might have missed the concern that I raised on WT:SOCK about discretion. When reducing drama is the criterion - one we all share - wildly increasing discretion will not actually serve to do so. Relata refero (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaja Yoga

I think it's pretty clear what is going on. New editor pops up as soon as Sfacets gets blocked and sets about sytematically removing sourced material with misleading edit summaries. Never discusses, never answers talk page. --Simon D M (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis a mystery indeed. Sfacets 10:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Teamantime is clearly a member of the same group as Sfacets and SahajHist, I've left messages asking them to have a word with him/her. --Simon D M (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Sfacets and SahajHist to also have a word with Try-the-vibe, 121.210.52.44 and 203.49.171.174. These are clearly all Sahaja Yogis, the latter two are from Australia, the same country as Sfacets and SahajHist. --Simon D M (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

121.210.52.44 makes taunting reference to 'Teaman' in his edit summary suggesting that both are the same person. SahajHist and Sfacets have turned down my suggestions of mediation, even though the Australian co-religionists in question are probably acquaintances, if not friends. --Simon D M (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they are giant mutant centennial brains in jars, typing in edits telepathically. Of course I know these editors -(not)- we hang out at Raju's computer club after a hard day at the mines. Sfacets 20:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting to the point where the page needs some sort of protection and/or mediation. A group of co-religionists are using their numbers to push through POV structure, POV wording and removal of sourced material. I have spent hours discussing my edits with Sfacets but he just refuses to get the point, just keeps on saying the same things over and over, ignoring requests for sources, keeping discussions going long after it is clear he doesn't have a leg to stand on, making unreasonable demands that whole sections of books be typed out for his perusal, etc. This is just sham discussion to block the edits of others while he pushes through with his own. --Simon D M (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Sfacets & co have reorganised the page, stripped out most critical information and replaced a lot of neutral wording, Sfacets is filing to get the page fully protected in that state 'for some time'. The amusing thing is that he's saying it is "so that discussion can progress". --Simon D M (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you look closely you will notice that I requested the block while the article was reverted by you. Please do participate in the discussion, but stick to the subject. Sfacets 06:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sfacets reverted at 14:04, Sfacets requested block at 15:12, Simon D M reverted at 16:01 --Simon D M (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaja Yoga School

Willbeback, you keep reverting the page back to include many edits which were not reached by consensus, and you do not offer an explanation. Do you share Simon's agenda? Try-the-vibe (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WBB, I noticed you removed a question from the talk page. According to personal statements on a website, Simon Montford has in the past, claimed to be various religious figures. I was trying to verify his point of view, in a way, to find out where he his coming from, and with genuine concern, by asking him if he still believes that he is a religious figure. May I rephrase the question on the talk page? Try-the-vibe (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Heinz

Hi Will. I left a message on Talk:Teresa Heinz and would appreciate your reply. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Will. Category:People born in Mozambique was deleted. The admin, User:Black Falcon, said that it was unnecessary anyway as a compromise because Heinz's article shouldn't contain the Mozambican categories, except People from Maputo, if it's a defining attribute. Please see his talk page and also Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Question for more. Thanks. SamEV 09:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, please answer User talk:Black Falcon, so we can resove this. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Goethe

Hi! Thanks for taking time to find/add refs for the Charles Goethe article. Ombudsman (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Will

Will, you are pretty good on the neutrality front and I would appreciate your input on this post to the admin board, because I am having constant difficulty with this User. --David Shankbone 05:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, this is all related to David's inability to let go of his conflict with Ted Frank. If you have any concerns about my behavior, feel free to email me or contact me on my talk page. ATren (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Baruch Lanner

An article that you have been involved in editing, Baruch Lanner, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baruch Lanner. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews interviews

You may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews redux. Cool Hand Luke 21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References Question

I attempted to add references to the Stephens City page, which I did fairly well. But since I was referencing the same thing over and over (in a couple paragraphs) I added <ref name="Steele"> instead of the entire reference over and over and over. Well, of course, this didn't work. Would you mind taking a look at the page and you will see what I tried to do. Thanks! Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:68.118.255.104

returned from your block with the same.... --Brewcrewer (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harveycarter

Regarding Special:Contributions/Smythloan it is possibly HC but I can't see any edit that's stepped over the line yet. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subtlesys.gif

I am waiting for your answer. Sfacets 05:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press in the next few hours, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 03:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

After this: User_talk:Brewcrewer#3RR_warning, I am taking off from policing these editors that are "jew obsessed". For now, I will contribute to Wikipedia in other ways. All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Gangaji Article

Will, the Gangaji article appears to have acquired a single purpose editor who suppresses sourced criticism while amplifying the guru's claims and rationalizations even in the controversy section. Please comment if you get time.--Dseer (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your catching forum link, missed that. Editor favoring Gangaji insists on even rewriting or deleting other editors comments on the talk page and repeat edit warring and information suppression to enforce personal interpretation of BLP. Next RV will result in their 3RR violation. Please intervene. --Dseer (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Will. I am at a loss as to how to deal with an editor on the Gangaji page who consistently removes the material I add, even though I believe my edits comply with wikipedia rules. Because the editor kept undoing edits on the controversy section of the article, I recently added a section on the Gangaji talk page called "A Summary of the Gangaji Controversies" and carefully summarized them with what I felt were very good sources. The other editor then changed the title of my section to make it sound as if I was trying to dismiss all the controversies, which was confusing because I was in fact trying to summarize NOT dismiss the controversies .... someone reading the section would be quite confused because the heading was in direct conflict with the content below. I would appreciate your advice on how I should best proceed. (Iddli (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]