User talk:Will Beback/archive63

Thank you!

Hey Will, thanks so much for the wonderful barnstar, it really means a lot...! Dreadstar ☥ 03:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of EGRS doesn't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I remember you as having been very involved in years past.

They also are trying to remove the notability and relevance criteria for EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long time, no see

Hello Will,

I was thinking about you yesterday re: a discussion at WT:TFAR. I think I did pretty much the same thing to you regarding a Lyndon LaRouche article. I hope in both these cases that bringing out the potential problems upfront might help later. In any case feel free to excoriate me either there or on my talk page!

The reason I stopped by was to tell you that I removed the PROG from John Bogles, Little Book of Common Sense Investing. It, and especially he, are very notable in investments. I'll even recommend that if you only want to read 20 or 50 pages on investments for your whole life, and think that all these brokerage guys are trying to get your money, then this is probably the book for you (but any of Bogle's books will get the point across).

I'll do my best to whip the article into shape in a reasonable amount of time. All the best. Smallbones (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Kruger

You're right, I have been around long enough to know about our BLP policy. And I freely concede that my edit summary was flippant and erroneous. But the edits themselves were backed up by a citation, and encyclopedic, and relevant. I notice that the homosexuality section has been completely removed. No doubt mentioning a man's criminality is encyclopedic and valid, but mentioning his sexual orientation, after it has become a matter of public record and essential to a full understanding of his public persona, is scurrilous gossip. Do you argue that the allegations regarding Kruger's homosexuality are irrelevant, in light of his anti-gay voting record? For this very reason, they are in the highest degree relevant. Perhaps I was too unequivocal in the way I presented the information, but I maintain that I was justified in including it, and I am disappointed to see that it has been removed. The page is now marred by a glaring omission. LANTZY ^TALK 11:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Undoing my edits to the the Mass Deportation section of Illegal Immigration to the United States

Hello,

Regarding my change (additional phrase pointing out that the Fourteenth Amendment interpretaton is not absolute and has various interpretations), my change actually mirrors the Wikipedia information/entry for the Fourteenth Amendment itself (please note excerpt below). I would appreciate my statement reflecting this, that there is an ongoing debate on this, online, as well as in political, social and historical circles. If you want a reference to Wiki's own 14th then please let me know...

Background

Section 1 formally defines citizenship and protects a person's civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state. This represented the Congress's overruling of the Dred Scott decision to the extent that decision held that black people were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.[1] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.

This section was also in response to the Black Codes which southern states had passed in the wake of the Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery in the United States.[2] Those laws attempted to return freed slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement, forcing them to enter into year-long labor contracts, and by preventing them from suing or testifying in court.[3]

Finally, this section was in response to violence against black people within the southern states. A Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect the rights and welfare of black people within those states.[4] [edit] Citizenship Clause Main article: Citizenship Clause

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[5][6] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[7] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[8][9] However, concerning children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three Senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no Senator offered a contrary opinion.[10][11][12]

Senator James Rood Doolittle of Wisconsin asserted that all Native Americans were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that the phrase "Indians not taxed" would be preferable,[13] but Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the U.S. government did not have full jurisdiction over Native American tribes, which govern themselves and make treaties with the United States.[14][15]

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether birth in the United States automatically extended national citizenship. The Supreme Court held that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship.[16]

The clause's meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States. Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent.[17] [edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz walters7 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War - Sahaj Marg page

Hi Will

Having been an editor for this page for a long time, the one thing I've learnt is that this is a controversial page and mass edits cause protracted wrangling (not to mention a terrific amount of bad blood). It's reached a state of equilibrium after a long long time. To avoid upsetting this, I left a message on Rambabujichandra's talk page as well as the WP talk page.

In any case - I'd be happy to work with him to fix the page.

--Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Will. I agree (Infact, the reason this article is such a runt is precisely because this was all that the many parties could agree to). I've left a note for Rambabujichandra's page to start a conversation.

Appreciate the help!

--Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will

Just wanted to let you know that we're seeing edits on this page once again - anonymously done and without any discussions. I've reverted the changes for now, but any advice on the best way to tackle this? Thanks,

--Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate pension research sources

Dear Will,

Frankly, I'm not sure you've effectively read the source in question- the one you (very hastily in my opinion) qualified as "dubious"

For your info, Dr. van Nunen was elected pension personality of the year by Investments & Pensions Europe (IPE), the pension journal of reference back in 2010... and pension personality of the decade by Global Pensions magazine- the jury being composed of 20 top-notch pension academics from Europe and the Americas...

In all honesty, I don't understand why/how this qualifies as "spam"???

Can you please take the required time to read the reference in question, make an informed judgement, and then rule on its validity once and for all?

Thanks for your editing help.

--Solferino (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Will,

Thank you for your prompt reply: that's highly appreciated.

Please note that the 2 page article in question by V. Bazi & MN. Firzli was actually publised in the Q2 2011 Issue of the Revue Analyse Financiere, France's leading financial research journal

+ The said article simply recaps, compiles and expands upon reviews of Dr van Nunen's ORIGINAL presentation- materials also quoted (under different formats) by Global Pensions, the OECD, Investment Pensions Europe and Dow Jones Financial News.

Cordially,

Solferino

--Solferino (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"RE: Revue Analyse Financiere...If the article is only available in print then we don't need to link to it." ?????? Like I said, this is France's leading financial research journal, and online access to individual articles isn't free i.e. they have opted for a restricted, "pay-per-download" system, JUST LIKE MANY ACADEMIC REVIEWS the world over.

"The website you're linking to is dubious" ????? This is your (highly biased) opinion: The website in question owns all copyrights for articles published by WPC authors, hence their being allowed to display them in free download/access- you might not understand it or not like, but that's the way things are normally done in law-abiding, civilized jurisdictions... For the record, contrary to what you've insinuated, the articles in question were actually published in leading economic, financial and political science ACADEMIC REVIEWS & JOURNALS in Paris, Vienna, Ankara, and Beirut...

But I'm starting to think your "anti-spam" drive might be malevolent, or just overzealous... anyways, it goes against the essential tenets of Wikipedia- you even recognized you hadn't bothered reading the articles in the first place!!! But, anayways (bis), I won't argue with you any further as I lack the required amount of time, and I'm under the impression I'm arguing with a narrow-minded (possibly malevolent?), Philistine censor. So, so long & goodbye.

--Solferino (talk)

"If the article is available behind a paywall, please provide a link to that page."

Past 'paywall' links for articles by the same author include

http://www.revueanalysefinanciere.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage-ask.tpl&product_id=120&category_id=14&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3 for "Fonds Asie Pacifique", RAF, Q2 2009

http://www.revueanalysefinanciere.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=476&category_id=21&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3 for "Les Leçons du Glass Steagall Act", RAF, Q1 2010

AS INDICATED (but it seems you never read the pieces in question), the last article you have deleted will be published in the Q2 2011 Issue of the Review -> available under 'paywal' format end of March- a standard publishing procedure for most academic reviews...

"The linked PDF file is not a conventional reprint" ?????? Like I said earlier, you might not (not want to) understand it or not like, but that's the way things are normally done in law-abiding, civilized jurisdictions -> if they ask to, academics and researchers can keep the copyrights attached to their publications, and are thus allowed to make them available for free if they deem it advisable.

"there's little indication that Ferzli (SIC) is regarded as an expert by independent sources" ??? Well, once again, that's your (rather biased) opinion: the articles in question were actually translated in 4 different languages and quoted by academics from INSEAD, the HEC School of Management...etc.

"....except post some blogged articles on that website" ????????? Once again, you're either VERY malevolent, or you really haven't bothered to read any of the articles you've deleted so hastily: For the record, contrary to what you've insinuated, The REVUE ANALYSE FINANCIERE (Paris), ISAK-ISRO (Ankara), GLOBAL PENSIONS, EUROMONEY and FINANCIAL NEWS (London), AN-NAHAR (Beirut) are all LEADING journals/reviews in their respective JURISDICTIONS/DOMAINS. That's a fact.

But, anayways (BIS N°2), I won't argue with you any further as I lack the required amount of time, and I'm under the impression I'm arguing with a narrow-minded (possibly malevolent?), Philistine censor. So, so long & goodbye.

--Solferino (talk)

Accounts

I do not understand why you are replying to edits made by user:StatPak. Are you using more than one account? Will Beback talk 23:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply. Will Beback talk 05:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'm at loss for words here. I actually didn't reply, because I wasn't aware you had asked the question in the first place- it was deleted inadvertently yesterday while I was replying to another question of yours at the bottom of the same Talk Page

I've read your question. I'm not using more than one account- why would I? I know StatPak- he's a collegue of mine & we share the same server. What difference this makes evades me;

I have replied to all your questions.... But you haven't replied to mine- see above. Like I said: all articles quoted were actually published in leading academic reviews & journals in Paris, London, Ankara... Your remarks ("unpublihsed blog postings"???) were all proven to be unfounded and misleading; likewise for your lack of knowledge of STANDARD publishing practices in (most) academic journals & reviews and the standard procedures pertaining to copyright ownership (FYI authors often republish their articles elsewhere when e-access to the journal is restricted by paywalls, subcriptions...etc.)

I have nothing against you personnally, but I can't stand censorship, even when it's unintentional, and had to refute your misbegotten pronoucements. Like I said, you didn't check the sources in question and didn't bother to read the titles of most articles you deleted: this might have been fine in the Soviet era, but not in a free, open, scholarly-oriented society. This being said, I DON'T WISH TO START SOME KIND OF POLEMICS WITH YOU.

Have a nice day, --Solferino (talk)

PS: Just realized you had also erased a ref/ an article on the Glass Steagall Act (the said article was widely quoted + translated in 5 languages), qualifying it as "some blog posting" (???).

For the record (bis), the Revue Analyse Financiere is France's leading financial research journal, not "a blog"

The CEE Council is described as a "leading European economic think-tank" by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY (Washington), the UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO (CLEA Center), USAK-ISRO's JTW REVIEW (Ankara), the VIENNA REVIEW (Austria), and EUROMONEY, EUROPE'S LEADING BANKING JOURNAL, ... etc.

I have nothing against "aggressive" editing, provided the editor takes the required time to assess the validity of the reference/article at hand.

Have a nice day, --Solferino (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Will, I have stated the facts (backed with all the 3rd-party links you had required earlier) and refuted your assertions. I'm sincerely sorry I won't have time to argue with you any longer: if wholesale censorship carries the day, well so be it. Have a nice day, --Solferino (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Legitimate Academic articles vs. “blog posting”

Dear Will, I’m sorry I used harsh words earlier this week: I think things were compounded by my ‘epidermal’ reaction to your qualifying as “dubious blog postings” (!) articles published in leading academic reviews in Paris, Vienna, London, Ankara… etc, and by the sizeable time-zone differences which meant that I read some of your remarks (and you probably read some of my responses) with a 8 hours+ time-lag. Also, you seem to fix tens of Wiki-issues every day, hence your need to resort to wholesale, fast-track editing…

RE: StatPak, for the record, as I have told you earlier after reading your question, I know StatPak- he's a collegue of mine & we share the same server/IT Platform, but I'm not using his Wikipedia account, I never have and never will.

Also, on a second thought, some of the stuff you had deleted “wholesale” without even reading it might not qualify as prime Wiki materials…, but most of it does: articles (many of them translated in 4+ languages) published in leading European or Asian journals and reviews might sometimes present views (slightly) different from say the “US mainstream”, but I don’t think this should be an issue in itself- in fact this is precisely why footnotes/refs where invented = to attribute textual contributions, put them in contextual perspective, and, more importantly, provide a free link to the original material so that readers (be they laypersons, academics, or editors!) can make an informed judgment, and effect amendments or addenda if need be.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, The CEE Council is described as a "leading European economic think-tank" by GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY (Washington), the UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO (CLEA Center), USAK-ISRO (Ankara), the VIENNA REVIEW (Austria), EUROMONEY, EUROPE'S LEADING BANKING JOURNAL, ... etc.: so this is definitely not “a dubious blog”!

Have a nice day,

--Solferino (talk)

Dear Will,

Well, anyone who works in the fields of economics, finance, pension research… in Europe (be it Mainland or the UK) knows these are leading reviews & journal! ... But, if you insist, I’ll try to find you some official ranking(s) when I have time (probably not before the end of the week though)

I understand you have to spend a lot of precious pro-bono time cleaning and editing intensively (sometimes wholesale) tens of articles every day, and thus might not have the luxury of reading/pondering the relative validity of each and every source… BUT you had said: “If the article is available behind a paywall, please provide a link to that page. I don't see anything…except post some blogged articles…on some dubious site….The linked PDF file is not a conventional reprint”

I had replied: Past 'paywall' links for articles by the same author include

http://www.revueanalysefinanciere.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage-ask.tpl&product_id=120&category_id=14&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3 for "Fonds Asie Pacifique", RAF, Q2 2009

http://www.revueanalysefinanciere.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=476&category_id=21&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3 for "Les Leçons du Glass Steagall Act", RAF, Q1 2010

You have to understand that, as far as Europe is concerned, most academic authors and researchers tend to retain (and/or share) the copyrights of their published pieces, and thus tend to make them available under open-source format/PDFs on independent academic websites (often small think-tanks bringing together a handful of academics and researchers). That’s a STANDARD publishing practice when e-access to the original source = leading academic journal is restricted by paywalls, subcriptions...etc.

This being said, if you insist, I will link directly to the leading academic journals in question- a shame really as interested readers (not everyone reads a footnote/ref.) will in most cases (e.g. some institutions such as USAK-ISRO still offer free, unlimited access) face pay-walls.

Have a nice day, --Solferino (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

you and la rouch

Hi - I have responded to your false claim of my involvement. here Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: World Financial Group

I see that you removed my information refuting WFG's moniker as an MLM. If you want me to compromise trade secrets just to appease some kids with a grudge, it's not going to happen. WFG will continue to grow despite the malicious nature of some of the contributors to the article. Saureco (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Would it be possible to shoot you a quick email? I have a minor policy interpretation question that will reveal the information I'm asking about whether or not should be disclosed. Ocaasi^c 00:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and LaRouche

I share Off2riorob's and Griswaldo's concerns about your behavior in relation to the LaRouche topic area. Would you be willing to completely self-topic ban yourself for six months from the LaRouche topic area? Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second that request. Your input is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Can you point to any specific edits of mine that have violated Wikipedia guidelines or policies? Will Beback talk 05:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I? Sure, if I had the interest to go dredging for them. Will I? Probably not, because why bother? You would reject them all anyway. Multiple people have raised multiple issues with your approach and your response is to claim they are socks of HK, and when that doesn't work, meatpuppets of HK, and when that doesn't work, you raise the WR bogeyman... Perhaps if this goes before ArbCom I will, but for now, I can't be arsed. That doesn't mean that you don't control the article or that you're not a POV pusher, just that I can't be arsed, unless I saw it doing some actual good as far as reining you in. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 05:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A presentation of diffs is unnecessarily lapidary at this point, because this is a personal appeal to you based on input you've received from me, those two editors at the BLPN board, Lar, and other editors who have noticed that your approach to that topic area is so one-sided that they have joked about it. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after you posted that pointer, the page, which has been around for years, was tagged for deletion. It was subsequently deleted so non admins can't even see the comment referenced. That's routine, and arguably entirely within the letter of policy. But is it within the spirit to do that, Will? Marking a page for deletion that's actively referenced in a discussion on your page might be within the letter, but it certainly looks odd, very odd, that you yourself marked it. It's as if you don't want people to see. THAT's the sort of thing we talk about when we say you're too close and when we ask you to voluntarily step away. ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply from a comment on Lar's page) The thing is, Will, when you start openly annoying the regulars at the noticeboards by casting aspersions on their opinions, then I think it's fairly conclusive that you're probably taking the topic a little too personally. Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potters House Article

Thanks for your help, yes this is certainly a better placement for this content.Wcwarren (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some TM research article that may be of interest to you

Hey Will, I know you have a strong interest in TM Research especially its relation to Science (or rather its lack of relation to science). Nova Religio has just published two articles on the role of Science in TM movement. I do not know whether you have access to these article but if you do not shoot me an Email with an Email address and I will forward them to you. They are

Roping Outsiders In Kathinka Frøystad; Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 14, No. 4 (May 2011), pp. 77-98
Transcendental Meditation, Vedic Science and Science Scott Lowe; Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 14, No. 4 (May 2011), pp. 54-76

Hope these sources are helpful. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 16:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Will Beback. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palliative Sedation

can I ask why you took down the palliative sedation page? I put significant work into it, and I have more than a passing knowledge on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syleth (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Co-Written by 2 European Researchers + Relevance of Bibliography

Dear Will,

I wrote the Pension Regulation article in its entirety- and gathered all the corresponding refs/footnotes and bibliography material.

Once again, I understand you’re very busy..., BUT before saying it’s “gratuitous”, can you please take the required time to actually read the topical + relevant article in question co-written by two European authors?

Vincent Bazi [Vice-Chairman of the EFFAS- the European Federation of Financial Analysts and Chairman of the World Pensions Council] & M. Nicolas J. Firzli, “1st annual World Pensions & Investments Forum”, Revue Analyse Financière, Q2 2011, pp. 7-8

Here is a link to the European review in question:

http://www.revueanalysefinanciere.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=488&category_id=2&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3

I decided not to include this link to a useful/topical article amongst footnotes because it’s only available to subscribers or through a pay-wall, and chose to include it in the bibliography instead.

Recall: I had sent you a link to the free-access PDF file (available on the website of the authors’ think-tank) earlier

Likewise for another article co-written by Dirk Broeders & An Chen, “Pension regulation and the market value of pension liabilities”, DNW Working Paper N° 183, Sept. 2008 Equally topical and relevant to the subject at hand.

Why did you delete it?

And why did you decide a bibliography wasn’t needed?

Have a nice day, --Solferino (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Proquest Article

Hello, you offered to share a Star Tribune article from Proquest regarding Michele Bachmann by Pat Prince. If you can do so I would greatly appreciate it. I need enough excerpts to research the portions pertaining to Bachmann. Can you advise as to the proper way to give you my email addrerss. Thank You. Dpky (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not undo my edits

For my entry, "David P. Goldman," I added biographical material covering the past twenty-five years of my life, during which I have been a public figure in the financial industry as well as a prominent essayist for a number of major venues. You seem to have undone these changes; I reinstated them. There is no legitimate reason to restrict my entry to events pre-1987. Please do not do so again. Regards, David GoldmanDavidpgoldman (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

Uh, sorry about that. I didn't know about the disruption policy, but regardless, I guess I deserve to be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.234.235 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, wait. I just checked the date on the block, and I havent been using this IP for that long. Now Im confused. Also, for how long does that ban apply? Surely not two years? 196.207.234.235 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST

Hi... I have a simple request to you. Recently on the UCLA page there has been controversy over the Alexandra Wallace issue, whether it should merit inclusion. However, Alton has said that it couldn't been mentioned in the UCLA page, but is on history of UCLA page. However, I realized the former was untrue, since User:Niteshift insists it should not merit inclusion on that page. I do not understand this, since the history of UCLA page also discusses the Taser incident. While I know this may not be a legitimate argument in Wikipedia's case, I want you to decide if the history of UCLA page should include Alexandra Wallace or not. If no, I will drop this case indefinitely. If yes, please tell User:Niteshift to stop erasing the controversy and tell him to put it back on.

Thanks,

Fiatlut (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how things work Fiatlut and, once again, you have totally ignored the relevant issue (the Wallance non-incident) and covered it with your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS coomplaining about the Taser incident. They are different events. One has nothing to do with the notability of the other. And it's User:Niteshift36, not User:Niteshift. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congratulations on your 100,000 plus edits [1] and approx. 10,000 pages on your watchlist! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. You are truly a stalwart. Thank you for all that you do. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, old timer. The Interior (Talk) 03:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two great heads. One on the beer and the other on your shoulders. Buster Seven Talk 11:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]