User talk:Will Beback/archive14

1812:

that it states that the border of Anaheim Hills extends to Yorba Linda, however, it was never removed because someone else added it. But when I corrected that statement, it was removed even before I was banned. I have been excessively picked on since I have been here, and it is extremely frustrating. Every word I have ever added, you people have made me verify, which is something that you do not make other users do. I have looked through the histories of hundereds of people who have edited, and none of them have had to cite as much as I have had to, and the stuff that they have added has never gone under as much scrutiny as the stuff I have added has. Even when you were in your early editing days, you rarely cited the simplist things that you and others have made me verify, and it is not right. I have never purposely vandalized a page, and have never added anything of profanity or anything. I just do not understand why I was so battered around when I was here editing. I mean, you have to admit that some of the stuff you wanted me to verify was extremely ridiculous like the cross streets of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, or the location of a shopping center when clearly things like that are not often verified on Knowledge. It takes a toll on an editor when they spend hours editing something, and it is completely erased becuase that person has something against the editor (referring to the days before my ban when you erased absolutely everything I added whether it had citations or not). And today, I expand on the notable residents list, as well as the government page and spent 4 hours doing so for it all to be reverted by some loser who has never even been involved. I have been totally misunderstood since I have been here, and downright treated like garbage and it is not right! You block me indefinately for being a vandal, and you know as well as I do that I have never vandalized a page in my whole editing time. All I have had since I have been here was good intentions to edit the Anaheim Hills page. I know I added a lot of just "crap" early on, but I learned the Knowledge rules, edited the page for hours with sources, and everything I did was still reverted by you, then I would get frustrated because you reverted all my stuff for no reason, and I would get 3rr's for really no reason. The indef bans on this site are not even comparable to the minor things that I have done. I was looking though the list of indef bans, and see people who try to hack the entire Knowledge site, or deliberately try to vandalize the site with thousands of active socks, and then there is me, a person who edited Anaheim Hills and was criticized for doing so. I just want you to rethink an indef ban for it is way too extreme, almost like giving the death penalty to someone who graffiti's on a wall. I ask you to rethink it because you were the one that knew you wanted me out of this site from the minute I created my ES account in April of 06' and would stop at nothing to make sure it happened.

170:

done nothing against Knowledge, have made no threats to you in any way or even attempted to change this problematic article in question. The only item I have included is tags which you are determined to remove. I feel I have stated my case clearly and factually. I have not used "Legal" terms, only Wikipedian terms within the scope of discussion. I have not made any threatening accusations against you. I have only attempted to contribute as an editor, period. I feel that for you to resort to these drastic measures does assure me that you do have a personal connection. I also feel and will report to Knowledge administration there are personal links between you and the other "Supporters" of my blocking, even possible "Sockpuppeting". No article I have edited has had any problem except for this one. This article which at this point now I could care less about is irrelevant, but your conduct is. If I am blocked, there will still be an inquiry about you to Knowledge administration.

32: 620: 1188:

Canyon plan in the city. I will leave the project if you could just leave that intro. It bugs me to see inaccurate information as the article states now, it says that all of the Canyon and Hill Plan is part of Anaheim Hills, which it most certainly is not, it maintains a distinction apart from Anaheim Hills as the Anaheim Canyon. Just, please revert my intro, and you will have seen the last of me, please.

672: 382:

is certainly some elements of hierarchy. But, IMHO, the network isn't visible enough, and it causes editing problems. E.g., the summary starts accumulating detail that should go in the primary article whose existance, once it's been calved off, is insufficiently easy to detect. So I'm looking, just a bit, to Categories as organizational aids...

977:

I just got back from dinner. While eating, I had a brainstorm. Since there are substantial portions of the Long Beach article that I've written (for which I retain copyright, but have dual-licensed to the Knowledge under the GFDL & Creative Commons license), I am also going to mention in my email

806:

for his continued hounding of me and accusations that I am a spammer (I am not, as the discussions and my actions in re-editing the articles under dispute show). His account was created immediately before he started harassing me, and I suspect it may have been created specifically for this purpose.

377:

I ran across your edit after my note here. I was responsible for the unnecessary "D" but not the two "Heterodoxy"s. ... I'm not actually wedded firmly to the idea of categorizing captalization redirects, but see a slight advantage to editors and no cost to readers in listing them, so long as they are

169:

I have contacted Knowledge administration. I am requesting for their review of your conduct as an administrator and your removal. As a newer member of Knowledge unfortunately I do not have the coalition that you do as to counteract a block on my membership. I do not have to defend myself sense I have

1670:

Dear Will Beback: Thanks to you, and to editors Jersyko, Zantastik, and Calton for salvaging what was a huge train wreck at the article on 1957 Georgia Memorial, etc. I deal with this kind of thing all the time in the Knowledge articles on taxation (tax protesters always wanting insert wildly false,

1466:

NDW - Article talk pages should only be used to discuss articles. Mediation pages are among those where comments about users are appropriate. As for my comment, there is a difference between "may" and "are". If a conflict of interest is asserted on the part of one editor then it is fair to point out

381:

I recently saw some Wiki- policy or guideline text, somewhere, to the effect that articles don't have a "tree" structure, but other policies (eg, that the contents of certain topic splits should be summarized in the parent article) implicitly indicate this is not entirely true. Which it isn't. There

277:

On the other hand, I think I disagree with you about redirects. On a constellation of articles of this size (pretty small) I think the housekeeping advantages of having a list of all the moving parts outweighs the confusion to someone looking up the category, although I'd already decided to move the

1864:

Either way, could you please also take a look at the revert activity of Hong. There are numerous attempts to remove unreliable sources (e.g. internet forums), and remove non-neutral POV (like activists with minority views) from neutral sections like terminology, but Hong continually reverts without

1487:. Please point out to me one example where I have ever edited to make LaRouche look good or promote him. My entire involvement with these articles has been to oppose those extremely biased edits which are an embarassment to Knowledge. So if you want to accuse me of dishonesty, provide some evidence. 1187:

Can you please just revert that intro specifying the area of Anaheim Hills. Anaheim clearly defines the Canyon as the area north of the 91 freeway, and the hill area as south of the 91 freeway. It is combined to form the Canyon and Hill Plan, whereas Anaheim Hills is the area not included under the

1490:

The conflict of interest with Dking is not hypothetical, it is real. You are an admin and you ought to have warned him about that long ago. Instead, you post adoring comments about how we are "lucky to have him." This is another indication of your bias. You also coyly make personal attacks, saying

953:

ariticle. Not only was it an inappropriate link, but much of the text on the website was copied verbatim from the Long Beach article (without the proper GFDL and Knowledge notices). I left a message on the editor's talk page, plus used the web form on the Contact Us page for the website. I'll also

801:

The material I have been deleting is material I have contributed. I understand that I cannot prevent other people from re-adding it since it is licensed under the GFDL, but I do not want it contributed under my own name. I believe I have basically finished erasing all of my contributions at this

425:

Will: The above is the Requested moves template, but since they look like they have a three day backlog for the uncontroversial moves section, I've copied it over to your page as well. I could probably do the same thing the vandal did (moved the page to a new page, and then move again), but that's

1811:

Please, I have learned my lesson, and am extremely tired of getting run over for everything I have ever done on this site. People have gone in to the Anaheim Hills page since my ban and added the same unverifiable research that people would remove when I added it. Like the intro, there is NOWHERE

1002:

Ok - I reverted your change (light blue) just because I think your using a really strange browser. I've been looking up what was there (to make sure my browser isn't strange) - and everything I've found states that the name of the color code previously given is "something" purple (which is what i

288:

Thanks for fixing the categories/templates on page. Regarding the other categories, think for a minute about the purpose of categories. The exist to allow readers to find articles on related topics. Including four almost identical redirects does not help them in any way, but rather would confuse

1820:

User Hong Qi Gong has repeatedly reverting edits that are currently being discussed on the discussion page without addressing them. He has done it at least two or three times today. Instead of trying to root out sourcing NPOV issues, he reverts back to his last changes that still include NPOV

1630:

God, what a mess. They're almost certainly the same user, given the title of the website that has been referenced in the SCV additions. I'm not going to block anyone given that I've got a clear pov potentially clouding my judgment in this area, but the user doesn't appear to want to listen to

1781:

No prob. Given the support that is building on the talkpage, I think its time to remove the entries that don't have articles. If they later gain articles they can be added back in. I note though that a lot of them have had articles which have failed AfDs after which Chidom has then removed the

336:

Also, don't add sort keys that don't make sense. If there's no key the article will be sorted by its first letter. So there's no point in add "D" to make "David Horowitz Freedom Center" sort under "D". Also, the sort key you add won't show, so there's no point in adding "heterodoxy" to "David

934:

These 2 users: Mr Phil and the unregistered user who is only known by his IP address that originates from Germany are the same 2 vandals that have been vandalizing this article from its inception. The Knowledge community by consensus has already decided in past discussion to remove those

890:

Regarding Bill Clark, I only reluctantly became involved. Again, if you examine my contributions (and the discussions archived), you will see that I first requested assistance at the Villge Pump. When that was unavailing, I left a very polite note on Bill Clark's talk page. After

352:"David Horowitz Freedom Center" was sorted under "D" and "David Horowitz" under "H" and I'm not aware of putting "heterodoxy" anywhere (although, now that you mention it, thanks for reminding me inadvertently about the Heterodoxy(magazine) redirect). So, what's this comment about? 273:

Well, I deleted the template illustrations from my talk page. They'd already caused some bots to accuse me of spamming, and I didn't notice they'd put my talk page into various categories. It would be nice if I could dynaminally call up neutered versions, but if I can't, sobeit.

1140:

I disagree with the fact that I have to be the one to prove that there is a copyright infraction, and have made my case on my talkpage - if you want you can open an RFC, but do not start arbitrarily reverting my edits - this calls for uninterested third party to mediate.

957:

Unfortunately, what they will probably do is the same thing that they did with the business development info they copied from the City of Long Beach website. They included a copyright notice, but in a light yellow color so most people probably wouldn't even notice it!

1028:

Ok i changed the colors again, BUT DON'T KILL ME! I didn't make it what it was before - I did a darker red so it wouldn't look like a dead link, and I made it so that the link and the "Series of articles on" would be dif. colors. I've also added a comment to the talk

1455:

In the spirit of this comment, I ask that you either provide evidence for your claim (on the LaRouche talk page) that "some editors may receive payment from the LaRouche organization," or if you have no evidence, issue a retraction and an apology.

684: 978:

that the email is my informal notice of infringement upon my copyright, and that if nothing is done then they should expect a formal Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice sent to them and their ISP. That should get their attention.

916: 868: 1762:

Ah, I see that you have in fact already converted all those that actually had refs, the remaining ones do not. Still, I've asked Celithemis to convert the refs into inline citations, which should be an improvement. Hope that's OK.

378:

not in the alphabetized section. And catecorizing topic redirects (eg "Heterodoxy(magazine)" to the appropriate article) turns out to be something serendiptously useful, as you conceded might be true in your very first sentence.

935:

anthropological sections and this is documented in the discussion archives. The unregistered user was banned from the German Knowledge so there is past history of vandalism there. Can you do something about these 2 users?

1821:

issues. Some problems with the page are, internet forums and opinions articles from newspapers used as reliable sources; Activist writing, commentary, and opinion used for neutral parts of the document. Please assist.

905:

I regret that he has turned his unhappiness into a personal attack. Because of my concern regarding possible personal attacks cluttering my regular user name, I created this user name for these types of issues only, a

1782:

redlinks. Given that Chidom is bound to take the deletion of over half the entries personally, I wanted to run it past you first and make sure we had reached that stage. Its going to have to happen at some point...

252:

There may be some value to placing a category on one of the "Discover the Networks" redirects, but not all four. Likewise there's no reason to add a category to "Front Page Magazine" when we already have one on

1522:

due to past editing disputes with yourself, or other being involved in ways with yourself. Since you have been mentioned, i'd like to ask if you could please comment on the mentioned report, Thanks much. --

871:. Unfortunately, parts of the discussion have been deleted by Bill Clark, including deletions from my talk page. I believe that everyone involved with Bill Clark acted with restraint and fairness. 600:. I was trying to offer an explanation of some reversions to a new user, and he seems to feel bullied by me. I don't think I am acting improperly, but an outside perspective would be helpful. Thanks, 212:

Why are you reverting the pages to far back? You haven't discussed the non-offending edits which you have reverted! You butchered the edits I made to the History of Raelism page. Be more surgical!

848:

Regarding the apparent complaint of Bill Clark, I invite you to ask all of the other editors who were involved in this discussion if they felt that I did anything improper. Please make inquiry of

885:, again regarding an ill-considered set of actions that would have affected a large number of articles. Please see my contributions regarding that user. So, no this is not just about Bill Clark. 816: 509: 1836: 1491:

that there is a difference between "may" and "are." I could post on the talk page that, hypothetically, Will Beback may be paid by Joseph Coors to infiltrate Knowledge and undermine the

1467:

that there may be other conflicts of interest as well. It is clear that some editors, you in particular, have not been honest regarding their level of involvement with the topic. -

1519: 827: 1843:

needs to give everybody enough time to weigh in instead of demanding replies right this very minute. Note that he and I are not the only contributing editors to the article.

1063:

would have been "unsourced addition deleted". A "larouchism" may be relevant or even accurate but that is neither here nor there; sourced or not is much more to the point.

498: 194:) I just made and I don't want that templates and categories to appear in it so many times. If you don't mind, I'm going to have to undo all your edits to my articles ;). 190:

My, I spent a lot of time working on that, and you edit it before letting me answer why ;). Just a bad day =P. Now I've edited it back, here's why: I have this page (

1940:

I don't usually do it with POV edits, but this issue I consider important enough to the future of this project to bend a rules a little - and take some heat for it.--

362:

Perhaps it was another editor who added those. Anyway, I still don't see why you want to categorize every "spelling" redirect. Could you explain that again, please? -

1076: 1440:

I agree that users have become overly personal on the LaRouche talk page. Can you set an example of good behavior by not commenting on editors, just on edits? -

774:

Thanks for the revert. As long as I've been editing on the Knowledge, and considering the number of vandal and spam reversions that I've done, that is only the

278:

redirects back out of the alpha list and under "*" (or maybe "↔"), precisely to avoid that confusion. I'm still pretty new at this -- am I missing something?

1104: 1835:

floods the article with his edits, many of which I've already disagreed with. The article is under full protection once again, and I will put a request at

1925:

and compare to example above). Might want to block the IP too...unless protecting the page itself is better. I just don't want this to become an edit war.

1203: 1189: 1064: 1206: 1157: 1044: 1018: 923: 337:

Horowitz Freedom Center", because it will still appears as "David Horowitz Freedom Center", but be sorted under "H", which would only confuse readers. -

1046: 936: 824: 1218: 1423: 1397: 915:

Again, I urge you to contact the other editors who were involved to ask them about my conduct, and urge you to read the entire discussion collection

583: 1892: 609: 1904: 1130: 991: 565: 371: 346: 329: 302: 1503: 1476: 1929: 1795: 1776: 1693: 490: 398: 227: 1737: 1379: 939: 158:

hey if you have some time over please help me wikify the article on The graaf sisters or on the performers in Melodifestivalen 2007./matrix17

1922: 1896: 1324: 216: 1118:

from the article, since he and his personal website (which exists largely to bash religious views he disagrees with) clearly don't make it re

1858: 1664: 1649: 1248: 1869: 1825: 1680: 1449: 586: 449: 1539:

Its not really a personal matter, as many other users have tried to stop LUCPOLs behavior as well, but nothing ever gets accomplished. --

1363:). They are stretches of incremental edits, with no edit summaries, lots of edits to wrestlers, even an edit relating to the USS Simpson 1866: 1840: 1832: 1822: 1733: 1714: 1460: 267: 180: 1888: 1815: 1703: 1109: 1255: 1240: 971: 386: 356: 314: 282: 207: 1740: 1725: 153: 1756: 802:

point and so won't be editing any (many?) more articles. If at all possible, I'd like to register some sort of complaint against

145:

Hi Will, please see Rajneesh talk page, we seem to have reached agreement on moving the page to "Osho". Could you do the honours?

1330: 1224: 929: 875: 1192: 1020: 604: 546: 1364: 1174: 1067: 443: 419: 791: 238: 1416: 1346: 1954: 1911: 811: 522:

template, but shows page moves as well. I wonder how many other sneaky page moves have been done that nobody has caught.

1685:

As an admin, could you please look into the appropriateness of linking to blog sites like the opportunityzone.com in the

683:

to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage,

571: 1675: 1698: 1643: 1620: 1431: 1390: 1038: 1012: 907: 895:

brought the topic to the WikiProject City page, I contributed to the discussion (along with a number of other editors).

1586: 1550: 1534: 1296: 1179:

Sorry, my son was messing with it...he thought he was helping my business. It's been taken care of. My apologies.

202: 1853: 1689:

article. I deleted it once and it was readded. Linking to all these blog sites may soon turn into link spamming. --

1604: 1360: 1271: 1236: 1092:. Numerous RFCs have been filed and some are still outstanding. The last straw was for me the repeated deletion at 579: 526: 1570: 1596:

Thank you for all your help and everything else that you've done, especially with Southern California articles.

516: 243: 110: 105: 100: 95: 258:

Separately, this talk page has some categories that only belong on articles. Please de-activate them. Cheers, -

1212: 1126:

in California. Could you explain your rationale on the talk page there where I initially made my note? Thanks!

944: 479: 90: 85: 80: 75: 70: 65: 60: 55: 50: 1060: 582:. I'd like to get your opinion on the subject, as you have been editing the article for some time. Thanks! 473: 467: 161: 140: 1671:

unverifiable POV original research) and to some extent in the article on the Federal Reserve System. Yours,

1402: 638:

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Knowledge's

455: 1803: 1719: 1115: 597: 572: 461: 1368: 1172: 1122:. Hein himself is an extremely marginal figure, now set up in Europe after establishing himself as a 1161: 775: 437: 1907:. Is there anything that I can do or does this require intervention from an admin such as yourself? 1410: 1372: 1340: 290: 649:

If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the

1837:

Knowledge:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_significant_edits_to_a_protected_page

1308: 1280: 1093: 1081: 221: 1035: 1009: 950: 843: 552:

Thanks! The ordinary Knowledge vandalism is bad enough, but this one bugged me more than most.

1739:). I asked if he/she would be able and willing to create a script to convert the citations in 1935: 1472: 1445: 1182: 1165: 997: 391: 367: 342: 325: 308:

I thought I said I understood that. But take another look at the way the category looks now.

298: 263: 17: 1849: 1614: 1581: 1545: 1529: 1354: 1232: 985: 965: 785: 769: 559: 540: 413: 402: 900:

The consensus was unanimous by all the editors that Bill Clark's plan was not a good idea.

837:

I will edit it tommorow...I have no time today. After tommorow...then you can deleted it.

8: 1874: 1789: 1770: 1750: 1710: 1406: 1386: 1336: 1089: 601: 591: 1625: 1319: 1313: 1291: 1285: 1054: 920: 872: 803: 796: 177: 1393:. The block was only for one week it seems. Thought you'd like to know. Cheers. -- 320:

I still don't see how this helps readers. Can you explain that for me again, please? -

129: 1947: 1805: 1658: 1637: 1199: 1003:

saw). If your using a popular browser perhaps we should find a diff. color though ...

882: 752: 744: 662: 1557: 1492: 1468: 1441: 1420: 1394: 1376: 1260: 1127: 867:

In addition, I have archived all of the discussion on this topic that I could find

838: 715: 363: 338: 321: 294: 259: 1631:

appeals to policy and persists in violations. Maybe AN/I would be a good idea. ·

822:

There is little left of QuackWatch links. Who is doing this? Can anything be done?

642:. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the 1918: 1844: 1729: 1609: 1600: 1591: 1576: 1540: 1524: 1350: 1252: 1228: 1151: 980: 960: 861: 808: 780: 650: 639: 554: 535: 505: 408: 213: 199: 195: 1375:

if this editor is Harvardlaw and have received no reply. What do you think? --

1926: 1908: 1900: 1887:). I won't normally mind but it seems that the user have been using it to edit 1784: 1765: 1745: 1706: 1513: 1496: 1123: 494: 383: 353: 311: 279: 832: 125: 1672: 1500: 1457: 1303: 1275: 857: 680: 150: 146: 31: 1732:

was able to write a very convenient script that performed a related task at

1943: 1690: 1653: 1632: 1251:. Again, perhaps you could take care of it if you're not otherwise busy. — 1249:

yet another sock making exactly the same edits to exactly the same articles

1119: 1101: 1097: 949:

I just checked the website that you removed from the External links in the

881:

in response to your questions: I have also acted in relation to actions by

849: 748: 631: 578:

Hi Will - I posted a detailed list of objections to the current article on

530: 235: 185: 1135: 1567: 853: 751:

to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please

708: 1899:

made by an anonymous IP a day before. It also appears that he copied my

1599:

As for my current state of mind and my opinion of the Knowledge, see my

1484: 131: 1270:

I am mediating the LaRouche case now. A discussion has been started at

1077: 821: 596:

Hey Will, I would appreciate it if you would offer your advice over at

510:

Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/California articles by quality log

954:

probably be sending emails directly to website developer responsible.

1705:? I'm not as familiar with Eric Saindon but I assume this is him. — 630:, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring 1917:

Thanks for blocking him but he has resorted to using his anonymous

619: 504:

I would have never even found out about this page move except that

127: 1743:

into the correct format. If so, it should save you a bit of time!

1495:

policy, but I'm not going to do that because I don't want to be a

191: 1686: 1558:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:80.186.173.94#Vandalism_Rapcore

309: 149:

02:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Thank you kindly, that's great. :-)

817:

QuackWatch links are slowly being deleted over a period of years

685:

Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Free Trade and related articles

512:, which not only shows changes in article assessments using the 525:

I also ended up finding a few non-standard page names, such as

431: 132: 1724:

I see you are working on coverting the hidden references in

671: 289:

them and send them looking for things that don't exist. See

1879:

I have a person who seems to be using an username (Typer 52

1419:). I guess he learned how to reset his cable modem? :) -- 643: 627: 231: 226:

Hi Will, if you have the time your participation in the

1247:

No one else seems to have noticed it yet, but there's

610:

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

764:

This message delivered: 12:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

25: 508:ran without the Bot flag set, and so I looked at 1156:Hello Will Beback. Looks like a spoofer called 192:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Kmarinas86/All-Rael 778:that I've had any of my user pages vandalized. 1335:Hi Will Beback. Recently I noticed edits by 1302:You aren't a problem user, you are involved. 1217:Perhaps you would be so kind as to deal with 1734:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/K-O 747:, an automated bot account operated by the 198:05:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC) !!!!!!! stupid 1889:Whitney High School (Cerritos, California) 617: 1741:List of male performers in gay porn films 1726:List of male performers in gay porn films 1518:I have been accused of being a vandal on 864:, as to their reactions to my conduct. 1499:I would ask you not to be one either. -- 753:contact the Mediation Committee directly 1436:You left this message on my talk page: 14: 1944:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1405:, but he's at it again! This time as 493:page should probably be prememptively 1385:Ahoy! Silver is still editing under 1891:in a manner that breaks NPOV. These 1831:We need to come to consensus before 1681:Quixtar article: links to blog sites 234:would be most appreciated. Thanks. 1274:. Your input would be appreciated. 1219:JarlaxleArtemis's latest sockpuppet 23: 1816:Please help with Asian fetish page 1349:) that seem to be in the style of 1110:Anton Hein not a reputable source? 24: 1965: 1883:) very similar to mine (Typer 52 1272:Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07 670: 618: 580:Talk:Columbia Pacific University 527:Tustin Ranch, Tustin, California 30: 1839:once we've reached consensus. 1331:David J Silver off the port-bow 1164:. Might want to look in on it. 930:Vandals on Asian Fetish Article 624: 208:Your reversions go TOO FAR BACK 1367:. This one finally mentioned 1198:Please will you respond on my 1148:11:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1116:removed Anton Hein as a source 13: 1: 1955:22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 1930:06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 1912:04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1870:00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1859:22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1826:22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1796:07:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1777:01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1757:00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1715:23:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 1694:10:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 1676:15:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1665:00:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1644:23:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 1621:15:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 1603:, and some of my most recent 1587:15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 1551:14:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 1535:15:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 1520:User:LUCPOL/Vandal:R9tgokunks 1504:21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1477:06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 1461:19:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1380:09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 1371:directly. I've asked on the 1325:07:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 1297:03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 1256:22:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 1241:22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 1207:04:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 1193:22:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 1175:22:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1131:01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1114:Hey Will--In , I had removed 1105:13:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1100:that I consider destructive. 1068:03:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1047:16:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 1021:05:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 992:07:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 972:03:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 501:, needs to be deleted. TIA. 1450:02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 940:22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 924:00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC) 876:00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC) 828:21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 812:20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 792:14:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 762: 705:For the Mediation Committee, 605:00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 587:00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 566:10:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 547:12:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 420:12:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 387:09:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 372:08:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 357:07:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 347:04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 330:04:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 315:03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 303:02:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 283:02:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 268:19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 239:19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 217:06:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 203:05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 181:02:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 154:21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 7: 1728:into visible ones by hand. 910:of an additional user name. 598:User talk:Sisyphus Aeternal 573:Columbia Pacific University 10: 1970: 1699:Eric Saindon I presume?... 1571:12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 1432:Personal Remarks revisited 1059:A better edit summery for 743:This message delivered by 499:Carlotta, Lucas wennerholm 426:such a messy 'solution'. 1424:23:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC) 1398:23:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 1266:Hi Will Beback/archive14, 497:, and the 'middle' page, 1160:was editing one of your 1088:I thnink it is time for 291:Knowledge:Categorization 1865:addressing the issues. 1094:Techniques of Knowledge 1082:Techniques of Knowledge 244:Categories on redirects 1213:JarlaxleArtemis again… 951:Long Beach, California 945:Long Beach, California 653:on your user talk page 517:WikiProject California 1227:comment was added by 681:Request for Mediation 663:Request for Mediation 162:Administrator removal 141:Rajneesh move to Osho 18:User talk:Will Beback 403:Carlotta, California 1720:Conversion of lists 1387:User:72.204.230.216 1090:Knowledge:mediation 749:Mediation Committee 406:— vandal moved it — 253:"FrontPageMag.com". 1565:BLOCK your IP - 2h 1485:user contributions 1168:¤~Persian Poet Gal 833:A&F Fragrances 804:User:Spamreporter1 1895:are identical to 1857: 1806:user:Ericsaindon2 1585: 1549: 1533: 1244: 1200:User:Ericsaindon2 1158:User:WiIIl Beback 883:User:Patricknoddy 839:User Talk: Hpfan1 761: 760: 757: 720: 659: 658: 654: 640:quality standards 138: 137: 1961: 1952: 1950: 1921:again (refer to 1847: 1794: 1775: 1755: 1617: 1612: 1579: 1543: 1527: 1322: 1316: 1311: 1306: 1294: 1288: 1283: 1278: 1222: 1147: 1145: 1136:Copyright issues 1034: 1008: 988: 983: 968: 963: 788: 783: 741: 724: 722: 718: 713: 674: 667: 666: 648: 622: 615: 614: 562: 557: 543: 538: 521: 515: 489:banned, and the 484: 483: 450:deleted contribs 434: 416: 411: 133: 34: 26: 1969: 1968: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1953: 1948: 1942: 1938: 1877: 1818: 1809: 1804:Anaheim Hills, 1783: 1764: 1744: 1722: 1701: 1683: 1628: 1615: 1610: 1594: 1573: 1516: 1434: 1333: 1320: 1314: 1309: 1304: 1292: 1286: 1281: 1276: 1263: 1223:—The preceding 1215: 1185: 1154: 1143: 1142: 1138: 1112: 1086: 1057: 1041: 1030: 1015: 1004: 1000: 986: 981: 966: 961: 947: 932: 862:User:Orangemike 846: 835: 819: 799: 786: 781: 772: 767: 756: 716: 709: 707: 665: 660: 651:nobots template 612: 594: 576: 560: 555: 541: 536: 519: 513: 506:user:WP 1.0 bot 435: 432:Lucaswennerholm 430: 429: 414: 409: 394: 246: 224: 222:The RfC on Cult 210: 188: 164: 143: 134: 128: 39: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1967: 1941: 1937: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1903:to use as his 1876: 1873: 1862: 1861: 1817: 1814: 1808: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1721: 1718: 1700: 1697: 1682: 1679: 1668: 1667: 1627: 1624: 1593: 1590: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1515: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1488: 1453: 1452: 1433: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1407:72.204.208.125 1373:user talk page 1337:72.204.230.216 1332: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1268: 1267: 1262: 1259: 1214: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1184: 1181: 1153: 1150: 1137: 1134: 1111: 1108: 1085: 1075: 1073: 1056: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1039: 1032:Daniel()Folsom 1013: 1006:Daniel()Folsom 999: 996: 995: 994: 946: 943: 931: 928: 927: 926: 912: 911: 908:legitimate use 902: 901: 897: 896: 887: 886: 845: 844:Cable TV issue 842: 834: 831: 818: 815: 798: 795: 771: 768: 759: 758: 742: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 677: 675: 664: 661: 657: 656: 647: 636: 623: 613: 611: 608: 602:DickClarkMises 593: 590: 575: 570: 569: 568: 423: 422: 393: 390: 375: 374: 350: 349: 333: 332: 306: 305: 271: 270: 255: 254: 245: 242: 223: 220: 209: 206: 187: 184: 174: 173: 172: 171: 163: 160: 142: 139: 136: 135: 130: 126: 124: 121: 120: 119: 118: 113: 108: 103: 98: 93: 91:September 2006 88: 83: 78: 73: 68: 63: 58: 53: 45: 44: 41: 40: 35: 29: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1966: 1957: 1956: 1951: 1945: 1936:Re:Canvassing 1931: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1872: 1871: 1868: 1860: 1855: 1851: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1824: 1813: 1807: 1797: 1793: 1792: 1788: 1787: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1774: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1754: 1753: 1749: 1748: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1717: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1696: 1695: 1692: 1688: 1678: 1677: 1674: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1655:j e r s y k o 1651: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1641: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1634:j e r s y k o 1623: 1622: 1619: 1618: 1613: 1606: 1605:contributions 1602: 1597: 1589: 1588: 1583: 1578: 1572: 1569: 1566: 1559: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1547: 1542: 1537: 1536: 1531: 1526: 1521: 1505: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1489: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1459: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1425: 1422: 1418: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1359: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1345: 1342: 1338: 1326: 1323: 1317: 1312: 1307: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1295: 1289: 1284: 1279: 1273: 1265: 1264: 1258: 1257: 1254: 1250: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1220: 1208: 1205: 1204:69.232.43.112 1201: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1191: 1190:69.232.43.112 1183:Anaheim Hills 1180: 1177: 1176: 1173: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1163: 1159: 1149: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1107: 1106: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1083: 1079: 1074: 1071: 1069: 1066: 1065:4.250.168.163 1062: 1048: 1045: 1042: 1036: 1033: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1019: 1016: 1010: 1007: 998:IIUS Template 993: 990: 989: 984: 976: 975: 974: 973: 970: 969: 964: 955: 952: 942: 941: 938: 925: 922: 921:Spamreporter1 918: 914: 913: 909: 904: 903: 899: 898: 894: 889: 888: 884: 880: 879: 878: 877: 874: 873:Spamreporter1 870: 865: 863: 859: 858:User:Kablammo 855: 851: 841: 840: 830: 829: 826: 823: 814: 813: 810: 805: 794: 793: 790: 789: 784: 777: 765: 754: 750: 746: 723: 714: 712: 706: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 686: 682: 678: 676: 673: 669: 668: 655: 652: 646:'s talk page. 645: 641: 635: 633: 629: 621: 616: 607: 606: 603: 599: 589: 588: 585: 581: 574: 567: 564: 563: 558: 551: 550: 549: 548: 545: 544: 539: 532: 528: 523: 518: 511: 507: 502: 500: 496: 492: 491:Never find it 488: 481: 478: 475: 472: 469: 466: 463: 460: 457: 456:nuke contribs 454: 451: 448: 445: 442: 439: 433: 427: 421: 418: 417: 412: 405: 404: 400: 399:Never find it 396: 395: 392:Never find it 389: 388: 385: 379: 373: 369: 365: 361: 360: 359: 358: 355: 348: 344: 340: 335: 334: 331: 327: 323: 319: 318: 317: 316: 313: 310: 304: 300: 296: 292: 287: 286: 285: 284: 281: 275: 269: 265: 261: 257: 256: 251: 250: 249: 241: 240: 237: 233: 229: 219: 218: 215: 205: 204: 201: 197: 193: 183: 182: 179: 178:Roger the red 168: 167: 166: 165: 159: 156: 155: 152: 148: 123: 122: 117: 116:February 2007 114: 112: 109: 107: 106:December 2006 104: 102: 101:November 2006 99: 97: 94: 92: 89: 87: 84: 82: 79: 77: 74: 72: 69: 67: 64: 62: 59: 57: 56:February 2006 54: 52: 49: 48: 47: 46: 43: 42: 38: 33: 28: 27: 19: 1939: 1884: 1880: 1878: 1863: 1845:Hong Qi Gong 1819: 1810: 1790: 1785: 1771: 1766: 1751: 1746: 1723: 1702: 1684: 1669: 1659: 1654: 1638: 1633: 1629: 1608: 1598: 1595: 1574: 1564: 1538: 1517: 1483:Here are my 1454: 1435: 1413: 1357: 1343: 1334: 1269: 1246: 1216: 1186: 1178: 1167: 1166: 1155: 1139: 1124:sex offender 1113: 1098:user:Momento 1087: 1072: 1070:(WAS 4.250) 1058: 1031: 1005: 1001: 979: 959: 956: 948: 933: 892: 866: 850:User:Alan.ca 847: 836: 820: 800: 779: 773: 770:My user page 763: 745:MediationBot 710: 704: 637: 626:The article 625: 595: 577: 553: 534: 531:Tustin Ranch 524: 503: 486: 485:needs to be 476: 470: 464: 458: 452: 446: 440: 428: 424: 407: 397: 380: 376: 351: 307: 276: 272: 247: 225: 211: 189: 175: 157: 144: 115: 111:January 2007 96:October 2006 51:January 2006 36: 1875:Um...Ok.... 1469:Will Beback 1442:Will Beback 1421:EarthPerson 1403:Good gravy! 1395:EarthPerson 1377:EarthPerson 1128:BabyDweezil 937:OneViewHere 854:User:orlady 825:63.17.56.54 592:Your advice 529:renamed to 364:Will Beback 339:Will Beback 322:Will Beback 295:Will Beback 260:Will Beback 248:You wrote: 86:August 2006 1730:Celithemis 1626:Rants etc. 1577:Hrödberäht 1541:Hrödberäht 1525:Hrödberäht 1351:Harvardlaw 1321:Talk to me 1293:Talk to me 1253:Psychonaut 1229:Psychonaut 1078:Prem Rawat 1055:Larouchism 809:Bill Clark 797:Bill Clark 776:third time 584:Skinwalker 474:block user 468:filter log 214:Kmarinas86 200:Kmarinas86 196:Kmarinas86 66:April 2006 61:March 2006 1901:user page 1841:User:Teji 1833:User:Teji 1736:etc (see 1707:Wknight94 1601:user page 1493:WP:LIVING 1084:mediation 480:block log 384:Andyvphil 354:Andyvphil 312:Andyvphil 280:Andyvphil 81:July 2006 76:June 2006 1927:Typer525 1909:Typer525 1854:Contribs 1673:Famspear 1582:gespräch 1556:Example: 1546:gespräch 1530:gespräch 1501:NathanDW 1458:NathanDW 1417:contribs 1389:as seen 1361:contribs 1347:contribs 1261:LaRouche 1237:contribs 1225:unsigned 1162:subpages 444:contribs 151:Jayen466 147:Jayen466 71:May 2006 37:Archives 1691:Knverma 1687:Quixtar 1592:Thanks! 1152:Spoofer 1102:Andries 644:article 632:cleanup 487:spanked 236:Tanaats 1791:scribe 1772:scribe 1752:scribe 1568:LUCPOL 1514:Vandal 1369:Silver 1146:facets 860:, and 711:Essjay 495:salted 1949:talk 1897:edits 1893:edits 1616:Verse 1611:Blank 1497:Dick. 1202:page 1120:WP:RS 1029:page. 987:Verse 982:Blank 967:Verse 962:Blank 787:Verse 782:Blank 561:Verse 556:Blank 542:Verse 537:Blank 415:Verse 410:Blank 16:< 1923:this 1867:Teji 1850:Talk 1823:Teji 1711:talk 1660:talk 1652:. · 1639:talk 1411:talk 1391:here 1365:here 1355:talk 1341:talk 1233:talk 1080:and 1061:this 917:here 869:here 719:Talk 628:Ball 462:logs 438:talk 232:Cult 186:FINE 1905:own 1786:WjB 1767:WjB 1747:WjB 1650:Fyi 1575:-- 1221:…? 1096:by 919:. 293:. - 230:at 228:RfC 1919:IP 1852:- 1713:) 1663:· 1642:· 1607:. 1475:· 1471:· 1456:-- 1448:· 1444:· 1318:. 1290:. 1239:) 1235:• 893:he 856:, 852:, 807:-- 687:. 679:A 533:. 520:}} 514:{{ 401:→ 370:· 366:· 345:· 341:· 328:· 324:· 301:· 297:· 266:· 262:· 176:-- 1946:| 1885:5 1881:4 1856:) 1848:( 1709:( 1584:) 1580:( 1560:] 1548:) 1544:( 1532:) 1528:( 1473:† 1446:† 1414:· 1409:( 1358:· 1353:( 1344:· 1339:( 1315:o 1310:e 1305:G 1287:o 1282:e 1277:G 1243:. 1231:( 1144:S 1043:| 1040:C 1037:| 1017:| 1014:C 1011:| 766:. 755:. 721:) 717:( 634:. 482:) 477:· 471:· 465:· 459:· 453:· 447:· 441:· 436:( 368:† 343:† 326:† 299:† 264:†

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index