Will has been going through an unusually fertile period lately, producing many edits with high entertainment value. Over the past 24 hours, he first deleted the "humor" section from LaRouche movement (T-H-L-K-D), saying that it only had one source. Another editor restored it, saying that it had more than one source. Now for the mirth: he changes the heading from "humor" to "public activity," claiming that "'humor' is a POV/original research." That doesn't last long either. Never one to give up easily, Will then changes the phrase "attended the California State Democratic Convention to entertain the delegates with a satirical [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] impression" to "attended the California State Democratic Convention and imitated [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]," claiming that "'entertained' is a POV."

It is possible that the part about a banner that read "Don't be a sucker for Cox and Dicks" set him off.

I think Mr. Beback is definitely, erm, how do we say it, a bit light on his feet.
But also, with no sense of humor--- a rare combination!
HENCE, he probably doesn't get laid much; no wonder he's in such a bitchy mood all the time.

...none of these have secondary sources calling them humorous

Will Beback: As Maybellyne pointed out,[3] we need sources that call these items humorous. Let's just leave it out for the time being pending such a source. The Fonda material can be folded into the imminent "harassment" section. Will Beback talk 06:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybellyne: Will, as I peruse the policy pages I have learned that it is considered bad form to quote another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold (Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility.) You added something to the humor section which in my humble opinion was not funny. Since your bias against the LaRouchians is not exactly a state secret, I thought you might be engaging in a bit of Poisoning the well. You insisted that it be kept in the article because it appears in a newspaper article, which I'm sure is nominally correct, but I doubt that the newspaper article in question presented it as humorous (in which case it might belong in the article.) Since you are prone to using sources which are not available on the net, I asked for the text to be posted here. I did not suggest that the other quotes, which in my view are obviously funny because they involve a delicious irony, should be removed pending confirmation from some newspaper that they are actually funny. I would be embarrassed to make such a suggestion, which I fear might be seen as a sign of Anal retentiveness. I hope that any misconceptions about my views have now been cleared up. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)