User talk:Crockspot/Archives/2007/September

That is incorrect

We do not need Craig to publically admit he is gay in order to state he is gay. We do need verifiable information with a high burden of evidence (which we have not reached, as far as I know), but we do not necessarily need him to admit that he is gay. As an extreme example, if a video tape showed up with him willingly engaging in gay sex, we would be able to state that he is a MSM even if he refused to make a public statement on the fact. Sad mouse 01:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. I cited the section of WP:BLP that covers this, which is clear and unambiguous. I don't know what else to tell you. You cannot use a category unless both of those criteria are met. - Crockspot 12:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ted Nugent

Hi. I entered into the BLP component of the Ted Nugent discussion after you had done your work. There is now an edit proposed by Ossified for consensus. I wanted to ask, if you are online or soon to be, if you would mind weighing in again. Since much of the proposed edit is based on my suggestions, I would appreciate another opinion. :) --Moonriddengirl 23:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice working with you on the Nugent article. I'm probably as left as you are right (meant only in the political sense, of course), and not particularly prone to compromise on political issues, but I was lucky enough to run across the text of WP:AGF very early in my young Wikipedia career. I'm sure that we'll cross paths again, and I hope that it can be as positive an experience the next as it was this time. Cheers! Ossified 00:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones?

I saw this comment of yours.

This Alex Jones guy -- he is a ocnspiracy theorist, and a bit of a kook, right? So, comparing me to him -- I shouldn't take this as a compliment, correct?

I have no problem with any other wikipedian, removing references to kooky conspiracy theories -- at least those that lack verifiable, authoritative sources -- provided they show they respect the rest of the wikipedia community by adequately explaining their edits.

I do have a problem if a wikipedian removes references -- even ones that he or she could make a clearcut case that the reference is to a kooky conspiracy theory -- if the excising wikipedian doesn't show enough respect to the wikipedia community to actually offer that explanation.

So far as I am concerned even Jimbo Wales can't expect to be able to go around and excise links, without explanation, without having other wikipedians asking questions about the reasons behind the excisions.

I added a reference recently, to a web-page that looked like a legitimate mirror of an article from the ABC News. Another wikipedian excised it -- but they didn't explain why. Well, of course I wanted an explanation.

Their explanation was:

"I removed a link to www.prisonplanet.com, which is not a reliable source for anything but what its operator thinks."

Prisonplanet.com? IMO this wikipedian owed the rest of the wikipedia community a more meaningful explanation. There was nothing obvious on the page I referenced to substantiate that wikipedian's critique of the site.

So I did a google search on prisonplanet and that wikipedian's name -- to try to find someplace where he had offered a meaningful explanation for what was wrong with the site. Nada. I did find a comment where he tied prisonplanet to someone named Alex Jones and a wikipedian User:Striver

Crockspot, I am going to remind you that I participated in your {{rfa}}. I asked you three questions [1] [2] [3] -- I think I was civil

• I thought your reply was civil too. And your answers satisfied me. So I supported your {{rfa}}.
• I thought many of the participants in your {{rfa}} were really unfair to you. And I went on record and said so.
• I thought many of the participants in your {{rfa}} were really unfair to you. So I left you a pretty nice note on your talk page.

I assumed good faith on your part. I extended you the benefit of the doubt. I do my best to assume good faith on the part of others, I do my best to extend them the benefit of the doubt, and I think I should feel entitled to count on having the benefit of the doubt extended to me. I think I should feel entitled to count on the assumption of good faith.

I am not going to ask you to explain your comment. Instead I am going to point out one possible interpretation. You saw a question on your buddy's talk page, and you leapt to the assumption, without checking it out, that your buddy's correspondent is a kook, and your buddy is blameless.

I am going to remind you that a concern was expressed during your {{rfa}} that you were part of a "cabal".

In my experience most reports of a cabal are baseless. While those that aren't actually baseless are exagerrated. They lack any formal hieararchy, or constitution, that one would find in a real cabal

Please bear in mind however that exchanging mean-spirited comments to your buddies, that suggest you have discounted consideration that another wikipedian's questions holds merit -- merely because they were addressed to your buddy -- is the kind of thing that leaves the impression with some people that you are part of a cabal.

I don't think you are part of a "cabal". Humans are social beings, I think you merely were careless and forgot some of your obligations to the wikipedia community.

Our mutual correspondent, your buddy, could have saved dozens of hours of wasted effort -- if only he had offered a meaningful explanation for why he was removing these references. All of his explanation for his excisions of the prisonplanet links were similar to the explanation he offered yesterday:

"I removed a link to www.prisonplanet.com, which is not a reliable source for anything but what its operator thinks."

That is, all of his explanations were basically unsubstantiated.

The most recent page from prisonplanet that our mutual correspondent excised? It had no fingerprints on it that it was from a kooky conspiracy site. Were their clues that the page was not an authorized mirror of the copyright material it contained, that I overlooked? Maybe. I only read the policy about not referencing sites that weren't authorized mirrors a week or so ago. But our mutual correspondent didn't offer that as the reason for his reference excision. He didn't offer ANY reason. When I asked for a reason he offered the meaningless and insulting explanation I quoted above.

Are there good reasons for excising links to kooky conspiracy theory articles, from prisonplanet or elsewhere? Yes -- except if they are widely believed. IMO there are widely accepted, referenceable notions, that are basically kooky conspiracy theories. I wouldn't agree to their excision.

I accept that if we know that if prisonplanet, or some other site, is mirroring copyright material we know is notmirrored with the authorization of the copyright holder, that is an excellent reason to excise a reference.

What if prisonplanet hosts an article that is not a copyright violation, and is not a kooky conspiracy theory? I found yesterday that about two weeks ago our mutual corrspondent had excised a prisonplanet reference I had used that I hadn't noticed at the time. So, I re-read it yesterday. The facts in the first three-fifths of that article were rock-solid. I know this because I am very familiar with the topic, had read dozens of other articles that reported the same facts, and I had read the all the primary documents. Rock solid.

Maybe I only read the first three-fifths when I originally used the reference. When I read the final two-fifths, with the knowledge that site hosts conspiracy theories, I detected that the final two-fifths was edging into conspiracy-theory territory. So I replaced it with a better source.

I am mystified as to why our mutual correspondent doesn't show the wikipedia community enough respect to make the relatively trivial effort to provide a meaningful explanation for his excisions.

I don't usually visit the {{rfa}} fora. Your candidacy followed shortly after my first unpleasant interaction with our mutual correspondent. I was watching his contribution list. And I saw his support for you.

I asked you some questionabout whether you would continue to feel obliged to assume good faith and display civility, if you were made an administrator. I based my support on your answers, not on who your buddies were.

If you had been made an administrator, or if you are made an administrator the next go-around, I would have reminded you of your on record promise if I was involved in a discussion where I thought you lapsed from those standards. Even though you didn't make it to the ranks of the administrators, this time around, I urge you to live up to your promised standards.

Wikipolicy recommends confining our discussion to the issues involved, not the personalities of the participants. I have tried my best to do that here. There is an aphorism, "what you don't know can't hurt you." In my experience this aphorism is 100% false. IMO it would be best for the wikipedia if we were fair about our comments about our correspondents, even in our private email.

Yours for future Peace and Cooperation Geo Swan 13:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why would you assume that this comment had anything to do with you, unless you are Don Murphy, and are using your own personal website to "out" personal information and attack Wikipedia editors, much like Alex Jones has done from prisonplanet.com. If you are Don Murphy, I would have no way of knowing that, or connecting the username GeoSwan with Don Murphy. There were some incidents mentioned on the Don Murphy AfD, which indicated to me that Mr. Murphy was behaving in a poor manner, and I was asking Tom about it in a shorthand way. - Crockspot 16:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for looking closely enough to see I made a mistake. Thanks for appreciating that it was an honest mistake. My apologies. Cheers! Geo Swan 17:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Our mutual correspondent has my sympathy over being harrassed by this Jones character. I have had my own wikistalkers, and it was very unpleasant. But none of them tried to out me IRL. But I still think it is a mistake for him to fail to give meaningful explanations for his excisions. Geo Swan 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a content issue you'll have to work out with him. I rarely intersect with him on articles in general, and have little interest in the 911-related disputes. I'm almost disappointed that aside from the occasional troll, I never get netstalked. I guess having the reputation of a gun-totin' "nutter" does have its advantages in that respect. :) - Crockspot 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Need some help

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Raul_Julia-Levy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Surprised

I was surprised to know that you do not have the bit. Would you be interested in adminship? I would be glad to nominate you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• You must not come up for air much, eh? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot, read it and weep, but you'll have to go into the history. It's been courtesy blanked. The person who sank me was the sock of an arbcom-banned user. Nice, eh? - Crockspot 03:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. I certainly missed it. I'm sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Crock...I seriously would not pursue trying to get adminned based on the evidence that Bmedley has posted recently. It's a pretty bitter pill, but I think if you note it and leave it at that, others will respect the fact that there was a deliberate effort to railroad your bid. I think if you let it go and try again in say November, you'll have a successful admin bid at that time.--MONGO 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries. About 90% of this talk is geared toward the neo-nazi homophobic racist audience over at WR. I just love seeing all the cute pet names they can come up with for me. - Crockspot 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. Contrats, you'll be a great admin. - Crockspot 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The silly box was missing a |} code at the end. Turned it into the graphic equivalent of The Blob, swallowing up all in its path. Edison 22:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I tried the bracket, but didn't think to try the pipe. - Crockspot 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Katie Barge

I wonder if all those Ted Frank keeps will show up to keep Katie Barge. --DHeyward 14:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that would be interesting to observe if there is any kind of consistency. - Crockspot 14:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Man, could you give me some help here:

Here, have a brand new Cape Breton Barnstar (barnstamp?), which I just made up. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dude,

I am having an issue here. That guy who was under a few different logins just went to my Town's website and added me as a notable person. I am wondering what do I do I for these personal attacks. First using my picture in the John morgan website, not inserting my name in articles, it is getting kinda crazy for me here. The new nick is "I Lost My Blue Eyes". I doubt there is much to be done but I am curious about what can be done.-Kirkoconnell 19:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Isn't the Cape Breton way to track him down and beat him with a frozen codfish? :) But seriously, the off-wiki stuff can't really be dealt with on wiki, but it can be used to show a continuation of a WP:HARASS situation that exists on-wiki. Just keep reporting them to WP:ANI as they appear, and have them blocked. Is there something in the water up there or what? I have never seen such consistently juvenile behavior before. I guess there's not much else to do around there, eh? - Crockspot 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oh wait, I see this is all on-wiki. Definitely a case of WP:HARASS. - Crockspot 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I reported blue eyes to WP:AIV, and explained the situation. I'm just going to report these users on sight from now on. They seem to only use an account long enough to get a couple of warnings, but not enough to be blocked, before they move on to a new account. - Crockspot 19:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• And he is gone!. - Crockspot 19:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Heh. Added to my barnstar gallery. - Crockspot 19:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, you rock. lol But yeah if I knew for sure who he was there would be a conversation. Its like I always say, I hate violence, but I'm good at it :P. P.S. How do I get me one of those barnstar things -Kirkoconnell 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! I just looked at the barnstar. lol No no, that will not work. Newfoundland and Cape Breton may seem similar to you folk but that are significantly different lol. I'll see if I can find an image of a suitable standard.-Kirkoconnell 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

But there's codfish! - Crockspot 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No No NO! Codfish NEwfoundland, Coal and Steal industry in Cape Breton. Fisheries plan a role but it is far smaller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Breton_Island check out the article.. and I got a better image here:

I take it that the green blob in the background is supposed to be CBI? I still think being beaten with a frozen codfish would be very unpleasant. Probably tricky to beat someone with a frozen codfish too. Those Newfies must have gloves with little barbs on the palms. Maybe they stitch the gloves out of cat tongues. - Crockspot 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuge

Nope, I hadn't noticed the missing 'regarding's. I assumed that you had good reason to make the change to heading, but thought that 'military' was general enough to encompass the whole mess :) Ossified 23:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dodgy reverting reason

This is petty, imo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SchuminWeb#Midge_Potts

Check Talk for the article. WP:ID is NOT official, binding policy. It is a non-binding guideline. I'm well within reason and WP policy to change the pronouns back (particularly since no one else has bothered to add to the discussion for 4 days). You, however, are not. Jinxmchue 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In which case I am also well within reason and policy to revert you on that same token. Don't go there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be reverting just to be contrary (which is just a fancy word for "a dick" - "I keed! I keed!"). Jinxmchue 19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And dodgy page protection, too. Schumin got and received page protection for the article within 3 minutes (and, of course, he requested and got it right after he reverted the article). I've never seen a page protected so quickly with so little reason (i.e. so few participants and activity). Jinxmchue 00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Hi. This is a quick note about the editing of the Johann Hari page, which I know you've helpfully intervened on in the past.

As reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described Hari as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" (when in fact he is an Amnesty International award-winner), inserted fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about.

This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me. This user is now insisting on his right to reinsert the claims that hari farbricated a story, sourcing them to a magazine that wiki administrators have already said is not reliable. What can I do in this situation? - DavidR81.129.156.202 12:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the above. Dave r has been smearing me with these accusations, one of which is false, the other taken out of context, and utterly irrelevant. He has also posted this defamatory message on multiple other user talk pages; [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. This is starting to feel a little like harassment, and not in a good way. FelixFelix ^talk 14:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Big favor

Or not so big. I can't get to CU directly. The connection times out. I can get to it using a proxy website, however. Any idea why? Or can you ask the powers that be on CU to check on that? Thanks. Jinxmchue 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can post using the proxy, so never mind that struck out part. Jinxmchue 20:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

University of Florida Taser incident

If you are still online, you might want to keep an eye on this article, because anons are gleefully adding unsourced opinion. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi Crockspot, I just wanted to let you know that ever since "the incident," I have had increasing respect for you as a person and an editor, due to the way you handled yourself during it and your interactions afterward. I know our paths don't cross much, but I thought you might like to know that. Happy editing, R. Baley 20:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I appreciate that. - Crockspot 20:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question.

What is that WP guideline (or whatever) that addresses people using extra-Wiki material to attack other people here? (e.g. Pointing to my blog to accuse me of one thing or another.) Jinxmchue 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if or where it's spelled out in policy, but it generally falls under NPA, and is treated as harassment. You could bring it up at WP:ANI. It's definitely considered uncool, especially since you don't have a link to this alleged blog of yours on your user page. That was what allowed all that shit to be dragged into my RfA. Crockspot 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• No link and even if they had one, I've mentioned Wikipedia maybe 4 times on my blog and none would fit anything they are trying to claim about me. Jinxmchue 01:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Feinstein

I am aware of the 3 revert rule. I just made a second revert back to the Official Photo. (The other three are actually one revert, because I accidentally undid my own original revert.)

There is no principled reason for using the older photo. The facts are that Wikipedia is intended to be a living encyclopedia that ages with the subject matter it covers. The older photo is no longer an accurate photograph of Sen. Feinstein. Indeed, it is not longer her official photo. If you look at her senate website, the current photo is the one she refers to repeatedly as her official photo. You can even order a signed copy of it:

http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=SpecialRequests.OfficialPortrait

You personal opinion about the aesthetics of the photo are wholly irrelevant to whether it is a truthful and accurate depiction of the Senator. The fact that she herself, on her official Senate webpage, offers it as her "Official Photo" means that it is most current and accurate picture to use. Using your criteria for selecting the photo, we should be using an old official photo from back in her days as Mayor of San Francisco. She was a lot younger then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by More Truthiness (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh... Okay?

16:22, September 26, 2007 Disavian (Talk | contribs) (52,901 bytes) (nominated for GA satus)

GA = Good Article

Weird.

Jinxmchue 03:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Violation of Wikipedia Policy

You were absolutely unjustified to tag my edits as vandalism. To refresh your recollection of the definition of vandalism:

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."

Please explain how my use of the Official Photo is vandalism.

I remind you, "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors."

• You are violating 3RR, and are including something against consensus. That is vandalism. Now go away. - Crockspot 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

BDS

It is easily sourceable from many, many publications -- including the Washington Post, Atlantic Free Press, Investor's Business Daily, Winston-Salem Journal, GayPatriot, Slate, The Jawa Report, The New York Sun, ad nauseum. Singling out FOX News (and " the conservative blogosphere") is tendentious and less than helpful -- and failing to note that it was carried as part of editorial content is misleading. I have added additional references without deleting any of the prior text to make it clearer that the references are to editorial content and that the sources are more varied so as to improves both verifiability and neutrality. DiacriticalOne 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• How is "Hannity and Colmes" editorial content? By the way, when you get a few thousand more edits under your belt, then you can lecture me about tenditious and unhelpful editing. - Crockspot 18:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hannity and Colmes is not news... it is editorial entertainment (commentary). I have been editing for publication for a very long time -- though I readily admit I amd new to Wikipedia and have much to learn from veterans like yourself. DiacriticalOne 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well handled. I also have no problem with the edit you made related to this. You'll go far, Grasshopper. - Crockspot 22:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for backing me up on my AFD

I thought I was going a little crazy for a second there. It's always good to have someone stick up for you. Thanks! shoy 04:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, am I at all wrong in my arguments...

...on the D. James Kennedy talk page? You're a neutral editor and aren't going to insult me or accuse me of ridiculous allegations, so I can trust your opinion. [Note to anyone else reading this: I am NOT questioning my arguments or thinking of giving them up. I'm just looking for an opinion I can trust.] Jinxmchue 04:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)