User talk:Crum375/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Using 'slaughter'

I highly disagree with your revert of my edit to The Holocaust. Certainly wikipedia is not censored but abides by consensus—as achieved behind the scenes. WP:AVOID has consensus that 'slaughter' should not be used to discuss people. Please provide a reasoning and defense of your revert. —Parhamr 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:NASTARKidRacing2.JPG

Please allow me to preface by saying that I have no vested interest in the image one way or the other. Secondly, the image had been tagged for quite some time, and I merely came along because it was in a backlog. I read the rationale provided, reviewed it, and acted on my decision. I felt the image is quite easily replaceable (the image was being used to exhibit an athlete in NASTAR, not a particular person). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

deleting SV's talk history

Hi crum375, think you went a bit overboard with your deleting of SV's talk page. When you get a chance you might want to restore the rest of the history that's disappeared as (for instance) John's potentially examining the background of FF and it's a bit hard to show the big picture if things like talk pages are gone.. Cheers. NathanLee 22:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still in deleted state by the way. Just in case it's been missed. NathanLee 13:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See my (longer) explanation at User talk:SlimVirgin. When an editor is constantly harassed, a page has to be deleted frequently, and there's always the danger when restoring it this month that you'll inadvertently restore some privacy violations from last month. It's going to be a very big job restoring that page and filtering out the stalking from the good posts. It's so large that the computer will probably freeze, too. Maybe when people stop trolling her, she'll get round to it. ElinorD (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Elinor for taking the time to explain this. It is in fact a non-trivial matter to do this job properly. Crum375 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So is there any timeline on doing this job properly? Another month? :) NathanLee 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

I can't believe these guys trying to force there changes into the footnoting policy. Hasn't anybody explained to them the 3 people do not make a consensus? What can we do to end this? IPSOS (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I may only have been editing for six months, but I wasn't born yesterday. I can recognize the old smoke & mirrors ploy when I see it. :-) IPSOS (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust edits

Certainly, the article is enormously cluttered and there is no need really for so many images, i was just re-formatting it so as to make it less cluttered. --Hadseys 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin, second try.

I see that you've already reverted my comments. One more request, then: Can you please unblock User:Hexrei? Your block of this user was entirely uncalled-for, they posted an honest question about breaking news; this is an entirely appropriate question to ask at this stage of the game. linas 03:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked. I can understand if SlimVirgin wishes not to have this topic discussed on her talk page, but this seemed to be a good faith user. Andre (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I just went there and wanted to give her a heads up that she had been mentioned in Slashdot, so she can semi/full-protect her userpage if necessary, but I saw it was already done. Good job! Still, I fear this might become a bumpy ride :( 84.145.250.227 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust content dispute

I've created a sandbox page to discuss the content dispute on The Holocaust. Your comments are welcome! – Dreadstar † 07:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have finished scanning the disputed diff and placed the significant edits on the Sandbox page. There are sections for each segment of the diff, and a comment subsection for each. – Dreadstar † 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in this. – Dreadstar † 18:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Hi, I am thinking proposing an addition to WP:RS. I figured that before I did that I would run it pass yourself, SlimVirgin, and Until(1 == 2). Its pretty self explanatory, and from my standpoint it seems a change for the better, even if RS appears somewhat diminished nowadays. The three of you could possibly suggest some improvements in the language, and more importantly, if I have gone off in the wrong direction, please feel free to say so. Thanks much Brimba 08:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if it looks like I am send you all a form letter, but I am tying to do 14 things at once right now.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.

Changed to:

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people. Often controversial claims are not falsifiable; an editor wishing to challenge a claim may not be able to find sufficient information to assign reliability. Thus it is upon those wishing to add or maintain controversial material to justify its inclusion; it is specifically not the responsibility of those challenging the material to disprove it.

Template:Dated prodblp

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Dated prodblp, by Black Falcon (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Dated prodblp fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

G6 (Housekeeping). Except for the redlink at the bottom and the title, this template is identical to Template:Dated prod. I feel that deletion is sufficiently uncontroversial as not to require a TfD, but would like for someone else to have a look.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Dated prodblp, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Gaimhreadhan

Hi Crum. Gaimhreadhan was reported to WP:AN3 yesterday for revert-warring on the Mairead Farrell article. You subsequently (and rightly) blocked him for 72 hours for 3RR violation. Since then, the editor has given a serious undertaking not to indulge in that behaviour again on the above article. Is it okay to unblock him? I'll gladly monitor the situation and Gaimhreadhan understands that if he steps out of line again, I will immediately re-apply the block. - Alison ☺ 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what answer Crum gives, I'd like to just butt in and say it's very refreshing to see an admin consulting the blocking admin before overturning a block. Thanks, Alison. :-) ElinorD (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As I noted on Alison's talk page, I agree. Crum375 19:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Crum. I'll follow your advice and reduce to 48 hours. Thanks again - Alison ☺ 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Speditor

Hello. A user whom you blocked requests unblock at User talk:Speditor; you may want to comment. Best, Sandstein 20:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is here

Please see User talk:ElinorD#Talk:Daniel Brandt. I'm trying to demonstrate something, as you can see from the span id tag that was part of the edit you reverted. I'm not going to do any more reverting, but I would ask you to please revert back to my version so that people taking part in the discussion can see how the redirect will actually work. As I've said elsewhere, Wikipedia won't implode if this is left in place for a day while the discussion takes place. Carcharoth 00:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to drop the DB redirect proposals, mainly because someone took the time to explain properly. See my comment here. Carcharoth 01:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

AS

Thanks for the note. Tyrenius 01:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the title. There is a line of thought from some editors that an article with a person's name must contain a full biography of that person. However, the rest of the world will come to such a title expecting primarily an account of the murder and the resultant internet phenomenon with enough information about Svidersky's life to give them a sense of who she was, but not exhaustive details. Murder of Anna Svidersky also misses the point. Murder of Anna Svidersky and subsequent internet phenomenon of world-wide mourning by people who only knew her through the internet, but mostly by people who never previously knew her at all is perhaps accurate, but hardly succinct. How about shortening it to Anna Svidersky? Tyrenius 01:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As it's been raised, it merits at least consideration, so I've posted on the article talk page. You might like to append your rather good note and link. Tyrenius 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Typo "Sviderski".[1] Tyrenius 06:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Speditor

Hi,

It is extremely important that you delete Speditor's edit history, as it contains numerous false and misleading statements about me and attempts to out me.

Thanks -- Email me to discuss at TeenMoney@gmail.com if you wish.

Still at it

Looks like yet another Wassermann sock puppet: 172.167.248.73. Samuel Grant 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that he had already been unblocked; I think these edits were probably done on accident. Samuel Grant 15:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Note

I note you have been systematically reverting edits by other people to that Anna Svidersky article, generally without giving reasons. Your latest edit "please stop" again does not give anything resembling a reason. Please realize that you do not own the article, and that other people have equal rights to edit it even if you disagree with them. >Radiant< 13:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest you re-read the AFD discussion, which clearly explains (as you and Tyrenius even admit on the talk page) that the article isn't about her. The mourning sickness article was specifically written to address this issue. Coatrack articles are inappropriate, Aside from that, I note that you and Ty have strongly resisted outside edits to the article for over a year now, which is also inappropriate. And you still haven't given any reason beyond proof by assertion. >Radiant< 13:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • Show the diffs of any good faith edits in line with wiki policy that have been reverted. Tyrenius 00:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • :rolleyes: Please don't resort to the old chestnut that your version stays until the other side can demonstrate consensus to your satisfaction (i.e. never). Wikipedia doesn't work that way. >Radiant< 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternate version

FYI User:Agne27/Anna_Svidersky_"Non-memorial" Tyrenius 00:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI thread.

Just FYI. A thread concerning you was started today. --Onorem♠Dil 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

the SV ANI Thread

Crum: You are at either 3 or 4 Reverts on the ANI thread. Do not take out the link to the evidence again, you are at the limits already. SirFozzie 01:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I think your edit warring and warnings are out of line. I understand your intentions.. and they are good. But I strongly disagree. If you're as right as you think you are, please find some more support. You're not the only defender of the wiki. :) --Gmaxwell 01:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES is not and never has been policy. PLease leave the link alone as it is under discussion, not being used purely as a vehicle to attack someone. Viridae^Talk 01:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

Hi Crum, I noticed in the past that you've edited St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine quite significantly. Apparently, there is a WP:SPA running amok making a mess of the article, as well as personal attacks. In order to gain more of a consensus, we would greatly appreciate your opinion on the article and talk pages. Thanks, Leuko 15:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Looks like it's being protected anyways, but thank you for your offer, and good luck with RL. Leuko 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR Complaint against John Foxe

I would encourage you to revisit the 3RR complaint against John Foxe. That user has a history of reverting edits that he doesn't care for, often waiting until a series of edits have been made. His "edit summary" comments are sometimes misleading. He might describe an edit as "rewording" but in fact it is a revert back to one of his edits. He has refused to participate in mediation and arbitration, and has ignored WP:NPOV policy, claiming that historical "facts" (which are often his interpretation of facts) indicate what is true, and any other interpretation is POV.

It is frustrating because he is a good (although biased) editor with a lot of knowledge. However, it is difficult to work with him because he will ignore lengthy discussions on the talk page, and then revert any changes arising from the discussion that he doesn't agree with. He tends to remove any positions that are opposed to his own, citing POV reasons. The result is a POV slanted article. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Crum375, maybe you remember this? 74s181 04:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day.

John Foxe is the definition of a disruptive editor. The only reason there isn't an edit war going on is because I will not engage in his tactics, I will not revert his reversions. I spent over six hours making the changes that John Foxe reverted in 30 minutes, and this is far from the first time. It is, however, the first time he has been quite so blatant in his reverts, I thought what he was doing would be obvious to anyone. 74s181 04:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, I didn't really expect anyone to do anything. But I am a little disappointed at how quickly you didn't do it. I'll be sure and let him know that he really can revert with impunity and no one will do anything about it, so next time he can just use the revert tool and save himself a lot of trouble. 74s181 04:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: Since your decision to take no action, wrp103 (Bill Pringle) has spent a considerable amount of time editing the article, John Foxe also reverted most of his edits. Every time this happens, John Foxe becomes bolder. 74s181 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: 'content resolution'. I filed a WP:RFM, John Foxe declined. I filed a WP:RFAR, they refused to take the case saying something like 'this sounds like a content dispute, something we are notoriously bad at'. I looked at past arbcom decisions and decided my best bet was to ignore the content and submit another WP:RFAR, focusing on:

• WP:OWN as evidenced by use of inappropriate WP:REVERT to:

protect a particular version

prevent certain POV

• inability or unwillingness to edit according WP:NPOV as evidenced by:

use of inappropriate WP:REVERT to prevent certain types of POV

talk page statements insisting on inclusion of only a particular type of POV

talk page statements rejecting basic WP:NPOV concepts

I was hoping to get another 3RR violation on record for John Foxe for my next WP:RFAR attempt. I filed the report in good faith, spent a lot of time putting together the links, etc. It wasn't just about the reverts this time. How long did you spend reviewing the evidence I presented before rejecting? 74s181 18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "false 3RR report", I thought it was a valid report, based on:

Conversely, just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day.

I still my report was valid, not a 'false report'. I can't find it now, but someplace I read that the arbitration committee had done something in the hopes that the '3RR' process would reduce the number of cases presented for arbitration. It's kind of a problem, the arbcom is saying this is a content issue, handle it elsewhere, you're saying it's a content issue, handle it elsewhere. So, where should it be handled? And don't say on the talk page, I've worn out a keyboard (yes, really) trying to explain WP:NPOV and WP:REVERT policies to John Foxe. He just laughs and continues reverting. 74s181 18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm looking at WP:RfC as my next step, if for no other reason than as prep for another WP:RFAR attempt. Sorry I gave you such a hard time, I'm feeling pretty frustrated. 74s181 01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert War

Hi. Could you please have a look at what's going on in Refractory period (sex). I'm not sure of how to handle a revert war, but this one's way, way past 3RR. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for an independent editor to help look at an article

Hi, it's TheLetterM again. I'd like to ask you for your help (in your capacity as an outside observer and a Wikipedia Admin) in looking at an article that may have a potential Conflict of Interest problem.

I'd like you to look at the Riverside Motorsports Park article. The user Riverside Motorsports Park has made many edits to the article in question. Said user objects to the inclusion of an article sourced to the Merced Sun-Star which he says is "flawed by incorrect statements & omissions" as well as being biased against the motorpark (as per the user), and refers to another source (a Merced County Times article) that debunks the former. (Note that the Merced County Times has no online presence.)

Would you kindly look at this article and remark on the following:

• Should Riverside Motorsports Park's self-admitted representation of his company be a reason for him to not edit the eponymous article (or do so in a limited capacity)?
• Is the RMP article even notable and deserve placement in Wikipedia?

Regards, TheLetterM 00:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

I am unlogged user:PIO for technical problem and my request is to unprotect article for impossible edit in foibe massacres. I would like to edit in article because the content is POV very much. PIO, 14:20 12 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.89.170 (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

could use your attention

If you have time, can you review and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research? Thee is a movement to remove the "primary versus secondary" sources distinction which is really about (1) allowing the use of primary sources to challenge or "correct" secondary sources and, further, I think, to make synthetic claims.

Also, can you reviw this Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites and consider making a statement here and comments here? Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Airliner accident

I noticed that this template places "survivors" rather far from the deaths and injuries listings. I was about to change it when decided to be cautious and check Template talk:Infobox Airliner accident where MONGO suggested the same thing and you disagreed for reasons of ambiguity with ground casualties. I can see your point but feel that the current arrangement offers poor readability. If it is really necessary to distinguish plane and ground casualties, can't that just be annotated in the template variable, like

|injuries=32 (2 on the ground)

Your thoughts? —dgies^t_c 19:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing others' evidence

Since you object to others editing evidence presented in an ArbCom case, I assume you're fair and balanced about it and also object to the same thing being done by others, as in this case? *Dan T.* 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And in that case it was actual evidence, rather than "User is using the evidence section as a soapbox" —Random832 16:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What I changed was not "evidence", it was commentary. It being an "evidence section" does not make it acceptable to make wild accusations without, well, providing any evidence. Neither does convention trump policy. —Random832 15:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)