User talk:Crum375/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Your edit to the ArbCom case

First of all, please have the basic courtesy to NOT directly edit someone else's evidence in an ArbCom case, especially on the terms that you did. BADSITES is not policy. If you MUST try to have it removed, ask an ArbCom clerk to do so. SirFozzie (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I would like to note that some of the allegations thrown at other people from are squeaking by just fine (mostly at WordBomb, but at other people as well). Note, I'm not supporting all of the things he's done, as I said, I didn't appreciate his investigation tactics, and I told him just that but what would you call someone calling him a blackmailer (whether true or not, without explanation of that edit). That has happened in this case as well.. Also, with the sensitive nature of this, I would definitely encourage you to work through an ArbCom clerk instead of taking unilateral action, as it would seem much less controversial for an ArbCom clerk to fix rather then someone who (fairly or not) could be considered an opponent in the greater dispute. SirFozzie (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So it's OK to edit war to restore disgusting material when Mantanmoreland does it, but when someone else does it it's a BLP violation? Give me a break. krimpet✽ 17:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, if you think it violates BLP you might supply the portion that you think it violates. Byrne links to his blog, which appears relevant to the dispute on which the COI issue is based. It is provided as evidence in an arbitration case, not on any article or article talk page. I've seen we also link to Weiss' blog many times, despite the fact that it makes many allegations about Bagley, Byrne, Overstock, and others. Having read WP:BLP I don't see any portion that this discussion of either site would violate. Mackan79 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the relevant portion, but I don't see how this prevents us from linking information about a COI dispute in an arbitration case. If it did, as I said, we would have to remove all links to Weiss' blog as well. Is this also necessary? I'm also not sure why as a single person you think you should take this on yourself. Mackan79 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether it's necessary or helpful to say we can't link to either individual's blog in this arbitration case. I don't see how it's either. Also, consider saying that you are removing links per BLP, not that you are removing links to a BLP violation, since an outside source can't exactly violate our policies. Mackan79 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP question

Out of curiosity, Why are you removing the link from Patrick Byrne's section, but not removing the exact same link (along with several other links to ASM) from Georgewilliamherbert's section further down the page? —Random832 17:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it applies to all such links. Thanks for pointing me to the other instance. Crum375 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be over the 3RR, and since other users (respected admins, even) disagree about the BLP issue, I think it would be wise to stop. Cool Hand Luke 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware, but admins disagree that this is such a case. Moreover, you don't even pretend to care about BLP violations from the other side. Cool Hand Luke 18:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean that I should focus on the edits, not the editor.

Would you defend removing comments that call certain parties "stalkers," or those who link to inflammatory and unverified comments in Gary Weiss' blog? (Note: I have no plans to do this.) Cool Hand Luke 18:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[moving to evidence talk]

Stop editing protected pages

You are out of bounds and will stop now. Lawrence § t/e 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing Protected Pages

Crum, look, I know we disagree on things, but I strongly suggest you at least revert your last edit. Editing a full-protected article is a BAD thing, full stop. No ifs. No ands. No Buts. Please? SirFozzie (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your self-revert. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting - Alison ^❤ 20:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to revert all your post-protection edits. Lawrence § t/e 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the other. That was a noble act, because you're letting the community decide now. Thank you, sir. Lawrence § t/e 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#The_Arbs_are_aware_of_the_situation, both sections. Since you involved yourself smack in the midst of this, I think it wise you heed. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP

It's rather silly that you're invoking an article policy in project space; the policy itself is known as "Biographies of living persons", not WP:BADSITES. I'm interested in which section of WP:BLP you are using as your rationale for removing the link. Sean William @ 21:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum's justification will presumably be the first line of that policy, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (Though it does say nothing about links there.) Relata refero (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In other news, is anyone else entertained that the picture of the day is Mt. Etna erupting? Relata refero (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Trisensor visual aid

Hi there, the sensor is described here and here. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem.:) Tim Vickers (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way

I realize and understand you're trying to protect the project and users (from that little kerkuffle the other day). We disagreed on the specific circumstances there when it actually happened, but good work nonetheless. Let me know if you ever need any help on article work. Lawrence § t/e 07:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

Hi there, I've been wondering for a while if the Animal Testing article is good enough for nomination as a Good Article. Are there any major issues remaining that you think we would need to deal with before we could do this? For me the "Validity of results" section is still a bit ragged, but is there anything else you think we need to improve? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I do come from a different background, the article seems wonderfully stable to me, compared to the Homeopathy bear-pit! Tim Vickers (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it. Fingers crossed! It's a bit backlogged at GAC reviews at the moment, so I don't expect to hear anything soon. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing Evidence

The clerks/AC specifically said no one was to do this. [1]. Lawrence § t/e 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI. Lawrence § t/e 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, if you do that again you are in 3rr violation and will be reported. BLP is disputed. Lawrence § t/e 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Everyone, including you on your own talk page, was advised not to edit war or edit other user's sections at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence, yet you have resumed as seen in the recent edits there. I have no choice but to block you for 31 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Archaea and microbiology

Hi there, I never knew you had an interest in microbes! Welcome to the area, there's a lot of work to be done on these pages, so thanks for the help. The main microorganism page is almost embarrassingly sparse, if you had some time to expand it, that would be great. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you are going to edit more science articles in the future you will find this tool very useful, it creates formatted references from PubMed ID numbers. Saves you a lot of time. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'm always glad for a bit of extra help with out-of-the-way subjects. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help with this, if you have time could you read through my expanded version of the genetics section and see if this is too technical for a general reader? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:KEWR-Z.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KEWR-Z.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 15:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:KEWR-APT.pdf

Thanks for uploading Image:KEWR-APT.pdf. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 15:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nz5d.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Nz5d.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This image (Image:Nz5d.jpg) is still lacking a fair-use rationale. A rationale must specify the purpose of the image in the article, to what degree the image is replaceable by a free image and other information helpful for determining fair use. Please see WP:FURG for more information. Vassyana (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Scrolled sections

What is the reason for not using scrolled sections in articles? The one for the references in Holocaust seemed like a good candidate if there ever was one. Tb (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Grammar changes

Before you make edits described as "gr correction" in the edit summary, could you please consult a grammar textbook. Your recent reverts to BDORT have restored awful grammar which makes Wikipedia look rather amateurish. For instance, you replaced "BDORT, as well as several other related alternative medicine techniques, was invented by Dr. Yoshiaki Omura, and is presented in....." with "BDORT, as well as several other related alternative medicine techniques, were invented by Dr. Yoshiaki Omura, and are presented in....." The first example is grammatically correct. In it, BDORT is the subject, so verbs must match it. The addition "other techniques" is not part of the singular subject.

Also, regarding the use of capitals in ".....Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research, The International Journal, of which Omura is Founder and Editor-in-Chief.....", the titles need not be capped. A good example from one of our Wiki articles is In subsequent years, Reston served as associate editor of the Times from 1964 to 1968, executive editor from 1968 to 1969, and vice president from 1969 to 1974. Note the years are not linked, so there is no need for you to continually change 2003 to 2003. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Crum, so that you know, one of the reasons I've questioned your actions as an editor is because of recurring patterns such as talking about yourself in the passive voice as if your opinion, in contrast to others, is the opinion of Wikipedia.[2] I also see you talking heavily about community processes, as well as "Established trusted editors, admins and arbs," while just a few weeks ago you seemed to act with some contempt for these groups, entering an arbitration page to revert some seven times on subsequent days against numerous editors without trying to initiate any discussion, and then leaving again without comment. This kind of approach to Wikipedia strikes me as more than a little unusual. I wonder if it's something you're willing to discuss. Mackan79 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing is fine; the issue I have is an approach that seems counter to the idea of building consensus through discussion, and more toward wedging it in however necessary. Saying that I "w[as] reverted" in reference to your own action seems to fit a pattern of editing that you must know will cause offense, and not the kind of trust that you also refer to. Coming back a second time to initiate an edit war on an arbitration page without discussion after clearly being warned also seems like a much clearer example of this approach. If I read your response to mean your intent was otherwise, I'd simply ask you to take this for consideration. Mackan79 (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think your role as admin is to revert against multiple other admins after being warned and without any discussion, I think you're mistaken, as did apparently the arbcom clerk at the time. Otherwise your comment seems to fit the pattern of someone who claims to be very interested in civility, yet doesn't seem quite to hit the right note. But if you think your approach is the appropriate one, I can't say I anticipate changing your mind. Mackan79 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:V

I think your revert here is deeply inappropriate - there has been extensive discussion of both of these changes and widespread agreement that the language is sane and helpful. To say that it is undiscussed is simply wrong, and to revert as undiscussed without yourself participating in the discussion of either piece of language is simply irresponsible. Please revert yourself and join the lively discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my change to the Burden of Evidence section - there's been discussion of that, and a general agreement. I'm assuming, as you've not attempted to add any objections to it, that you're just accidentally reverting it as you change the "truth not verifiability" section, but please be more careful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR

I hope you'll take a minute from the discussion on WP:V (where I think we actually, at this point, agree on almost everything) and have a look at my most recent post on WT:NOR. I suspect that, at present, we do not agree on everything there, and I'd love to hear your input. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIV

Yes, you are right. Your edits were related to WP:CIV. Yours were archived because they were no longer current discussion and the page was up to more than 160 kb. Trusting that is o.k. with you. Sunray (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Email

Yup, that's me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIV

You do realise you're adding the same link twice, and that outing is a shortcut. The actual guideline is Wikipedia:Harassment, the section is Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information and that guidance is now linked to three times in the same page. I'm wondering why you do not think this is overkill. Have you also had a chance to read the discussion on the talk page regarding the change? It might help people if you posted a comment to it, as otherwise we're left with simply reverting each other, something I'm sure you'll agree is counter to the very policy we're editing. All the best, Hiding T 16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• My point is this. You've linked to it three times in the space of three lines. That's overkill. And the shortcut is actually the only usage of the term outing I can find on any of the linked pages. To avoid jargon which may confuse people, given that outing actually has far wider usage with a different meaning, on the talk page it was thought better to rewrite per my edits. Like I say, it seems silly to revert each other over the number of links to one page in three lines. Hiding T 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Several people disagree with you. Are you entrenched in your view? Hiding T 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair play. I will edit the page and we'll see how well the wiki method works. Hiding T 16:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I really hate the brackets in the section header, and do not see the need for them nor the term outing. Whose preferred version is to win regarding the section header? Do we toss coins? Hiding T 17:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't need to toss coins. I'm trying to find a way to solve this dispute. Hiding T 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mayday and Seconds from Disaster navboxes

If you feel the navboxes are not appropriate at all, why not nominate them for deletion? If/once the Gol 1907 is confirmed as a Mayday episode then it becomes a zero sum issue; either they do not exist or they affect all relevant articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if you feel the premise of that particular navbox (and the Seconds to Disaster navbox) is not useful, you are free to nominate it for deletion :) - We'll see what other users think about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

71.252.102.204

This is puppet of banned user:Velebit. He is not allowed to edit wikipedia so there is no need for discussion. When this IP number end editing I am sure that new will be created (example user 72.75.18.147)--Rjecina (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I will be on wiki break 48 hours and he is blocked so you will now rest few days --Rjecina (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust camps

If we want to speak about article The Holocaust it is important to notice small mistake. In small table with number of victims (source Y V ) there are Jasenovac and Maly Trostenets. This 2 are not Holocaust extermination camps, but "only" extermination camps. I do not know for Maly Trostenets but about Jasenovac we are having RFC decision that this has not been Holocaust extermination camp and table with this 2 camps is because of that misleading.--Rjecina (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why any camp on Nazi-occupied Europe where thousands of Jews (among others) were exterminated by the Nazis or their helpers would be considered a "non-Holocaust" camp. Crum375 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been 6 "historical" Holocaust extermination camps. This argument is very important because of wikipedia policy no original research. To make long story short RFC discussion has been about Holocaust template in Jasenovac article. You can see discussion which has ended with vote 6:0 --Rjecina (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yad Vashem, which is dedicated to the Holocaust, considers Jasenovac no different than the other Holocaust extermination camps.[3] I see no reason why it should be excluded. The discussion you point me to does not change this issue — WP is based on reliable sources, not on six votes. Crum375 (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I am becoming tired of Yad Vashem and start to think about adding tag one source in few sections of article. Sorry but Yad Vashem is not Bible because we are having other respectable sites.

Sorry but when we speak about Jasenovac and Maly Trostenets I am right because even Yad Vashem is showing difference between this 2 camps and other 6 (or 7). See this On that list there are only Auschwitz, Birkenau, Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and maybe Majdanek. You must not forget that this is list of Holocaust extermination camps.--Rjecina (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Link is wrong because site is not allowing external links. in search you need to write Holocaust extermination camps and then see link Encyclopedia Entries - Extermination Camps--Rjecina (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I performed the search as you describe, and found the general YVS article about camps. It does not claim to have an exclusive list of all camps, so if a camp is not listed there, it does not mean much. Since "only" 20,000 or so Jews died in Jasenovac (along with up to 600,000 people of other ethnicities), and since YVS is focused on the Jewish aspects of the Holocaust, it could explain why YVS doesn't consider Jasenovac among the most important camps, but that doesn't mean it wasn't one, and it is clearly described as such in the YVS dedicated Jasenovac article.[4] Crum375 (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

Crum375, please see that a section of evidence relating to you was added to the above case here. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep

Working on it already. But thanks. Ty 02:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A question for you in the C68-FM-SV arbitration

In preparing my evidence about SlimVirgin in the current arbitration case, I found an instance where you apparently wheel-warred, and another instance where you apparently made an inappropriate comment. Please respond to my questions here, and leave me a message on my talk page so that I notice. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: Based on recommendations from several users, and my own reconsideration, I have no desire to drag you into other people's arbitration case. Let me just point out two mistakes you made in the past, and suggest to you to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

1. In June 2007, you deleted the page history of User talk:SlimVirgin, then User:Prodego undeleted it, then two hours later you deleted it again. [5] This is called wheel warring: do not repeat an administrative action after another administrator has undone it, without first discussing your concerns with that administrator. I assume one of three things. (1) you were not aware that wheel warring was forbidden. I suppose this is possible. (2) You were aware that wheel warring was forbidden, but you thought deleting past page history revisions, as opposed to deleting a currently viewable revision, does not fall within the bounds of wheel warring. Again, I suppose this is possible. (3) You were aware that you were wheel-warring, but in order to protect SlimVirgin from harassment, you thought your actions were justified. This seems like the most likely explanation to me. I would suggest to you that, regardless of the validity of your reason for deleting the page, you should not repeat the action without first discussing with the administrator who disagrees with you. Consider yourself fortunate that Prodego respected your second deletion and did not make a fuss. In other circumstances, with another administrator, you might have unintentionally started a major controversy.
2. In January 2008, you used inappropriate language in the Piperdown unban discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard. [6] The current arbitration case will formulate or repeat many principles. One of those principles is that administrators are expected to choose their words carefully in order to comply with the civility guideline. Comparing the harassment of SlimVirgin to rape, as you did, was a careless mistake on your part, which I hope you will not repeat. If you could encourage SlimVirgin to comply with the civility guideline to the best of her ability, it would help reinforce the importance of civility to yourself as well, and everyone will benefit.

That's all I need to say. You are welcome to respond on my talk page. I apologize for thinking that I would put you through an unnecessary headache, and I hope you will forgive me for that mistake on my part. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Moscovia

Hi Crum375, could you tell me why you reverted [7] my edit? There is no article about "Muscovy Air Company", this is just a mere translation of Moscovia Airlines (Moscovia = Muscovy). --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATT

I see you removed the essay category from WP:ATT. That's been on there quite a while, so I'd be curious as to whether you'd allow me to revert you on that to the long standing version. Hiding T 19:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:ATT is an essay. It's not a policy. It's not a guideline. Doczilla _STOMP! 20:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's even been categorised as an essay for a long time. I think what you meant to say was that you don't think it is an essay, would that be correct? Hiding T 08:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mayday navbox

Once I find the episode of Gol 1907 confirmed, I will have to add the Navbox back to the Gol 1907 article. If you believe that it does not belong in the Gol 1907 article, I will tell you that reverting the edit I will make it not an appropriate manner to protest the edit. That is because:

• The navbox is either appropriate for all crash articles or no crash articles
• Therefore if it is appropriate for no articles it should not exist
• Therefore you should file a template for deletion

This will allow consensus to decide.

If they agree the template is deleted, then the template is gone and no articles use it. If there is no agreement to delete, all articles will use the template. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:A and WP:V

Crum, I appreciate your helping with these articles, and I don't think we've disagreed with any heat at all, but I do think this week is suggesting a pattern of reversions against other editors without discussion. Because verbum sat, I don't think you need an "edit war" warning, but I do hope you will comment at WT:V and WT:A until consensus is reached on a point-by-point basis, rather than try to do it through edit summaries. Thank you. JJB 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

V

If you have time, could you sum up for me what are the major issues of contention and who is pitted against whom? You know I care about the policy and although i have not been following it closely lately would like to contribute to the discussion if I have anything constructive to say. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Defacing" pages

I was not aware that questioning the neutrality of an article was "defacing" it. I must have missed that part in WP:NPOV. I still have no reason from you as to why expansion of sections about "other groups" killed in the Holocaust must be viciously attacked and countered. I would like to restate one more time that giving other minorities the credit they deserve does not in any way or form diminish the horrors perpetrated to the Jews or the sheer level of Nazi hatred and genocide towards them. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why, then, in your opinion, is there the NPOV template if all NPOV discussion should take place on the talk page? The template is to attract visiting users to the discussion on the talk page, which I added. The template itself does not serve for discussion, it merely points users to the discussion. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not questioning the article's neutrality because it has a controversy, I am questioning the neutrality because the article presents the controversy and then takes a side. It is not Wikipedia's place to take sides to a controversy.Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Arrow Air Flight 1285

Hi Crum. It looks to me like the dispute over the image in this article is skating perilously close to an edit war. Neither of you seems to be able to convince the other of the "rightness" of your positions, so that means it's time to get some outside perspective on the question, either at a project level, or through an RfC. Do you have a preferred forum in which to take this up? --Rlandmann (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this is about the same article I'll include my message in this thread. Please stop merely reverting to change the image, I've added sourced info separate from it you're reverting. I've been trying to explain this on the talk page:like I did here. Anynobody 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As a first step, can we please agree to a truce, leaving the article in its present state? Crum - you feel that there's more than one policy implication here, so what I'm suggesting is this: I will open a policy-based RfC and also leave a note on the OR noticeboard (there is no specific NPOV noticeboard that I'm aware of) and we'll see what the wider community thinks? Is that agreeable to both of you? --Rlandmann (talk)

I suggested freezing it in its current state since that's the state it would have been left in had I protected the article, without me having to actually protect it. Please remember that, at this point, it's only your say-so that OR and NPOV have been violated. What we're hoping to achieve here is to see whether the community agrees with you. If it turns out that your view is supported, there's no question that the contentious image will be removed. How about it? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with your suggestion, assuming by freeze you mean Crum and I leaving it as is and not locking the page? (I'd prefer to minimize the impact on non-involved folks wishing to edit the page.) Anynobody 03:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Crum, since you were unwilling to agree to leave the page alone, I've gone ahead and protected it for a week as an alternative to blocking both of you. I'll have a policy RfC underway shortly. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for checkuser

Just so you know, there's a request for checkuser against you at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Crum375. -- tariqabjotu 18:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 8

I started a deletion review on the history of User talk:SlimVirgin. Yechiel (Shalom) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

It takes multiple people to edit war. Since we are both approaching the fine edge here, let's talk it over. You say in your edit summary "it was specfically declared as a "canonical version" of our policies." Can you direct me to this specific declaration? My objection is not to ATT, but people making up custom tags that have not yet been authorized at the policy pages. I think that this leads to confusion. If we really need another category and a tag describing it, I'll support that -- if there really is a demonstrable need. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#page_numbers_and_quoted_material

Will you please participate in this discussion if you plan to continue to editing that portion of the policy. Edit warring is never acceptable, and after your being absent from the talk page for weeks, I cannot see your actions as anything but blatent edit-warring. So please refrain from more of the same and let us see we can address all the concerns over this bit of the policy.--BirgitteSB 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

verifiability:threshold for inclusion

I noticed you changed the verifiability policy page to restore the word 'threshold', which had been removed following a debate about this on the chat page. The difficulty is that verifiability os not 'the threshold' for inclusion. It may be 'one threshold', but there are other importance considerations also. The page had previously said 'the first threshold', which I myself see as wholly wrong. Before considering whether something is verifiable, it is necessary to consider whether it is even relevant to the page. Perhaps you would like to comment at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#The first threshold? ? Sandpiper (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

rewording of WP:SELFQUEST

Hello Crum375,

You recently reverted an edit i made to WP:SELFQUEST without explanation. I asked about it here but you have not responded so per user BirgitteSB's advice i am asking directly if you would please discuss the revert and help me to work out any issues. My intent is not to change the meaning of the policy, only use less confusing langauge. I look forward to talking with you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Brown Dog

OK Please explain. Conversion of links into coord+refs is not bad faith. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

blocked for edit warring

As per your block log. I have also blocked Para. See [8]. Viridae^Talk 01:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, please see WP:ANI#I_have_blocked_Para_and_Crum375_for_edit_warring_on_Brown_Dog_affair. Per that discussion, if you will agree (1) to stop reverting and (2) talk it out on the talk page, possibly using dispute resolution, then you will be unblocked immediately. Thank you. --B (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Mooted per another admin removing the block. --B (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Crum...best thing to do is open an article Rfc if you and others can't reach a real consensus...draw in neutral editors...I'm sure you'll know what I am talking about in this case without me having to provide links.--MONGO 05:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll certidy the RfC and I was a victim of abuse as well. --DHeyward (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 on enwikiquote

I am an admin on English Wikiquote. There is a discussion going on at q:WQ:AN#Block (and unblock) of User:Crum375 about whether q:User:Crum375 is you or an impersonator (whether intentional or accidental). When this sort of thing happens, I usually come to the project of the possibly impersonated person to ask publicly about this, so we can be sure of the answer, and so that no one has to rely on personal attestations based on private emails. Please let me know (on your talk page here) if you are or are not q:User:Crum375. Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I am definitely not the person who has been posting there with my name. I have emailed an admin there to complain about it, and I hope this situation can be resolved quickly with the rogue account deleted. I can think of no legitimate motives for identity theft. I appreciate very much your assistance. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response. For your information, Quadell, the WQ admin you emailed, is currently listed at WQ:ADMIN as "now inactive". Unfortunately, he did not seem to be up-to-date on WQ's policies and practices. I'm afraid I'm not especially well-informed about username usurpation myself, but I would recommend you read q:Wikiquote:Changing username/Usurpation and post a formal request for usurpation there. I can tell you that WQ's current q:User:Crum375 apparently has a modest but good edit history, meaning that the usurpation request cannot be automatic. But WQ's bureaucrats will consider it. You might also post to or email them for more advice. Hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I'll see what I can do. It seems to me that this is a clear case where the intent of that user is malicious — I can see no room for WP:AGF here. That the edits are not in themselves malicious ignores the obvious fact that they are each part of a scheme designed to cause disruption and confusion, as well as harassment. I would hope that now that several WQ admins are aware of this, it will be handled quickly.Crum375 (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this user has shown no malicious intent, which means WQ bureaucrats will probably take no action on this unless you make your request. Quadell is not a good source for current practices on Wikiquote, and his insistence on interpreting WQ policies differently than active editors (including the only people who can make this change) has angered folks there. Had you gone through the process, you'd probably have that name now. As it is, if you want this name, you're going to have to make the request yourself. (If we can calm ourselves down enough, I think you have a good chance of getting your name there.)

In the future, I'd recommend that if you want such a change on another project, consider contacting an active bureaucrat on that project, instead of an inactive admin that you happen to know from WP. Many smaller projects find preemptory actions from Wikipedians, even when objectively logical, to be examples of an unfortunate tendency for some Wikipedians to treat of all of Wikimedia as a mere vassals of the flagship project. Even when this is not intentional, it still causes problems. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, it is absolutely clear to anyone rational that the person who stole my identity on WQ had a malicious intent. That his WQ edits in themselves may not be immediately and obviously bad is immaterial and does not legitimize them, any more than a thief who steals your car is not a criminal because he drives it under the speed limit. I have 11 unified accounts across the wiki projects, and I am an admin here. For me this identify theft amounts to harassment, bordering on stalking. Do I now need to watch everything this lunatic says or does, since Google may pick it up and someone may consider it my words or actions? That it is necessary for me to jump through hoops and go through complex layers of bureaucracy, as you suggest, to fix a clear-cut impersonation is illogical. Please forgive me, but I have no idea how active or inactive each admin is on each project. I was given one name as someone who is an admin on both WP and WQ and who can help me. I asked for his help by email and he was kind enough to try. I hope you can do your best to help also. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to make a request at the English Wikiquote username change request page. There is even a template there to use to help you fill it out. It's quite simple to do one. Making a request that way is how that project wants things done. It's a good idea to conform to the norms of a project when you want people from that project to do things on your behalf, no matter how put upon or wronged you may feel... it's pretty clear to me that the method employed so far has not worked very well. (I happen to agree with you that it's very very likely that the person who is using that account intended to do it to impersonate or inconvenience you, but I also happen to feel strongly that each project has the right to organise their affairs as they see fit) I hope you find this advice helpful. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me make this clearer, Crum375. I am not involved in name changing; I am only giving you advice. But the storm Quadell created by his informal attempt to do what most of us feel is otherwise quite logical was a serious error. English Wikiquote has at least two instances in the past few weeks of stewards failing to observe our policies and acting without informing the local bureaucrats. The single most effective way for you to guarantee that you will not get your name is to demonstrate to the Wikiquote community that you'd rather push this issue as an obvious right of a Wikipedian who has no need even to talk to the community to have their demand met. Allow me to quote from meta:Help:Unified login:

If you want to usurp an account on another wiki, you should make a request to a bureaucrat on the problem wiki. Subject to local policy, the bureaucrat may be able to rename the target account. If there's no bureaucrat on the wiki you should ask a steward to usurp this account.

Wikiquote has bureaucrats; not one of them has been contacted. In fact, of the three we have, one of them reverted the block Quadell placed on the Wikiquote account, and the other one is so angry at the preemptory attitude taken by Wikipedians in this and a related situation that you can forget asking her. Your advocate Quadell did not realize, because he has been almost completely absent from Wikiquote for years, that active Wikiquotians take "assume good faith" far more seriously than Wikipedians do (largely because, as a smaller project, we can afford to, IMHO). His (and your) interpretation of our policy is not consistent with the Wikiquote community's, and the people who work on a project retain the right to follow whatever policies they have developed that do not conflict with Foundation rules for projects.

I've already said several times that objectively, most Wikiquotians agree that Crum375 likely chose that name to annoy you. If so, he is succeeding beyond his wildest dreams by getting you to respond to my polite, policy-based advice by mistaking our prudence and patience for irrationality. If you continue to refuse to follow our policy, I can pretty much guarantee your surrogates on Wikiquote will fail to convince any of our bureaucrats to do this for you. And if our Crum375 is indeed a sleeping troll, as many of us believe is the case even without evidence, all you will have accomplished is showing yourself to be less considerate of Wikiquote and its practices than a troll. The question is, do you want to argue, or do you want the account? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one last point. "A thief who steals your car" is a false analogy. You do not own the name "Crum375", any more than I do "Jeffq", even on Wikiquote where I believe I'm the second largest contributor. This is a convenience for identification provided by the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns pretty much everything except the actual contributions (which are the assignable property of each contributor). Otherwise, we couldn't do any usurpation without ownership or other trademark-like legal action. So please follow the carefully worked-out mechanisms to resolve conflicts between users with the same name. Thank you for listening. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I do want my account and name back. But I don't know what other information I can give on WQ that I haven't already given here, and in any case, I am not sure how I could do it without either logging in from an IP, which is a security threat, or from a newly made-up account name, that could easily become troll fodder and start this process anew. I really find it hard to understand what is so difficult to rectify this situation immediately. How is forcing me to jump through hoops and fill in forms in triplicate going to help anyone? And regarding my name, yes, identify theft is theft, especially when the identity is unique and there is no reasonable doubt of a malicious intent. I really hope you or any other reasonable person on WQ can take care of this situation expeditiously. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikis have processes for reasons. Processes and standard ways of doing things reduce confusion, and increase accountability. Surely those are things you are in favour of? Like other wikis, en:wq has a standard way of asking for a usurp. (and in fact it's a way many many other wikis use too) You should use it, like everyone else does, instead of insisting that it be done specially for you out of process. I've done hundreds of renames now, on Commons, on Meta, on small wikis that have no crats, and it is a confusing and unaccountable process if it's asked for willy nilly, which is why the standard process of asking is a good thing. Go to en:wq and create a throwaway account (call it "123pleaseRenameMeThankYou" or something, who cares what... need not have anything to do with your name here or anywhere else) and fill out the form. I am sure your request will be looked at and acted on. But if you stand off or try to do it back channel, it may not work very well. I really hope you find that advice helpful because it's offered to BE helpful. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Does anyone else think this discussion should be revisited? In any case, now that PoetGuy is no longer a checkuser, you should be able to register a temporary account (Crum375temp?) to request the usurpation, with no fear that your IPs will be acquired. Thatcher 14:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Dunno...there's still someone who seems to be harbouring grudges with checkuser access over there. Daniel (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm thinking the way through this is for someone else to request the usurpation "on behalf of" Crum375. That way it's done within process and with trackability, which are very good, very important things. The request can link to various places where it's made clear that the usurpation is Crum375's wish, even if Crum375 is unwilling to follow en:wq process directly in the normal way. That strikes me as a workable compromise. Jayjg could do it. Daniel could do it. Heck, I could do it. (and in fact, unless someone says why not, I think I will, shortly). ++Lar: t/c 01:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

resolved ?

I asked Poetlister that this rename on en:wq be carried out, since Kalki is not answering mails, and Aphaia has declined and said it may be a while before it could be looked at again... and I received an email from Poetlister today indicating that this rename has been performed by him. See [9] which contains the entry :

17:01, 14 September 2008 Quillercouch (Talk | contribs | block) has renamed Crum375 to "Scotsman" ‎ (73 edits. Reason:)

I'd say this matter can be closed W.R.T. en:wq. You'll still have to get es:wp sorted of course. They have a process to use as well. ++Lar: t/c 00:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Crum375 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks go also to Random832 who actually initiated the request (beating me to it). You should be good to go, no one else can use your ID, and the next time you turn up at WQ (if ever, you don't ever actually have to, now) the ID will be created and automatically associated with your SUL account. If you never ever go there then the ID will remain blocked (in the sense that no one else can use it) and reserved for you indefinitely. Also, if you need help working the process at es:wp, let me know. ++Lar: t/c 12:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have done all that, and it all seems to be OK. Thanks again to you and all who helped, Crum375 (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

nor

I just made three proposals at WP:NOR - feel free to comment, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)