Jump to content

User talk:Crockspot/Archives/2007/August

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Freshly archived

Old discussions at the links above. MiazaBot III will be archiving discussions older than five days from here on. Of course, this message will be gone after five days too. We'll see how it works. - Crockspot 02:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you

I can't believe what you said against Mike Stark. He is very famous. He's been on CNN and was on CSPAN only tonight. What he did to Bill'O is all over the news too. Did you see the photos? Link I laughed so hard when I read that after a few days ago. Especially for the PERVERT signs near Bill'O house. You must say that it's too funny, yes? I feel this was a very unfair vote from you Crockspot, and you bragged to me about that you are so fair. [1] He might be the next Michael Moore. Shame shame. Bmedley Sutler 07:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris Langham

Hi - I have reverted your removal of the cat "child Sex Offender" from the Chris Langham article. The criteria for inclusion is

This is a list of people who have been convicted of a sexual offense against a child or minor, have publicly admitted offenses, or have been placed on a Sex Offenders Register for a sexual offense involving a minor, as defined by their local law. As each instance is based on local law, this category includes the full spectrum child sexual abuse offenses. The article will include the specific offense with proper sources.

He was placed on the UK sex offenders register for child porn (which is a sex offense under UK Law) - so the cat fits. --Fredrick day 09:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

see the article - I have added a link to the telegraph. --Fredrick day 12:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It appears that consensus on WP:BLPN is that this category should be deleted anyway. I'll look at it later today. - Crockspot 12:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

references

This is a tricky one, and i made one further comment. I prefer not to be involved further--I avoid editing these topics. On other things, I read your user page essay on how you improve references, and I do it exactly as you do, down to the device of making a quick upgrade by adding <ref> </ref> tags around the existing references. Perhaps I evolved it independently, but more likely I saw a posting from you about it before. DGG (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Now that TNR has their own blog post disputing TWS, who knows what is really going on. I think I'll sit back and watch that one myself. On the cite upgrades, I developed my methods by what made it easier, and what seemed like common sense, so I'm sure that I'm not unique in the way I do it. I just like to have it spelled out to refer people to when they start interrupting and reverting me on the my initial pass through. - Crockspot 19:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Beauchamp

The reasons we don't want/need so many references for the recant (which, incidentally, is now being disputed by TNR!), include the fact that one of them - the one from a television station - was a blog entry from another blog integrated into that stations website, and the other three were the exact same story appearing via a news feed on multiple sites. It would be the same as taking an article published by AP on their news wire and citing every instance of various sites picking it up and reproducing it. If 10 sites carry an AP story about XYZ, that doesn't mean that there have been 10 articles written about XYZ, it means that there is one article about XYZ written by AP that has been syndicated to 10 places. --AStanhope 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • But does not the fact that legitimate news agencies are re-running the story lend more credibility to the "blogginess" of the original report? I think that at least one of them should be included as a secondary, since people were removing the original as an "unacceptable blog". - Crockspot 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
A reprint of a primary blog source is not a secondary source. --Eleemosynary 22:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

David Strathairn

Any thoughts on the fan site link issue? It has reared it's head again.--Mantanmoreland 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I find this subject interesting as there are literally hundreds if not thousands of articles containing unofficial fan sites. Yet, oddly enough, the subject is not explicitly addressed in EL or in BLP. Perhaps it should be?--Mantanmoreland 16:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Need help - page creation

As you use an account, could you create a forwarding page at Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre to the article Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Center (as is) is best for this site, as it's a US facility. Thanks :-) 24.7.91.244 14:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, 24.7.91.244 14:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hunting license

When you get a chance, after your family obligations and the RFA, please take a look at this article. It would be nice if you could add some NPOV cites and especially on the history of hunting licenses from various nations and states. Yes, I am from "the other side" of the political spectrum. WP makes strange bedfellows. Bearian 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark Hudson

Here we go again... another user, possibly new name, trying to change the tone of the section. Granted, it isn't as overtly obvious, but the word "Controversy", in my opinion, is more than justified by the term "allegation". By the way, you'll make an awesome admin! Ariel♥Gold 23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going offline for at least 48 hours, so report it at BLPN. - Crockspot 23:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie, have a good time away! Ariel♥Gold 00:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard Rossi

Jack S. Bernstein appears to be an interested party. Of course, WP:BLP/N should be adhered to, and, as I explained to a disgruntled editor on my talk page, you did nothing wrong, but Bernstein's conflict of interest should be recognized in future editing disputes on the page. I've rewritten the page to fully source and NPOV the controversial claims; can you spotcheck it to ensure that it complies with WP:BLP/N? -- THF 08:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, so he is associated with the making of the film. This sounds like it could be kicked over to WP:COIN. I'll let them know. - Crockspot 04:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you

Thank you for the explanatory comment, it's much appreciated. I do not believe you're evil at all. As you may have noticed, the irritating number (2? 3?) of !votes in which I am quoted led me to change to abstention, which is where I'm going to stay for the rest of your RfA. Good luck. —AldeBaer 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked you a question

Here. Answer when you get a chance, if you don't mind. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Not trying to bait you; if you aren't comfortable speaking further on-Wiki, then so be it. I have my e-mail turned off precisely because I don't like giving away personal info that someone could attempt to exploit later, so I can certainly sympathize with your feelings here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, if you're getting exhausted and punchy like you said, remember that you're allowed to step away from the keyboard for a couple of hours to clear your head. Nothing on Wikipedia is important enough to cause yourself real-world problems. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The way you have composed yourself while all of that bullshit has been going on in your RfA has been quite admirable. It is a horrible display of the self-righteousness practiced by some members of the left. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Pablo.--Mantanmoreland 02:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Pablo though I think it's not just a left attack, more like wiki-lawyers and general self-righteousness (which is what we accuse the right of - irony there) and I'm way on the left (by US standards which has the neutral more to the right than in many places). My vote is pulled as 1) I can't decide any more amidst the vitriol. 2) They won't let me vote anyway. Personally though as I have already told you, I supported you. Editors do not a have to be neutral - just edits. Besides, I need someone to counter balance me ;-). Watch out for trolls! 24.7.91.244 08:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You got guts for being so patient with this onslaught. I'd let the thing die it's own death and then decide if you want to have it deleted.--MONGO 02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way...you'll probably end up doing better than I did here...not much consolation, but it appears you have more of the community's trust than I do...maybe if you get a less controversial editor to nominate you in a few months or more, you'll do a lot better.--MONGO 05:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment.

Hey, I've never seen you around Wikipedia before (we run in different circles I suppose), but I voted a support for you before this RfA just up and up imploded in your hands. Its too bad what happened, and its sickening to see this thing happening on Wikipedia. I'm an admin myself, and have been for nearly 2 years, but really it isn't as big of a deal as people would make it out to be (especially those involved in the sock-puppetry in your RfA). Don't let this discourage you, rather keep on doing what you do best. You gained a lot of respect from me for your handling of this volatile situation with as much class as possible, bearing in mind the attacks you were under. By the way though I don't agree with your choice of words off-wiki that has caused a lot of this controversy, but its ancient history, especially on the World Wide Web. This was the most appropriate barnstar I could find.

The Resilient Barnstar

The Resilient Barnstar
Here you go, for staying calm inside a bomb. Keep doing your best to ensure civility on this encyclopedia. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In reference to "Voter Suppression" (Archive 3):

"...please be more clear ast to how slashed tires on GOP poll watcher vans keep people from voting. Kgrr 22:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you missed the "voters" part right before the "poll watchers" part... - Crockspot 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

--The duty of Poll watchers is, clearly, to watch and examine other voters and trying to deny their right to cast a vote based upon the watchers and their party's own narrow views, interpretation of law and attempts to disenfranchise eligible certain citizens of their constitutional right to vote; tactics that go hand-in-hand with vote caging, etc. The poll watchers absence most probably would engender more legitimate people being able to vote as opposed to 'keeping (i.e. preventing) people from voting'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.31.130 (talk • contribs)

  • This was from a while back, but I believe the edits I made in response quoted the judge, telling the defendants that they had kept people from voting by disabling the vehicles. If I remember correctly, the watchers were to be dropped off first thing, then the vans were going to shuttle voters the rest of the day. Your theory sounds a bit like original research. - Crockspot 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Rfa

I'm sorry it has turned out the way it has; lots of anger and heat and very little that is positive to take away from it. It must feel very unfair to get so many opposes for some comments on another project. In a way you are being punished for your honesty in linking your two areas of internet life the way you have. I just wanted to say that whatever happens I really hope you won't be too discouraged; as I said I have been impressed with a lot of what I've seen you do on here. Although I think we differ on some philosophical issues, I believe the project thrives from having good people of different views who can work together effectively and harmoniously. I won't award you a barnstar although I agree with the sentiment behind those you have been awarded. Hang in there, and best wishes --John 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking of that saying: The beatings will continue until morale improves. I did get a lot of support, and it's nice to know that a lot of people appreciated the work I did, and that it wasn't all a complete waste of time. Unfortunately, that capital is worthless now. I have little choice but to start over from scratch with a new account that not even my closest friends will know. - Crockspot 03:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Why? You haven't done anything wrong. --Mantanmoreland 03:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how I'll be able to do anything useful. This will get dragged out on every dispute. - Crockspot 03:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
In all liklihood, yes. This place rarely forgives and never forgets. There are some who do AGF if they see "improvements"...but what you need to do now is about 6 months of "community service" at a level of perfection and non-bias that no human being is capable of.--MONGO 04:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Well hell, I already picked out a cool name and everything. - Crockspot 04:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
HUm...I always thought User:Gorgo as played by King Kong Bundy in the movie Moving (film) would be a great choice if I hadn't been able to use MONGO.--MONGO 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Another The Resilient Barnstar

The Resilient Barnstar
I am utterly disgusted at the hatchet job being mounted against you. Rcnet


Given that this RfA has no appeared on wikiscanner and is becong newsworthy in and of itself, I wanted to give you a Current Events Barnstar - for being the news, however that's not what it is for. I despise your politics, abhor some of your personal views, but admire you for some recent conflict resolution work before the RfA. I am utterly disgusted at the hatchet job being mounted against you. Wiki needs to break new policy ground in deciding this. You have done very well in some very hot situations dealing with fighting editors, and have shown incredible restraint given the abuse being dished out. On that measure alone, you have shown patience (compared to the level of aggro) which merits *trust*. Anyone who can bear that onslaught deserves the rust that is the ball and chain of admining. I have to WP:AGF Rcnet 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!

I am sorry to see you being ganged up on.

I like having correspondents who disagree with me who are willing and able to engage in a civil dialogue on the issues I disagree with. Talking only with those one agrees with is far less likely to help one find weaknesses in one's own views.

As I said when I voiced my support I haven't seen any evidence you injected your POV into article space; I have a POV, and I think I do a pretty good job of refraining from injecting it into article space. I have no problem believing those one the right can do so too.

I haven't seen any evidence you yourself said anything racist, or homophobic.

My contact with you has been limited. But I admire that you were willing to acknowledge mistakes, and I admire that you haven't lost your cool.

Cheers! Geo Swan 02:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Crockspot 03:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A star for you

I am so very sorry to see you RfA going the way it is. :.( I wish I could do something about it, but sadly I can't. I hope this helps you and cheers you up. If you ever need anything, I'm your man. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly. You don't deserve this kind of abuse. --rogerd 04:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's downright abusive. 24.7.91.244 08:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I was coming to this page to give you a purple star barnstar ... but I see someone else had the same idea a day earlier. So let me just second it. Thank you for trying to stay civil and soldier on despite what must be a very trying time. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Resilient barnstar

This time I won't let the fact that you've already gotten plenty of these stop me from giving you another.

The Resilient Barnstar
For [2]. It must be really tempting to say "you won't have me to kick around any more". Thanks for staying around. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)|}

Thank you

I appreciate your honest answer. We have all said things that we have either regretted or have had taken wrongly. However, you need to know where I'm coming from.

I grew up in a rural community. I had a great interest in science and technology, in contrast to almost all of my peers. I am entirely heterosexual, but my voice is quite high for a male and I never had great strength or physical dexterity. As a teen, I was constantly taunted with homophobic slurs such as those that you have used, and some of the taunts became physical abuse from which I wear a facial scar to this day. I will never forget or forgive that behavior, and I will do everything in my power to see that anyone who stoops to using such disgusting insults is known far and wide for what they have said.

I have seen how the testosterone-fueled joshin' among people who use the terms you have chosen can so quickly escalate, and from where I stand, I am hard pressed to see any deeper flaw. ←BenB4 19:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I'm sorry you had to go through all that, and had those past traumas stirred up by my comments. You're right, I shouldn't encourage the malicious behavior of others by using the language. - Crockspot 19:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock

It wasn't easy, but one sock is exposed as the ban evader and I'll try and take care of another one shortly...soon as I collect the diffs. Who do these people think they are fooling I wonder?--MONGO 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Good sleuthing. My recommendation is to keep your own hands as clean as possible in dealing with these issues. Do the investigating, analysis, and reporting, and less direct engagement. That will give less of an excuse for handwringing on the part of others. - Crockspot 21:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA

It is a strange fate we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing... such a little thing... an RFA... my condolences, and I wish you very good luck and less sockpuppetry in your next RFA. Will (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Throughout the process you showed character which was outstanding, especially considering some of the other's participation there. I am impressed indeed. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Giving credit where it is due

My latest user box is an out-and-out ripoff of yours. Hope you don't mind.--Mantanmoreland 01:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Regrets

Dear Crockspot. I was very mixed on your RFA and didn't ultimately contribute to it. (I was leaning to a weak oppose). Sorry for the result for you personally, however. I'll suggest a) keep up the good work, b) tone down some of the politics, c) try again in 6 months. Sincerely, Smallbones 02:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Message

Crockspots, this is a message from an "old friend". He says: (quote) " PWNED ! LOL ! REMEMBER ANDY ! " Whose Andy? ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 07:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember Andy too. Some "friend" of Andy's tried to scrub him from the Bev Harris article. I told you not to let people use you, now look what you have done on the behalf of a banned troll out for revenge. (I'm AGF that you are not actually fnord/FAAFA, and are just being used by him.) Now I'm going to ask you nicely to leave my talk page, and never return. I have nothing to say to you ever, and have no desire to hear what you have to say. - Crockspot 12:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill Moyers

Since you weighed in earlier in the debate regarding the exchange between Moyers and O'Reilly, I'd appreciate your input here. —AldeBaer 08:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not personal

You alluded in your RfA that you've gotten a lot more civil "since MONGO 2". I went back and scanned contributions there, and really, you were one of the most clear headed and polite responders. Saying stuff like this [3] is really constructive. Civility shouldn't be an issue for you. Good luck. SchmuckyTheCat

No consensus to promote you on your RfA

I have closed your RfA. I am afraid there was no consensus to promote you. Good luck with future endeavours. :-) --Deskana (banana) 18:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry your RFA failed. Try again soon! Politics rule 18:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't let it bring you down. —AldeBaer 19:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, it's only castles burning. - Crockspot 19:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Just find someone who's turning, and you will come around. (we can't be that right wing if we all like Neil) You didn't deserve the crap you subjected to. --rogerd 19:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Nill illigitimi carborundum. 24.7.91.244 10:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Remember, what doesn't kill us only makes us stronger. Edison 04:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
And that wikipedia isnt quite the internet. Actually after hearing all the sock gossip I went for a delete but reading your right wing views on your user page first made me change to neutral then to support (I dont normally do RfA's but if you go back there give me a shout and I'll vote support again). We brits dont ureally understand the right to own a gun thing but living in Central America I do and I lament the lack of both conservative views and admins who push for a realistic interpretaion of BLP on this project. I wish you the best, and keep pushing the BLP, SqueakBox 04:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC).

Erin Burnett

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and was hoping you might give me some suggestions. I am currently working to prevent a small group of Canadian activists from repeatedly vandalizing a page I created. The topic at issue is the insertion of a quote which clearly amounts to a mis-spoken comment. The quote comes from an on air conversation that Erin Burnett had with Chris Matthews.

For those who watch Erin Burnett, it was clearly a mistake on her part. Since then, she has not addressed the quote directly, but has made several clarifying statements about her position on the topic.

The Canadian activists started a series of blogs to slander her and then proceded to add the links to their blogs onto the page I created. I have since cited and re-cited WP:BLV but the person or persons does not seem to be affected by reason.

If you have any recommendations for preventing this abuse, I would appreciate your input on the matter. Thank you. - ICarriere 13:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL

Well, people are too busy "handing my head" to me over other things to bother with this one... and just wait till tomorrow! ;) Seriously, once your next RfA succeeds, you'll have to just laugh at these things -- at least three people a day will find a new reason to hate you. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley Sutler

Is not a sockpuppet...and your accusations that he is will lead to harassment charges being brought before you in the court of law know as arbcom....plainly put...I wouldn't bother responding to him on his page anymore...once his way too short block expires, you'll get plenty of opportunities to play the game of arbitration or whatever then. Just a friendly reminder brought to you by the meanest, most incivil editor this website has ever seen.--MONGO 21:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well..this is odd[4] (there are many diffs in between)...what are the chances FAAFA and Bmedley would be interested in the same article? I guess, as he stated...he is editing for FAAFA? Okay, well...sure.--MONGO 05:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am 100% convinced that Bmedley is Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs). Word choices, sentence structure, punctuation, the way he interacts with his friends and 'enemies' here, POV ... they're all within the range that FAAFA displayed, except that FAAFA occasionally made some good jokes. (I've often wondered if the variation in FAAFA's communication skills was due to recreational chemicals, brain chemistry instabilities like I have or something else.)
Also, I'm sorry I missed your RfA, and very sorry it failed. You would have been a great asset to the project on BLP issues. CWC 10:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that FAAFA has had his one year block restarted. - Crockspot 12:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Admin status

You are obviously a conservative, I am obviously a liberal. I do not know much about these things but is there a way that you could get a "learners permit" admin status, so that if you prove you are unbiased as far as admin duties go you could be made a full admin. I think it is silly to hold back a person because of their political beliefs (perhaps this is the Liberal in me). I think that if you prove to be a good admin then you are a good admin. I'm sure there are a many poor liberal admins, as I am sure there are many poor conservative admins. An admin should be judged on his actions on wikipedia not his political beliefs. Jmm6f488 07:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with Steward status could just sysop me (and in turn, de-sysop me), but that isn't likely to happen without a direct recommendation from the arbitration committee. - Crockspot 13:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Phil Hendrie vandal

Hello Crockspot,

There is a vandal making rounds on the Phil Hendrie page. It's the same vandal you admonished for such activities on the Chelsea Clinton Page. The User ID is 216.93.229.62 he or she made claims that Phil Hendrie was diagnosed/died of stomach cancer on 18 August 2007. This user had no source just wanted to vandalize the page.

User 216.93.229.62 didn't heed warnings from you and another administrator. I feel that she/he should be blocked before she/he vandalize more articles. Looking at his/her history which will be a certainty for more vandalism. Thanks for hearing me outELO MnLynx Fan77 13:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Re [5]

I used the span ID added to your RFA in discussions here and here. I contended that the introduction of your off-wiki statements unrelated to Wikipedia at the RFA constituted a personal attack, that your RFA had 86.9% support immediately prior to the introduction of the personal attack, and that the large number of subsequent opposition votes were directly attributable to the personal attack. I further argued that you should have been promoted, as it is highly probable that your request for adminship would have succeeded had the personal attack not been introduced. Most other members of the Wikipedia community strongly disagreed with my assessment. They argued that your off-wiki statements were relevant and acceptable material to present at your RFA. Because of this community sentiment, it is highly improbable that any bureaucrat would overturn the RFA outcome. Filing a request for arbitration over this issue is not recommended, as the Arbitration Committee has previously declined to overturn RFA outcomes when asked to do so, believing such matters to be outside their jurisdiction. There would be no reason, therefore, not to request the courtesy blanking of your RFA, should you wish to do so. I believe that your RFA is part of an unfortunate trend of using personal attacks against RFA candidates that I first observed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rockpocket, where I asked whether RFA's are "going to be debased with the personal attacks and mudslinging that often characterize political campaigns?" If you have any suggestions as to how this trend might be stopped, please let me know. John254 05:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea all that was going on. Thanks for the effort. - Crockspot 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA blanking

I'm not quite sure why you'd like that, given that if you search for Crockspot on Google it doesn't even show up on the first page... which is typically what courtesy blanking is for. --Deskana (banana) 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

== Blanking your RfA ==

Although your RfA failed, blanking it is not the way to go. The RfA is stored in the archives, so that if you do try again, people can go straight to your prior RfA without having to guess what was in it. It's also good for the bored archive readers too :) Panoptical 18:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault, I did not know that people told you this was fine. Panoptical 18:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hunting license

Hi there, if you have time, or know of sources from the NRA, I would be nice for you to add in some more to the History section. If you can't, then don't worry. Bearian 20:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They do publish a lot of books, but I don't have many of them. I'll look around on their website and see if my life membership gives me any kind of special access online to their books. Doubtful that it does, because they always want their money. I did find a link or two last night that might be marginally useful, they're on my computer at home, so I'll post them to the article talk page tonight. - Crockspot 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson age difference again

Zsero has resumed his deletion of the age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson. As a participant in previous Talk discussion on this matter, your presence at Talk:Fred Thompson would be appreciated. Italiavivi 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV on Capital IQ

Hi, you can usually view deleted articles by clicking on the cache link that is part of the heading. In this case the article is here. Bridgeplayer 18:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind re email I sent to you

I figured it out. THF 14:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking (not that I clicked it) that the link at Mr. Moore's website that says "Facts in Mike's films"...if it was a true to it's wording...would be a dead link...just a thought.--MONGO 20:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That POS disgusts me. I wonder, if I alter Sicko 95 times, will Mikey call me a nazi homophobe klansman on his website? Should we find out? - Crockspot 20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, whether that website is libeling the guy is an issue he will have to take up with them directly. I am always amazed at how laid back everyone seems to be about what is going on at other websites and the "it's better him than me" attitudes seem to prevail.--MONGO 20:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You should see this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpGdxQ0o3l4 75.35.112.196 23:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Plastic pipes fittings & valves

Crockspot I have recreated the above article, is there any chance that you can help protect it from Msjapan who seems intent on just deleting in a war. The references that have been given are genuine ISBN publications and not just pdfs. Want to discuss more but I do not understand where this guy is coming from when a good article has been produced, (not a great one). can you help? --Huwjarce 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the original problem was that got it deleted in the first place. Someone mentioned a POV problem, but really, how POV can you get when you're talking about plastic pipe? I'll watchlist it. - Crockspot 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I set up a series of socks I admit it but I was trying make the article work. Can you help me make sure the article is up to wiki standards so that we can move it forward? There is very little written about this industry and I have tried to ensure that wiki guidelines are followed. However, they are guidelines to promote quality not force it. I have also tried to recruit new editors, even some of the authors of the referenced books. Let me know if you can help? --Huwjarce 22:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. --Huwjarce 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 03:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you get my PM on CU?

Just wondering what your thoughts were on that. Jinxmchue 17:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't get a chance to investigate it yet, but it seems plausable. - Crockspot 19:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
So what does one do with that? Jinxmchue 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
On its own, it's a bit thin. Just keep observing and gathering evidence, and keep it offline until you have a good case. I did pass it on. - Crockspot 14:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Danke. Jinxmchue 18:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey Crockspot, thank you. The support means a great deal to me, and in fact has made all the difference. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Malicious code

CBM just deleted it, the page is now salted. Thx for the heads up ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Day-um, these people are hostile to the truth

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PZ_Myers&curid=6820253&action=history

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PZ_Myers#Please_keep_personal_attacks_out_of_edit_summaries

From the way they're talking, it seems as if they would prefer to delete all those statement. The truth hurts, especially when it makes your side look like a bunch of raving, bigoted lunatics. Jinxmchue 00:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gaaa. Don't try to drag me into that mess. - Crockspot 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, I'm prophetic. They did indeed remove all those statements under the guise of NPOV. I'm sure we both know that we couldn't get away with the same sort of thing on Ann Coulter's article. Jinxmchue 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Now they're trying to remove any references to his vitriol and any comments that point this out. Jinxmchue 03:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Interested to figure things out

As per the closed WP:ANI discussions, you kept on saying that per WP:EXT we should remove the links to Michael Moore's site. Could you point out which part of the page states something to that effect? David Fuchs (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. David Fuchs (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I would suggest again you wait 3 to 6 months before running again. It really is no big deal..in fact, I am glad I'm not an admin. I don't like what happened to your recent attempt, but no way will arbcom grant you adminship...they will likely tell you to try another bid via Rfa.--MONGO 20:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know, and wasn't planning on running for a while. But if they are going to force me to take it to ARBCOM in order to get some resolution to the Bmed situation, then I am certainly going to bring that RfA situation up, as it is directly related to his behavior. Jimbo has stated that as a steward, he would sysop someone outside of RfA, but only on the recommendation of the arbcom. It's not likely that they would recommend, but it is even less likely that they would recommend if no one brings it up to them. - Crockspot 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer to see you jsut wait and then try again. In light of your relatively patient handling of BMedley's attack on you, and the fact that I genuinely believe a second RfA would focus on your recent development as an editor, and that the 'currnecy' of the off-wiki actions is 'spent' on your last RfA, I could see myself being open to supporting you next time around, if the trend I'm seeing now continues. You're getting a LOT of attitude right now, and seem to be weathering it well. If you just go up again in 6 months, and continue like I've seen since the RfA ended, in terms of weathering the crap, you would get my vote. ThuranX 03:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You were treated unfairly, but Wikipedia doesn't like being accused of treating people unfairly, and raising the unfairness would be held against you, and hurt your chances both now and in a future nomination. Wait three months, continue to act CIVILly, ignore the personal attacks when they come in the RfA, and you'll be confirmed. THF 13:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur with all of the above. You definitely got the shaft, but I'd let matters lie for the time being.--Mantanmoreland 14:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Any attempt to run around the RFC process will be strongly opposed and will kill any future chance of a successful RFC. --Fredrick day 15:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really expect the Bmed situation to go to arbitration anyway, so it's a moot point. - Crockspot 16:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko

What should be done with the controversies page? After a 4-1 consensus that the discussion in the controversies page needed to be somewhere in the encyclopedia, it once again was sanitized entirely from the Sicko page while Noroton was blocked. In fact, the Sicko page now has less discussion of controversies than it did before the edit-war over the controversies page started. THF 11:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin & vandal fighting

Thanks for the advice on vandalfighting tools and for the good words on my admin vote. Edison 02:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Carolyn Wood

I was shocked to see this praise you gave User:Joaquin Murietta a year ago. I saw this comment you made on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

I direct your attention to:

Bogus afd justification
  • As I am sure you know a perceived POV problem is not grounds for deletion.
  • JM launched this afd when I realized that he had been abusing my willingness to extend AGF, and directly confront JM over an obvious and willful distortion of the plain meaning of Feith v. Rural.
  • JM's very first edits, from his very first day or two on the wikipedia include very active participation in the {{afd}} fora. This is highly atypical of ordinary new users. It is highly typical of sockpuppets.
entirely bogus {{disputeabout}} tag.
  • Note that the first hald of this {{disputeabout}} expresses concern about Guantanamo and the press releases of Guantanamo captive's lawyers. Wood was never stationed at Guantanamo. What we see her is evidence of JM spamming half a dozen articles with essentially the same inaccurate tag.

Less is more. I could list dozens, no kidding, dozens of similar edits from this guy. I urge you to reconsider your praise of his efforts. Geo Swan 05:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I was commenting on an immediate situation. I don't recall ever noticing this user since. What would you like me to do? I reconsider the behavior of editors on a daily basis, based upon what I know and observe at the time. - Crockspot 12:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Geo Swan 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Is he using a diff of my comments to justify other edits? If so, point it out and I will certainly set him straight. Cases come through BLPN, you look them over, you comment on them, and they get archived. My comments would only apply to the snapshot of the situation that I was looking at. If they are being used elsewhere, I don't agree to that. - Crockspot 23:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"obscure newspapers" on WT:BLP

Hi - you complained that you were not paying attention, so I want to make sure you're paying attention now. The article is protected specifically so we can come to consensus, but you haven't made a comment in 2 days. That is, of course, your right, but note what Wikipedia:Consensus says about silence. This is your chance to make an argument rather than a revert, don't waste it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ted Nugent

Thanks for your discussion on the Nugent page regarding the WP:BLP issues. I'm new at this and therefore not too familiar with the rules of the road, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Shouldn't an editor indicate exactly what it is in an existing article that troubles them regarding WP:BLP (or any other guideline) rather than just citing WP:BLP and commenting out a whole section? Was I out of line, or did THF owe some sort of explanation other than a warning not to revert his commenting out the whole section? Thanks for your help! Ossified 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion isn't required in BLP cases, but discussion is never a bad thing. - Crockspot 02:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That's why I stopped by your talk page to thank you. If nothing else, providing an explanation of why one is editing/deleting material that isn't obvious vandalism helps newbies get up to speed in contributing efficiently. Otherwise, Wikipedia runs the risk of becoming an insiders' club. Ossified 02:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Stephen Baldwin

It looks like there was a mixture of William and Stephen Baldwin's films posted by someone. If you go back into the article's history and see the filmography I deleted, you see BACKDRAFT, SLIVER, INTERNAL AFFAIRS, BULWORTH, VIRUS...all of these are William, not Stephen, so I assumed that someone had posted the wrong brother's films without scrutizing the titles I'd never heard of. Thanks for the correction. Sleeper99999 21:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crockspot/Archives/2007/August&oldid=1142548691"