User talk:Crzrussian/Archive 5

RL Jetley

Cheers for giving that one a chance. And of course I'm not judging you harshly! Your criticisms of the article itself are exactly correct! I'm just trying to make sure that, whatever the nebulous criteria for notability are, they're applied equally to Indian articles and UK ones (being British myself), and to allow for lower proportions of web-publishing in some countries. JackyR 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to you - I think you did the right thing offering that messy article to get the wisdom of the community here, and also did the right thing in withdrawing the AfD when some cogent points were made. Well done, dude! Metamagician3000 13:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I try. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that must have been quite a bee sting

Dear Crazy Russian,

What you did was right. Having been a victim of systemic bias in my work, I overreacted unjustifiably. I have no reason, only a weak excuse. I've been having a lot of my time taken away, by frivolous editors recently. I'm major contributor for about a hundred butterfly articles, watch over 300 odd butterfly pages and have just planned on 400 stubs more. I've 400 images in line to upload to WM Commons so I'm strapped for work. In such a condition, edits which dont percieve to add value or have relevance irritate me. Suddenly immsersed in a totally different domain, I'm afraid I lost my balance and appropriateness and let other emotions guide me. I am sorry for that.

Normally, I take great pains to explain the situation , place things in context and suggest viable alternatives and go for a win win leaving all very happy. Obviously, I have done none of the above in this case. Please forgive the breach of manners and any aspersions cast on your motives, direct or implied. My humblest apologies, once again. Do keep up your important role of vetting articles wisely.

A short view of some of our work -

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bingham%27s_Fauna_of_British_India_%28Butterflies%29

BTW, Nature Loader is a sock puppet account for loading other people's images into WM Commons. I'm AshLin at WP and WM. In WP I'm part of Indian butterflies wiki-endeavour. See some of our articles at :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Butterflies_of_India_%28Papilionidae%29 (under development, many stubs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papilio_polytes (Common Mormon)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limenitis_procris (Commander)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danaus_chrysippus (Plain Tiger)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talicada_nyseus (Red Pierrot)

Best wishes, AshLin 19:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Keep on flutterin'. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest geo-stub split

You asked for a wake-up call when these were ready to split... The templates and categories have been made, and the lists of articles will be at User:Grutness/Ongoing geo-stub splits in a couple of minutes time. Have fun! :) Grutness...wha? 08:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==RL Jetley now does social service too==

Dear CRZR, (reminds of old Soviet abbreviation USSR) Ok, but my quota can possibly extend to just one such article more. Then I'll be doubly overloaded. I'm sitting with 20 odd stubs and 10 snaps on a poor internet connection. But will require time. Regards, AshLin 15:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Ash, I've expanded this article from the existing info, so I hope it's now off the endangered list. Cheers, JackyR 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)~~ Arrgh! I'm on the wrong page! Sorry! JackyR 18:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weight enquiry

How much do you weigh? How much should you weigh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.48.46.141 (talk • contribs) .

Say what?? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "Say what?" Is that an American use of English?

Original question repeated. 213.48.46.141 12:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

(: Aelfthrytha 16:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

I've no problem with your deleting my ~~tedious and unfunny~~ humorous bio of you, especially after it's time had passed, but I write only to say that I hope you didn't find it to be offensive. As you will, I hope, know, it was written wholly in jest (and certainly not vituperatively), and I understood that you took it thusly. If you didn't, I apologize sincerely; if you did and thought it now appropriate that the text be removed, I surely understand. Hope all is well with exams and the like... Joe 21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

I can't speak to your being referred to WP:RFCU; that's outside my knowledge. As to your request, we've got certain procedures about CheckUser. For one, we don't like revealing IP addresses as a matter of privacy. We make an exception only in cases of egregious policy violations. Your request didn't cite such violations. If you can demonstrate such I'll naturally reconsider. Furthermore, the user in question has admitted that he and the IP are one in the same. In such open and shut cases a checkuser really isn't needed. Mackensen (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he's engaging in wanton incivility he can be blocked; socking or no. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your frustation. I've warned him for his incivility; if he makes another personal attack he's staring at a block. Furthermore, I agree that he was probably using IPs to disrupt AfD a few days ago, but a block at this point would be punitive. Further disruptive action will warrant a block. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dateed prod

Thanks. I knew something was up with the prod system, but I couldn't remember which one to use.--Toffile 03:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language, Justice Ginsburg, and child sex (there's a nice headline)

Yes, Justice Ginsburg was savaged by Lindsey Graham for her remarks; he inaccurately suggested that her position (which, to be sure, wasn't made explicit wasn't solely of her crafting) was that of the ACLU (of course, as an ACLU member who detests our forays into social justice issues, typified by the tendency of some chapters of late to support university speech codes, and prefers that we stick to civil liberties issues, I'd have preferred the ACLU to say that we'd support such age-of-consent revisions, but I suppose one doesn't need to poke every tiger with a stick). Grammar pedantry and sesquepedalian word usage are, IMHO, distinct; while I'd concede that I ought to work on the latter (although I've made strides; for example, I avoided using Pickwickian to describe my bio of you, although primarily because I'm not a fan of Dickens), I'd suggest that, recognizing that the usage of a standard system of grammar is important here (which recognition I make in spite of my being a descriptivst generally), one ought to adhere to the MoS and to other grammar and syntax conventions (even, I think, on talk pages, in order that all users, even those who aren't native English speakers, might understand what's going on), even at the expense of, well, clarity. For example, I might have written, recognizing that a standard system of grammar is important here, omitting the "the usage of" locution with no real diminution in clarity; standard rules of grammar, though, would tend to counsel against such omission. I can, to be sure, write differently; I've been a high school and college newspaper sports editor and had no problem comporting my writing with general journalistic conventions, which miltiate against verbosity in general and run-ons in specific. Most importantly, though, even as any legal brief that I should write might be too recondite or tedious for a judge to read, I'd at least rack up a lot of billable hours with such writing. In fact, though, I have found that the simplistic is generally preferable to the unnecessarily complex; during the summer after I completed high school, I interned at the Wisconsin Public Defender's office, generally doing thankless clerical jobs but also writing three briefs. The first two were terse and clear, and we prevailed on each (on suppression motions); the third (a sentencing recommendation) was marked by purple prose and exorbitantly haughty language, and we lost (certainly the attorney with whom I was working ought to have edited my work, but she was overburdened and leaving for a new job two weeks thence). The unfortunate part of the story is that, while the clients whom we essentially got off were surely guilty (although each of offenses I don't think ought to be criminal), the client who ended up with two years in jail was almost surely mentally ill, such that neither the state nor the convictee was likely well-served by the judge's sending him to jail. Of course, the tactics I chose (most prominently, I wrote to the judge that, even if our client got the statutory max--this was his seventeenth criminal conviction--he would be back on the street committing crimes in two years, suggesting that an order requiring psychological treatment was appropriate and essentially goading the judge to throw the book at our guy) were probably not the best, but, what's one to do? Wow, I've written quite a lot to protest my being chastisted for...writing too much. I doth protest too much, methinks... Best of luck on the exam; perhaps you should commit some vandalism in order that you might be blocked for 24 hours and have one fewer diversion... Joe 04:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My time is spent editing Wikipedia, reading magazines (I haven't the attention span to read a book), fielding innumerable fantasy sports teams, and working out copiously. You're correct with respect to my writing style; the most unfortunate thing is that I'd make great strides toward clarity before I began editing here, but my participation here has dovetailed nicely with the devolution of my communication skills. Well, the connection between civil liberties (as a general term) and eliminating age-of-consent laws can, IMHO, be as simple as a recognition that age-of-consent laws impose an inappropriate burden on those who are underage, not only in arbitrarily substituting the judgment of the legislature of the judgment of individuals, but also in diminishing the likelihood that individuals who have attained the age of majority will engage in sex acts with the former. There are certainly better arguments against age-of-consent laws, but it is this (raising claims as to discrimination against the young, which are, to be sure, generally looked upon with disfavor in the courts) that best ties to civil rights and with which I think the ACLU could someday be involved. Joe 04:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your lack of good faith......disturbing

Look- I wasn't trying to attack you by referencing you as a female. I saw that you signed your name as "Sasha" on User talk:Humus sapiens, so I assumed you were a girl. In fact, I initially made male references all over my user talk post, but then I went back to change them to female references because I thought I had been mistaken. I'm sorry if refering to you with feminine pronouns offended you- but that wasn't my intention. Honest.

You keep threatening me and rubbing WP:NPA in my face, but you should realize that I'm pissed off at you because you're being incredibly stubborn about the AfD votes. I have been giving you a legitimate reason as to why that IP had my signature on a talk page (I don't feel like explaining Dynamic IP's again, just jog your mind for it). If you don't think my defense is legitimate, at least talk to me about the reasoning behind your opinion. You're always galavanting off and making decisions without ever considering how those decisions will affect people ie. requesting sysop assistance, removing CSD notifications.

I thought Wikipedia users were supposed to assume good faith, but you haven't done that from the start! You thought I was skewing the AfD nomination by editing my nomination, but I really was just trying to add refutations to my post. You thought I was insulting you by telling you to go to hell, but I am a satanist and I think hell is a good place. You thought I was skewing the AfD again because an anonymous IP turned out to have my signature on it; but that was because I had used the IP in the past and not anymore. And you thought I was attacking you by refering to you as a woman but really I thought you were one because of your own signature on someone's talk page.

I hope you eventually realize that I'm not a bad Wikipedian. I've edited lots of articles, created great ones, participated in project collaborations, and have never been uncivil to anyone on Wikipedia before this, at least not without a damn good reason. The only thing I lack is a capacity to tolerate those who are stubborn and elitist. At least try to see my point of view and maybe we can stop arguing. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 07:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am officially a master

Took my finals. John wesley 16:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you have an internship

bery good for first yob! John wesley 17:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting AfD precendents.

I've put up a list of interesting AfD precedents on my user page, and welcome you to add any you think are appropriate. Since policy on inclusion is so widely ingored, maybe precedent will tell us what is appropriate. Since you're a law student, I'm sure you understand the value of case law. Brian G. Crawford 22:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, though, WP:NBD. Precedents, when cited, should not be referenced as though they are dispositive per se, but, rather, as though they reflect sound thinking and policy interpretation that can properly be applied to the instant case. Joe 22:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you remove the NPOV tag you added to Black Buddafly

No changes have been made to this article but I see no reason for the NPOV tag. Of course, the article may not belong on wikipedia if these girls are not notable, but this isn't a matter of NPOV, it's more a matter of non-notability and failing WP:MUSIC. Since no changes were made and it passed a "deletion vote", I don't wanna remove your NPOV tag myself. If you find some statements to be biased (I found none), let me know and I will fix them. I may also remove the NPOV tag but I would prefer to resolve this with you if possible. Beltz 10:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our continuing colloquy

I am indeed wasting my youth, and I certainly wonder if I oughtn't to have acted otherwise in the past. Having done well on the ACT and SAT in the summers after I completed seventh and eighth grade, respectively, I nearly skipped high school to attend Washington University in Saint Louis (perhaps I could have been K.A.D. Camara), but eventually decided I'd rather remain with my peer group; I have, to be sure, wasted prime years of intellectual development, but I certainly had a good time.

Oh, you Libertarians who vote Republican. When will you learn? :) There are certainly more Republicans than Democrats who exemplify libertarian ideals (most notably, Ron Paul, although his stance on abortion is altogether troubling and, IMHO, alibertarian), but I think the Democratic Party, on the whole, to be the (slightly) more libertarian of the two. I'm not as troubled, I suppose, by the economic impositions of the Dems (perhaps because I don't work/pay income taxes) as I am by the social impositions of the Republicans; the Rep party under Dubya, of course, spends money like a drunken Kennedy (redundant?), so, to my mind, the Rep party is the Dem party minus a healthy appreciation for personal liberties.

As to children, my stance is certainly an outlier in modern political thought; I generally oppose all policies that tend to differentiate individuals on the basis of age, believing, for example, that parents have no obligation to support children whom they have (viz., that a mother may give birth and place her newborn infant on the sidewalk to fend for him/herself). So, yes, I am in the distinct minority here, and I fear that any political campaign I someday attempt will be hampered by my having expressed these thoughts openly and often (of course, these views seem evolved in comparison to my erstwhile beliefs; I previously argued that, for a variety of reasons, a parent ought to be able to kill a child for whom he/she is pecuniarily responsible any time prior to that child's attaining the age of three). Joe 04:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putsch on Marino 1994

It was ugly. Did you remember? John wesley 12:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing AfD's

Nope, Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-Administrators closing discussions says non-admins can close uncontroversial (and withdrawn, as there's no point in having a withdrawn AfD left unclosed in the log) AfDs. --Rory096 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the FUSL expansion

Did you find any other prominent alumni, hopefully not a politician? John wesley 16:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kepple

I think you're introducing your own definition of "non-notable" here. If there are a large number of people who follow his work, he's notable. This seems to be the case, no?

And why did you take this discussion to my talk page instead of the article talk page where I started it? -Harmil 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C2O

Thanks! Tried to improve it!--Stone 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antihero for Hire

To quote from WP:PROD, "If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion: 1. Remove the dated prod tag from the article, and optionally try to address the concerns of the tagging editor; OR 2. Alternatively, nominate the article for an Articles for deletion debate."

I don't think it should be removed without discussion, so I removed it like it said to. I also think Alexa is a non-notable website itself (I've never actually heard of it outside of Wikipedia), and don't think that's a viable sole reason for deleting an article. Also, the point made about Keenspot is a good one, as Keenspot webcomics tend to be a good deal more notable than some scribbles someone put up on Geocities one day. --Keolah 20:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discraft notability

This is the company for any disc golf and Ultimate discs in the United States:

--Liface 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." --Liface 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new article about katzen

Hi. She is world famous as being one of the very few women(3?) who has underwent full body and face tattooing. In the field of body modification she's quite famous. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 22:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Prod or not to prod

Fair enough, Thanks for getting back to me --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Irishpunktom doesn't appear to have the good faith to notify you of his having nominated the Islamikaze article for deletion, please be aware of the vote concerning it. Netscott 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't strike my hits comments. Thanks. Netscott 17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do provide a link to your distinct hits results. Netscott 17:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to inform people of when I list articles for AFD, as this has led to accusations of Vote-stacking in the past. If this has offended you, or appeared to be, somehow, in bad faith, I apologise, that was not its intention. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and Queen Victoria

what makes you interested in can't sleep clown will me? John wesley 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is the interest in fear of clowns? John wesley 17:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

level 4 warning

This was the edit I reverted: [1]. Sure looked like deliberate vandalism to me, and to a user page to boot. Now, however, looking through the history of that page, I see the user himself has restored it, so perhaps it was something he did while logged off or something. Mango juice^talk 17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annette M. Böckler

I understand you're nominating from the best of intentions; and frankly I don't have a dog in this fight myself, I was just looking around the list of PRODs, and this was one of the rare ones that I thought should be kept, among the vast sea of Pokemon critters. AnonEMouse 17:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like we've spammed the AFD article. Will it be OK with you if I condense our arguments into one post from me and a response from you? AnonEMouse 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would look like this:

Keep and cleanup, per the tag that was already there. Disclosure:I removed the PROD that CrzR placed. It's not written very well now, but I propose that one of the acknowledged re-founders of a notable religious movement in a large country is notable. I believe "Liberal Judaism" is supposed to be Reform Judaism. The University of Heidelberg is internationally famous, and its site says the Hochschule is "the leading center of Jewish scholarship in Germany". I get 220 Google hits for "Annette M. Böckler", and 917 for "Annette Böckler", including this DE Wikipedia Article which I can't read, but looks impressive. She meets one or more of WP:PROFTEST criteria 3, "The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality)" (from the DE wikipedia article), 5, "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea." and 6, "The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements." (from founding the reform movement). AnonEMouse 16:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The historical predecessor of the American movement that originated in 19th Century Germany no longer exists. The German article refers to coupla books that look like Bible criticism ("God as Father in the Old Testament", etc) and her translations. She's basically a prof, and she fails WP:PROFTEST: two books, one more co-authored, 7 articles, some as short as four pages, and a few translations, I bet are the minimum a professor anywhere would have to produce to keep her job. The Union of Progressive Jews in Germany movement, with only 3000 members, is nothing. As for the google searches, I guess I shouldn't have searched for her with her middle name expanded. That would be 84 unique GHits for "Annette M. Böckler" and 226 unique without the M. Still not big enough for me.CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El kondor pada

Your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El kondor pada was inappropriate, please change it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Zoe beat me to it. You're playing with fire there. People in that discussion feel strongly, and may well have lost their senses of humour. AnonEMouse 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, birthday psychosis. That's different, then! AnonEMouse 19:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul, "infanticide", Serbs, and online privacy

(1) I think abortion must be viewed as any other individual rights issue; the state (to the extent that it should exist at all) oughtn't to involve itself in those activities that one undertakes vis-à-vis his/her own body. Because I reject the premise of a fetus as another life (until the fetus is able to subsist entirely on its own—i.e., has successfully exited the mother and is finding food for itself, having had the umbilical cord cut), I don't see the need for any state intervention. Even if the fetus is accepted as another life, surely it must be accepted that the mother must have ultimate and complete dominion over his/her body, a part of which the fetus indisputably is. No more should she be proscribed from killing a fetus, IMHO, than she should be proscribed from killing an intruder who penetrates her body. My anarcho-capitalism, though, extends quite far, such that, even if I accept abortion as murder, I certainly don't think any criminal punishment appropriate; the mother and father are the next-of-kin to the fetus and only they ought to be able to seek remuneration. Extending the argument, I don't believe that, where an individual is murdered but has not designated any individual to represent him/her after his/her death, and where no other is economically disadvantaged by the individual's death, any punishment ought to entail. I do not accept or recognize the right of a society to impose normative guidelines as to behavior, especially where that society seeks to intercede on the behalf of others who haven't any one to speak for them.

(2) I thought your "Serbs" comment at AfD was altogether fine, but I think you were right to refactor, if only lest others' sensibilities should be offended; I can't imagine entertaining any discussion in which I should lose my sense of humor, and I hope that someone would beat me were I to take things too seriously.

(3) I know that YANAL, but at WP:AN/I, a discussion ensued with respect to whether an individual's Wiki posting of what purports to be the phone number of an admin is civilly colorable or criminally prosecutable. I observed that, on the whole, one's posting such number without context or incitement to other activity is almost surely permissible/not proscribed by any relevant state or federal law. It's a very broad question to which one won't find a very specific answer, but I wonder if you think my explanation probably to be accurate? Joe 06:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with respect to potential criminal action; as I tried to explain to Daniel Brandt a while ago, even as those writing about him on Wikipedia may violate the new e-annoyance law (they almost certainly don't, and were the law applied in such a case, such application would, IMHO, almost certainly fail on First Amendment grounds), he'd be hard-pressed to find a U.S. attorney willing to bring any case or any FBI office willing to investigate. I understand why you think my abortion views to be immature; I hope you'll understand why I think yours to be provincial. :) I'd certainly be happy to nominate you for adminship (and, yes, I can do so succinctly and clearly), and I think you'd be altogether likely to win widespread support, but you may want to work on (not for adminship purposes, of course, but for collaborative purposes) your article talk edits; they constitute only about 2.4% of your total edits, and some RfA voters have been looking for 5% or so (I'd like to think voters would actually assess whether a candidate has been collaborative and worked well with others in view of some criteron other than numbers, but that doesn't always happen). Joe 22:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayo

Hell, even I'll eat/drink/do something crazy or in a crazy amount of time, but I don't have my own wikipedia article (one day....). I have to say however, I'm the reigning champ in Chubby Bunny, but thats beside the point. Happy editing, Mysekurity^[m!] 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Unemployment Action Center

Hi, I was going to AfD the thing, but in view of your greater experience, I think it would have been a mistake. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 23:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'm new to Deleting articles and still feeling my way. :) Dlohcierekim 03:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi Crzrussian/Archive 5,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig projects

Hello, just a note of thanks for turning me on to the Disambig project. I find it very satisfying work to go around and fix links to disambig pages. I find that I usually end up editing and expanding many pages in the process. I have been working on motor and master so far and hope to finish both. Regards, Aguerriero (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]