User talk:Crzrussian/Archive 15

Outstanding user page

Crzrussian, you have an outstanding user page. Very clean, neat - one of the best that I have seen. It seems a majority of userpages I have come across are filled with nothing but Userboxes. There should be some sort of award for user page neatness. I would vote for yours. I am now inspired to work on mine. Cheers! JungleCat talk/contrib 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Jonas

User:Yossiea requested that Howard Jonea be deleted, with no argumentation and no apparent reason. I removed the deletion notice. Just for your info. --Daniel575 22:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it's Howard Jonas. --Daniel575 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Subs Grill

You have a very low threshhold of ruling. Considering that it's treyf, and that my only exposure has been driving past stores and passing by in airports, the article seems to be a reasonable facsimile of what the chain is about. Between what was on the website (and in the copyvio version), the 10-K report and my recollections, I was able to cobble something in about ten minutes. All in a day's wiki work. Alansohn 02:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I keep on considering filing an RfA, and the more I see the less benefit I think I'd get from it. I edit actively on all things New Jersey-related, on a 4,000-item watchlist, and that more than keeps me busy. Please let me know if I can help with anything. Alansohn 02:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adminship question

how long did it take you to become an administrator? Legolost 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 17th


Volume 2, Issue 29	17 July 2006	About the Signpost

Library of Congress, Holocaust Museum negotiate with Wikimedia	Issue of article subjects requesting deletion taken up
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Blocking changes, single login
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 05:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're floating around

Check your e-mail. Yank sox 11:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot of nerve

Saying I "vandalized" pages. I edited the Warren Kinsella page and noted on your discussion re: Yanksox sysop application that i would not support him because you are supporting him. I have no faith in your ability as a Wiki admin. I certainly do not see you as someone who respects free spech rights. I have followed you as you have constantly abused your power as a Wikipedia editor in the various causes you have adopted. Go ahead and block me for speaking out. 209.217.93.60 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rawr to you too!

Thanks for the compliment on my sig =) ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom

Let me know if you think anything should be changed. Tyrenius 17:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK now? Tyrenius 17:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits-Per-Page Ratio

CrazyRussian, I recently found myself on RfA after assisting in the mechanics of a particular nom. I was browsing the RfAs and came across a comment by you in Centrx's RfA in which you brought up the issue of the edits-per-page ratio. I'm just curious — as someone whose ratio is currently 3.317 according to Interiot's javascript tool, what do you see as the downside of a high edits-per-page ratio? — Mike (talk • contribs) 18:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You may have misunderstood me — I didn't mean the question in the practical sense, as I don't really know enough about Centrx to cast a vote one way or the other. I meant it more in the theoretical sense, as in whether you do in fact see a downside to a high edits-per-page ratio? I ask only because as I browsed, I saw people's reactions to that particular number and was wondering whether I might run into problems myself. I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I often want to tweak something if I do a typo or figure out a better wording later — this boosts up my ratio, it seems. — Mike (talk • contribs) 18:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response: I appreciate the insight. I have to admit, I had always wondered what safeguards existed to prevent someone from doing a lot of small unsubtantial edits in order to rack up their edit count. My own edit count's gone up to nearly 4k since I've been doing some AfD work and such, but with a 3.3 ratio, that's probably not as impressive as it could be, then. Still, one thought: what if someone has particularly devoted focus on a particular page because of an expertise area (much as I did with Bedbug shortly after my ... shudder ... infestation last summer)? I suppose that would just then be the purpose of a question such as you asked Centrx, to explain the situation. — Mike (talk • contribs) 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BAFTA

Thanks for the welcome!

100% proof I cannot find, however there is no proof that they have actually gained a BAFTA. There is very little information on them on the internet, however I have summarised my findings on the Jackpike talk page if you have chance to take a look. I believe it is just information taken out of context.

Thanks again. Jibbles | Talk 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedys

Thanks for the link. I will read it. This is a link to some articles by an editor. They look like db-bios [1] about military service people but after my boo-boo I am afraid to make another mistake. Could you take a look please?--Ávril ʃáη 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am holding on. I know a little about it my dad is a Lt. But what's up?--Ávril ʃáη 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaten to the punch

By several co noms, and I will have to restrict myself to a strong support. -- Samir धर्म 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navy bios

You are right, I should not have been so quick to make assumptions about those navy biography articles. I should have also contacted the user who created them, and actually thought about doing so, but the user had simply copied and pasted the articles a few hours before I deleted them, and then left, so I thought he would probably not come back, and in fact he has not come back. However, I will be more careful in the future. Good luck on improving those articles. Academic Challenger 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA answer lengthened

Thank you for voting in my RFA. As per your objections, I have lengthened my answer to question number one. Cheers and happy editing, RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R these crossover articles?

I recently found these articles, that, in my opinion, "crossover" or overlap each other: New Zealand Number one singles - which i think should be deleted, because it is not a complete article and... List of Number 1 singles in 2005 (NZ) - which contains an actual list. What do you think, should one of them be deleted? Legolost 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thats fine Legolost 04:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yanksox RfA

Please see the talk page for this. Tyrenius 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosh yeshivas

Hi Crz, please see American/Israeli/European Rosh yeshivas for merging

Many thanks, Nesher 14:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ndash

Hi Crz, hope I haven't aroused your ire. You see, I used to put a "-" between dates, but then I saw a certain user, I believe it was Yoninah, who put these strange "–" between the dates to produce a longer, and some would say nicer line. I had absolutely no idea what it was about, but figured it was wikipedia protocol or something, couldn't do much harm and actually made the line look better. I see you've got other ideas. Please direct me as to how to proceed. Many thanks, Nesher 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I can't seem to get the <nowiki>'s to work, but you get the idea.

cat:antisemitic people

please don't use WP as a soap-box. Anti-zionism, controversial opinions != anti-semitism. Please stop populating that awful category ASAP. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the inclusion criteria used, if we have a source calling the person an anti-Semite he/she goes into the category. According to Mantanmoreland in Category talk:Anti-Semitic people#This_category we don't even need a source. Feel free to join the discussion at Category talk:Anti-Semitic people if you have any ideas. // Liftarn

1929 Palestine riots

Check my addition to the section 'Aftermath.' Others will probably try to delete it ASAP since it doesn't fit their picture of poor Arabs who have nothing but rocks which they only use to attack soldiers in tanks. They don't want to see anything being published about a sniper killing an innocent baby girl. So I figured you might want to watch it also. --Daniel575 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SLAPS

Hello, I noticed you posted "This user is going to be on Wikibreak until his life permits him to return. User talk will be checked but if you see him editing too much please slap him or something." on your page.

You are editing tons. Shall I slap you with a haddock?--I'll bring the food 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty! Is there something keeping you here you'd like help with? (PS I nicked your yellow bar thing because it rocks - sorry) --I'll bring the food 20:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins

Hey just a technical question... admins get assigned users to monitor or articles to monitor? Wl219 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave us alone.

Dear Russian guy, We object to the deletion of "The History of Bad Parties" and think that you should concentrate on other apects of your life(maybe your personality) and stop investing your time into deleting peoples articles. We had spent quite a bit of time composing that article and we found it to be very relevant to today's society. Maybe you could learn from our article as we are sure you are the type of person that would host a bad party, we are doing YOU a favour! Our article was not composed with the intention to provide comic relief. It was merely posted to be informative and educational for potential readers. We also are angered by the comment you left us. We refuse to be treated in such a hostile manner. Please consider being a decent human being when leaving comments for wikipedia users, as this might aid your social skills. Please leave our future articles alone as we have no intention to delete, edit or tamper in any way with yours. Regards, Steph and Mj.

Warren Kinsella

There is an edit war occuring in Warren Kinsella still - you recently semi-protected the article, though it appears full protection may be necessary as User:Arthur Ellis and User:Pete Peters still aren't getting along too well. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's rich, accusing Arthur Ellis of "privacy violations" when you continually allow people to "out" him, including today on the Kinsella page. I believe he is taking moves to deal with you directly, in person, and not through your assumed identity on Wikipedia.Marie Tessier 03:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I missed a busy evening here. Marie, I assume, is referring to this post. Sorry if my intuition is wrong there Marie. --JGGardiner 03:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going insane, right about now!! - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a sideline viewer of that mess, I'd suggest inviting some other admins to join the fun. It needs it. Tony Fox (speak) 04:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the War is about : Ellis - Kinsella- Bourque

This is as objective as it gets.

You have Mark Bourrie a profesional journalist and author who is jealous of Warren Kinsella and PIerre Bourque who he probably views as lower class journalistic scum. Bourrie has a Masters in Journalism and is going for his Phd

Bourrie is well educated and has more intellectual hobbies. Kinsella and Bourque are the other end of the scale : Punk rock - racing...

So far so good.

The pot boiled over this spring on a forum called commentsplease.com. Bourrie said something about Kinsella and the legal papers flew out the door.

War was declared.

Bourque quietly removed the link to Bourrie's blog. Bourrie's ego must have suffered severely, as he views the others as lower level trash because they focus most of their journalism online. Bourrie's mainly print.

So far so good.

So it's basically jelousy.

Now for Bourrie posting vandalism on Rachel Marsden and Elizabeth May's pages. I am not sure about that.

For May it may be a personality conflict of some sort.

For Marsden I am not sure, but them seem to have been friends at one time. I suspect since she's young and attractive and he's well not so attractive something may have happened ..

see the pic, he's on the right:

http://ottawawatch.blogspot.com/2006/07/scumbags-i-have-met-part-i.html

I suspect that as long as Bourrie's not watched he will come back again and again to deface the pages, this is where he's venting his frustration out...

Sorry, dudes....

Lemme say that I tried to warn Francs2000 about this and he told me to fuck off, albeit I understand after seeing what happened to him, he had a really bad day and I hope he gets back on track.

If your wondering, yes I am surfing behind a lot of proxies.

Yes, I have a good working knowledge of the Internet. I would prefer not to go into that...

I see you are studying law, I am certain that you will do well...

Just remember to keep your mind open and ask the right questions...

Then surprisingly you get the answers out of the blue...

I will try and come back from time to time...

I got your back dude...

Regards,

Angelz

Holla (unrelated, yet surprisingly brief, observations)

Many laughs about your WC note, although it should be said that I in fact did cheer for France in the WC from the WC whilst listening on XM Radio.

I will join in your YankSox nom this evening.

You seem to have roused a few users of late with your altogether sensible actions. I enjoyed reading supra that you are the type of person that would host a bad party, but I think that estimation to be wrong; after all, viewing of America's Got Talent (or, to a lesser extent, So You Think You Can Dance and Master of Champions) would lead one to believe that every Russian emigrant is a juggler, a contortionist, an acrobat, a ballroom dancer, or some combination thereof (the number of skills combined, from what I can tell, varies inversely with the overall level of talent and varies directly [at least for men] with the amount of eye makeup used).

Category:Jewish holy days VfD

Hi Crz: I was somewhat surprised to come across a nomination to rename an important category (about which I was uninformed) that I had been involved with in the past. As I was the creator of Category:Jewish holy days in 2004 and had given much thought to naming it this way, I was taken aback that you nominated it for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 13#Category:Jewish holy days to Category:Jewish holidays without at least notifying me via my talk page or E-mail. This common courtesy that should be practiced on Wikipedia is derived from the following at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion:

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users).

I have always tried to abide by the above rule, applying it to any types of deletion and renaming proposals (categories, templates, etc) and I hope that in the future not only will you do so as well but that you will inform in a timely fashion those who neglect to do so too, so that they can respond in a timely and intelligent fashion. All this is to further the goal of Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, IZAK 06:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International journal of progressive education

International Association of Educators is the copyright holder and is licensing the text under the GNU Free Documentation License for International journal of progressive education article. Please STOP DELETING THE ARTICLE.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_journal_of_progressive_education"

From Arthur Ellis talk page

He didn't do any of those things. Yet again, you have shown your bias on the Kinsella page, CRZ.Marie Tessier 03:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No he did not. I applied the wrong template it a rush - I have now changed the text to reflect the circumstances. I could not be further away from bias here - the subject of Kinsella specifically and Canadian politics in general is of zero interest to me. I am just trying to stop the edit warring. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Careless and stoopid is such a bad combination in a lawyer.206.191.33.126 14:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arthur_Ellis"

OracoCu

Hi Crz, check out the changes I made to the OracoCu template at the Rav Avigdor Miller article. I think it looks better than before, but I'm sure someone more technical than me can design it better. What do you think? Also, shall we try to find new pics for it? With many thanks, Nesher 14:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Tessier 2006-2006

Poor Marie took a bullet for the team, for saying what needed to be said. Her life was short, but the world is a better place for knowing her. She called 'em as she saw 'em. And she saw 'em 20-20. RIP

Economic totalitarianism

What do you recommend what should be done with the article? Right now it's a Wikisource article. ~ trialsanderrors 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should reconsider your closing of the case. At least your reason behind it. There have been no strong keep arguments except one or two users arguing in favor of Google hits, and Trialsanderrors showed that as much hits could be found with any economic something. Why not economically delete this non-sense? Tazmaniacs 21:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Willy on Wheels

Hey Crzrussian. Why did you delete the Willy on Wheels article? Thanks to how prolific he was, I think he's well worth an article. Indeed, there is some consensus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Willy_on_Wheels for this not to be the case. Even if it was vandalised, it could be protected. But WoW is very notable! --martianlostinspace 18:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not Willy on Wheels, but Willy on wheels. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willy_on_wheels&action=history --martianlostinspace 10:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first thing I wanted to do was to keep calm, I would rather have a cool head. Correct, I misread: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willy_on_Wheels&action=history. My apologies. I don't normally like annoying admins. Anyway, even though you didn't, maybe you could help me with this: I think he is very notable. If that is the case, then there could at least be a redirect to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Willy_on_Wheels as is suggested here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Willy_on_Wheels. Only I can't do that if it's protected. Could you unprotect so it could be redirected? --martianlostinspace 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Kinsella RFAR

Please be advised that a request for arbitration is being filed over the continued edit war occurring over this page. Please feel free to make a statement on the request page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question mark glitches in Pokémon on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Question mark glitches in Pokémon. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Kunzite 02:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bostoner Rebbe article

User:Heshel moved Levi Yitzchak Horowitz to Grand Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Horowitz, the Bostoner Rebbe under the pretext of 'correct title'. Obviously wrong. Can you revert it back (and leave a notice on his talk page)? See here. Gut shabbos! --Daniel575 12:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did the same with Naftali Yehuda Horowitz and turned it into Rabbi Naftali Yehuda Horowitz. See here. --Daniel575 12:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I never knew that! --Daniel575 14:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please vote at this link. --Daniel575 14:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirects

You are receiving this message because you previously voiced your opinion on a Redirects for deletion of a cross-namespace redirect that was originally deleted but then went to Deletion review and was then relisted at RFD. This is a courtesy notice so you are aware that the issue is being discussed again and is not an endorsement of any position. --Cyde↔Weys 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Acharonim

Hi Crz, check out my new category - Early Acharonim. It includes all Orthodox rabbis who lived most of their lives between 1500 and 1750 e.g. if someone was born in 1730 and died in 1800 he wouldn't be in it, but a Rabbi born in 1690 who died in 1760 would be in it. I hope it proves useful and it certainly has already taken a large number of Rabbis out of the main Orthodox Rabbis category. With many thanks, Nesher 14:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I thought my inclusion criteria were pretty solid. As I said, a person must have lived the majority of their lives between 1500 and 1750. Indeed, I'm so strict I've already had to leave out Rabbis such as Haim Isaac Carigal (1733-1777), Samuel Neta HaLevi (1738-1827), Jacob ben Wolf Kranz (1740-1804) and many others. I think it would be silly to give an absolute cut-off line eg. must not have lived AT ALL after 1750, as many many rabbis were born in the late 1600s or early 1700s and died in the 1750s, 1760s and 1770s. They'd all unfortunately have to get left out, making the category far less useful. Do you agree? With many thanks, Nesher 14:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]