User talk:Crzrussian/Archive 32

Maps, original research, and fuzzy boundaries

I have a question maybe you can help with. If Image:Upland-South-map.jpg is too approximate, how should one map regions that inherently do not have precisely defined boundaries? Some maps simply use precise boundaries even when the actual boundaries are imprecise. This strikes me as worse and more in the direction of original research than using fuzzy boundaries. Also, can one cite source references at the Commons for images uploaded? The page Upland South provides references for the sources used in making this map, but I couldn't see how to embed such info into the image itself in the Commons. Finally, since all maps require cartographic choices as to what to show, what not to show, how to show it, etc, doesn't this mean that all the maps on wikipedia that are created by wikipedians are original research? Thanks. Pfly 03:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in luck. As how should one map regions that inherently do not have precisely defined boundaries, check out today's featured article, Macedonia (terminology). The definition of Macedonia is a major source of confusion because of the overlapping use of the term to describe geographical, political and historical areas, languages and peoples. -- Jreferee 14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snap (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests)

Why was the Snap (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) article deleted and protected against recreation? -- Jreferee 14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

multiple recreation by orchestrated BLP-violating troll army out of baltimore. check out this edit summary from twice-recreator of that article. Why? - crz crztalk 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating an article on SNAP and saw your protection against recreation. I'm not sure what you mean by multiple recreation by orchestrated BLP-violating troll army out of baltimore. (I'm still not too familiar with the Wikipedia jargon). If you tell me that a well written article on SNAP still will draw too much vandalism to the article because of what SNAP does, I'll move onto something else. -- Jreferee 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

Thank you for your concern with my RfA. For what it's worth, my 3RR violation was accidental; I was dealing with a user who was persistently reverting to the same text, and had been blocked before. I lost count over the course of a day and did a fourth reversion in 23:45, instead of proposing an alternate text, as I had intended, or going to AN3 myself. Septentrionalis 19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Bank N.A.

I noticed that you marked this page for deletion. I had been fixing/deleting links on similar pages before find this one that you marked for deletion. Does this mean that all of the pages listed under Overseas Chinese Banks should follow to their deaths? -Oatmeal batman 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig pages

You may want to look over the MoS for disambig pages. They should have only one navigable link per bulleted line. Cheers! Robert K S 13:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rationale to the policy, though: disabmig pages aren't articles; they're merely there to assist the user in quickly navigating to the intended target of their ambiguous search term. Any links that don't lead to the intended page defeat the purpose of disambiguation. Robert K S 04:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've stuck my nose in to this conversation by way of User talk:Robert K S. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

Did you know? was updated. On 9 December, 2006, a fact from the article Itzik Manger, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Good catch! --GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On December 11, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article B&H Photo Video, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thankyou Alex, thankyou, thankyou.... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

I had a great time at the meetup! ★MESSED ROCKER★ 02:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it went well. How many people were there? FloNight 02:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's 15 of us still here. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - crz crztalk 03:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Okay, delete the history for me then. ― Sturr ★彡 ^Refill^/^lol 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage edits

I was ridiculously tempted to block for you even having dared editing my userpage... but I'm not rouge enough. Thank you :-p --Deskana talk 20:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B&H

I've never been pwned before -- does it hurt? Congrats. NawlinWiki 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B&H

crz, can you restore some of the earlier edits to give others credit? it wasn't all spam and copyvio DVD+ R/W 05:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well I remember Dina and Nawlin discussing A7 and finding footnotes, and I'm thinking the 11-13 October versions look ok, you did rewrite it though. you should use your nominating powers to make Dina an admin. DVD+ R/W 06:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amoruso

I'm concerned about your unblock here. 3RR seeks to curb edit warring not instances of 4 reverts in 24 hours. Your interpretation tht 4 reverts in 24 hours and 4 minutes is not worthy of a block seems to be evident of the erroneous, and explicitly so, idea that 3RR is an entitlement to 3 reverts. It isn't. Also, your comment, asking me for my reasoning clearly indicates you didn't even read my comment to the noticeboard as I blockd: [1]. And so you unblocked for "no response" to a question already answered, and despite the fact that I responded within 35 minutes [2] with this information (and three minutes before your unblock). You don't seem to have checked back for my response anyway. I would ask that you show more thoughtfulness in the future, and possibly reblock the user in question now. I certainly won't perform the same action twice. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate administrators that enable edit warriors over technicalities, reinforce the destructive notion of entitlement to reverts, reverse other administrators before even figuring out what happened or talking to the blocking admin, and generally promote a culture of disrespect among fellow administrators. Administrators have lattitude to make discretionary calls (a block for clear 3RR gaming and incivility, on a second offense, is hardly controversial) because other admins trust their judgment and respect their perspective. You seem to lack those, and it less to do with the actions you take than the way you go about them. Dmcdevit·t 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't personalize the issue. I've offered fair criticism, and you respond by dismissing it because I don't "like" you for opposing your RFA. Apparently your "all I stand for" is a harmful interpretation of 3RR as an entitlement, which is already explicitly denied in the language of the policy, that promotes gaming and edit warring. It's the argument I usually hear from edit warriors, not administrators. The regular fashion for blocking is to simply block, only extraordinary cases require ANI: rather, I think your quite inexplicable unblock requires consensus at ANI, certainly not unilateral and disrespectful action. Dmcdevit·t 21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would appreciate that, thank you. Dmcdevit·t 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I have ever said regarding your actions is of a personal nature. I'm very surprised to see you saying I have a history of disliking you. While I may disagree with your actions, I don't dislike you. I hope that's clear. :-)

In any case, thanks for your ANI post, I'll make a quick comment about my reasoning and see what others think. Dmcdevit·t 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amuroso

Hi, I see you unblocked him. I've noted in the past that this user is a quite extreme revert warrior. The frustrating part is that I agree with him on most issues, but, if I'm not mistaken, edit warring is a bannable offense, and 3RR is used not as an electric fense, but as a "you shouldn't be this far, but going any further is definitely wrong." The reason given by Devit was that Amuroso was gaming the system by doing 24h and 4m, something which I have noticed for him many times in the past. I risk something by saying somethign to you first before I try to say something elsewhere (lest I should be accused of having it "out for him"), but this is a single-purpose account with the intention of only POV pushing pro-Israel, failing to negotitate whatsoever, and always edit warring to the max possible extent of the rules. I believe Devit was onto that when he blocked Amuroso. I hope I haven't created a problem by posting here. -Patstuart^talk|edits 07:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Kelemen

Hello, thank you for the welcome. I realize that I botched rephrasing his work history, but the rest of the add shouldn't have been a problem. Is it safe to say that if I re-add that bit it will be kept? Yonitdm 09:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

I would love to! If someone explains what this has to do with B&H Photo Video....Dina 11:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ooooh, now I see! It's guilt about swiping a DYK that rightfully belongs to myself and Nawlin Wiki! ;) Ah, well works for me. Cheers. Dina 13:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting

200px

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rice

Hi - thanks for your note. I really think that the creator should be notified, even if they do not appear to be currently editing - the template states that it should be done. However, either way, I think that this is not an uncontroversial deletion and so I would also be happy to remove the prod template on these grounds. While it might well fail an AfD, their website gives details of a national tour they have undertaken. I don't know which parts of the Japanese press would count as reliable sources to be able to check whether this meets WP:MUSIC; it may also meet point 6 on that list. Warofdreams talk 20:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion

Hello,

Today you deleted my entry on the Toronto dance band Put the Rifle Down. I believe that you were incorrect in deleting this page. I would like to re-work the article so it is to your liking (I understand that I may not have given enough explicit references to their "notability" which I can successfully argue in favour of.) and restore it to its rightful place on Wikipedia. But how do I retrieve all the hard work I have already done?

Thanks,

21:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)~~

Undeleted, sent to AfD. - crz crztalk 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been updated to include specific references to coverage the band has received from multiple reliable media sources, thus satisfying the criteria for Wikipedia's notability standards. What is the next step to having the "Considered for deletion" tag removed from the head of the article? Sorry to hear about the passing of your friend.

My Signature

As you quite rightly pointed out here my signature is a monstrous offence against man and nature. I'll try to make this -> the last time I inflict it upon anyone. (Now what's the HTML for a line of breakdancing ants?) -- IslaySolomon | talk 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One crash diet later... -- IslaySolomon | talk 01:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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. Ralbot 04:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Isaac/Ignatz Lichtenstein is back.

Hi Crz: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignatz Lichtenstein (2nd nomination). Thanks. IZAK 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Sorry to hear the news. Plz send me your email. Please check R' Aron Leib Steinman. Thanks. FrummerThanThou 18:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD during RfA

Did you really have to nominate his article for deletion in the middle of his flailing RfA? It seems really confrontational to me. Unrelated, check email re: your neighbor.--Kchase T 19:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amoruso

shouldn't have been blocked for WP:3RR violations, as he was reverting edits by a banned user

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, where I have provided a compelling justification for unblocking Amoruso. John254 22:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Movement Therapy

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't consider it a warning! You didn't vandalize a page or anything! This is merely a helpful suggestion, to make the job of stubs easier. Thanks for helping to sort stubs, and for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Causa 03:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup NYC

Hey, just wanted to say hi and thank you for coming to the WikiMeetup in NYC this past weekend. —ExplorerCDT 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Love the picnic idea. —ExplorerCDT 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Moshe Aryeh Friedman"

See this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Aryeh Friedman. Thanks. IZAK 12:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re ...CfD (2)

Hi crz,

Re: [3], shouldn't you have closed it as to all 21 of them?

Apologies; when I came to transferring the closed CfDs to WP:CFD/W, I guess the heading "Category:American Jews" didn't remind me that you'd nominated its subcategories as well. Per Hmains' comment, I suppose they ought to've been tagged as well, but for the sake of consistency I'll add them to WP:CFD/W now. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue_Dot_Inc on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Blue_Dot_Inc. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mike Koss 21:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC) G11 does not apply here. The purpose of the article is to describe a company, not promote a company. Further, the company is notable by reference to the cited independent news sources covering Blue Dot. I feel it was quite rude to have the article summarily deleted with not discussion process; the article was obviously well structured and informative.[reply]

Your comments

First, I used to have a box that said I should never be allowed to run for Admin, and I never PLAN to run for admin. I am not suited for it by temperament, or by attitude. If I am fool enough to become a lying hypocrite and do run I expect you to vote Oppose. I am being serious, not sarcastic. Second, my vote could be worded different but amounts to the same thing. I don't have any respect for anyone who isn't vandal fighting and participating in Process. Frankly, everyone seems to have different reasons for opposes, many of which have nothing to do with being an admin, so if I get dismissed as a crank for wanting evidence, I'll just stop participating in RfA and write articles. I'll ditch the a when the Esperanzan people stop flaunting the e. As for me, I speak some mandarin and I'm ethnic Chinese, but I was raised from age 7 on in France, and later on America. :) Thanks for saying hi. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 02:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, securities. I like writing economics and business articles, but stocks confuse me. Anyway, I've toned down my /a page a little since you asked nicely. Still harsh, but less so. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 02:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template

You can use this template to welcome new memeber you think may be Jewish, just copy and paste {{Bruchim}} into their talk page, feel free to discuss and improve. FrummerThanThou 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! :) --Irpen 10:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible Hulk (cocktail)

You speedy-deleted this a few days ago - reasonably enough, given the content and context, but User:Willscrlt has been making a serious effort to improve our cocktail articles lately. I found him a fair number of references for this one (User_talk:AnonEMouse#Deleted_Cocktails), and promised to lean on you to give the article a fair chance. Lean, lean. I'm not sure if he is going to recreate it as a standalone, or merely merge it into a list of others, but if he does, could you give him a few days to work on it? If it never reaches keepable quality, we can always delete it later. Willscrt's got several things going at once, and is relatively new, but seems hard working and well meaning. Thanks. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting

I appreciate the feedback that I received during the RfA process. Unfortunately, I withdrew my candidacy. However, your participation is appreciated. I have made my New Years Resolution (effective immediately) to attempt to vote on at least 50 WP:XFD/week (on at least 5 different days), to spend 5 hours/week on WP:NPP, to be active in WikiProjects and to change the emphasis of my watchlist from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention. I have replaced several links that I had on my list to some that I think are more highly vandalized (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, my congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., my senator Barrack Obama and Jesse Jackson). My first day under my newly turned leaf was about what I hope a typical day to be. I quickly found a vandal, made a few editorial changes to Donald Trump, voted at WP:CFD and WP:AFD, continued attempted revitalization of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago and proposed a new stub type as a result of WP:NPP patrol. I hope this will broaden my wikipedia experience in a way that makes me a better administrator candidate. I hope to feel more ready to be an admin in another 3000 or so edits. TonyTheTiger 16:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry

I'm sorry to hear about your neighbor. Unfortunately, my paypal isn't working right now (need to get off Wikipedia for a bit and fix it if I can). Please know, however, that you and your neighbor's family are in my prayers.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful. I will do my best to wield the broom wisely! | Mr. Darcy talk 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceyockey RfA

Thanks for asking Q8 on my RfA and your support - I've been looking more deeply at the residue left behind after AfD's and find there's ample opportunity for mopping up around them ... orphaned redirects and images, red-link see also's, not to mention that a lot of deletion notices on new articles are not accompanied by notifications on the initial editor's talk page, something like 50% of deletions arising from Special:Newpages are like that based on looking over the past couple of days. Much to do with the contents of the cleaning closet -- but far more in volume to be done with regular editorial tools. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - crz crztalk 00:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]