User talk:Crum375/Archive 13
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Time you had one of these...
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| For retaining your cool against people whose good faith has been abused by cynical manipulation offsite. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
WP Point
For heaven's sake do stop "WP Pointing" every time some one does not agree with you [1] it is becoming tiresome in the extreme. Giano (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Block threat
Crum375, about your note on Giano's page: please don't template the regulars, and don't threaten somebody you're edit warring with, with blocking. I'm sure you know you're not supposed to use blocks or block threats to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
Look
Please take a look at User talk:Green-Dragon#Warning—thanks! --Green-Dragon (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Adjusted indenting
I adjusted the indenting on Talk:Brown Dog affair due to my original mistake. Hope you don't mind Nil Einne (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for the barnstar, though I feel bad in a way because you, Rockpocket, and Tagishsimon helped a lot. I should really be handing out barnstars to you all. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Award
|
The Brown Dog Award | |
| For helping to get a fascinating little corner of English history fixed up and on the front page in record time. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No original research
Please do not express your views through live policy edits as you did with this edit.[2] Feel free to share your opinion on the talk page with everyone else and participate in the consensus building process. Pushing your opinion through editing is disruptive and especially so when it makes significant alterations to discussed changes. Vassyana (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are no less obligated to take part in discussions and consensus building than anyone else. The changes were discussed and you have not bothered to join the discussion. Additionally, I believe you are confusing that version with another that asserted only "fair" and "objective" sources were appropriate. The one you just modified only says to exercise caution to ensure NPOV is preserved. That's hardly a revolutionary statement regarding biased sources. Vassyana (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This is just ridiculous. You are no more allowed to make major changes to policy without discussion than anyone else. My changes were widely advertised and repeatedly discussed and revised according to feedback. Your own were not. You are equally required to propose your changes, no matter how much you think it is in harmony with policy. Vassyana (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 18 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Laboratory animal sources, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cheers, Daniel 07:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Relating to WP:AN#Militants or terrorists?...
Can you give a warning to 69.138.16.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? By his contribution patterns, he seems to be wikistalking me, and he's trying to push for blatantly POV terms in two or more articles (Gamespot/Eidos Interactive/Jeff Gerstmann/Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, and Al-Qaeda, the second of which was a revert of me removing the word "terrorist" from the lede due to your post.) Will (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please explain your inconsistent summary
One summary in the Holocaust article is inconsistent with the corresponding full articles due to your edit that deleted a opinion. Please explain on the Talk page, thanks! Harald88 (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Policies/guidelines
It's clear from the talk page there was never consensus for the "mandatory" language. Worse than that, it's clearly wrong, since polices are not prescriptive, only descriptive, and IAR allows them to be ignored from time to time. Please read the discussion from yesterday on the talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Please explain
Feel free to justify why you conveniently removed my message from AN, and conveniently called it a personal attack. Care to explain? Also, care to explain why you conveniently edited Jeffpw's message at the Requests for Arbitration page? I did not make a personal attack, but want clarification as to why Zeraeph is alllowed to accuse editors of being stalkers. Next time, do not make up such fabrications and try to brush away my comments as a "personal attack". Feel free to disagree with me Crum, but do not try to silence me - such actions by you I condemn. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I did not make a personal attack on Zeraeph for the record. As concerns "poor form", you categorising my edit as a personal attack was in poor form. On another note, I did not make a personal attack on you. Speaking of personal attacks, care to explain this? In that edit, you accused editors of trying to provoke Zeraeph which clearly isn't the case. This proves you're taking sides, and so does your edit of Jeffpw's statement. You accused others of fanning the flames, when in fact it's your careless behaviour which is fanning the flames. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your latest message makes no sense whatsoever. You said to focus on issues, and not people. Well, what about the issue of Zeraeph insinuating that Ceoil may be a stalker? That's an issue there, and one which I have focused on. It's also one which many administrators, especially you and SlimVirgin, keep ignoring. Editors should not be allowed to insinuate others are stalkers, irrelevant of what your opinion is. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Giving a brief reply to your latest statement, you said to assume good faith? Going by your own way of dealing with issues then, in good faith you assume that Ceoil is not a stalker, and that Zeraeph's accusation is unfounded? After all, you said assume good faith. This should extend to both parties, not just the ones you choose. Or, in good faith, do you assume that Zeraeph's insinuation has validity and Ceoil may indeed be a stalker? Feel free to clarify your answers as concerns both of my questions, and please don't side step answering those questions. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Crum375
- You're welcome, and thank you. Acalamari 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of external links
Hi Crum375, it was noticed that you deleted links to external evidence in a current ArbCom case [3]. I appreciate your dilligence in the matter but, just to let you know, the BADSITES policy proposal was rejected by the community and discredited by the recent "Attack Sites" ArbCom ruling so it wasn't necessary to delete those links. Thanks! Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nor was it necessary to remove my linking to Zaraeph's on wiki personal attack against Sandy, which you removed in the same edit redaction. I have deep concerns about the impartiality of this process, and those sorts of actions do not help to alleviate them. Jeffpw (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)