Jump to content

User talk:Crum375/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Crum375/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up very shortly to answer your questions. Don't be afraid to ask!
If you would like to experiment with Wikipedia, I invite you to do so in my own personal sandbox (just follow the simple rules!) or in the Wikipedia sandbox.
When you contribute on talk pages or in other areas, it is important to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Again, welcome! — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 00:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My userpage

Thank you for spotting and correcting that spelling mistake on my userpage. :P Green Giant 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry

I actually feel really bad i just misunderstood.--Gregorykay 02:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Omura/BDORT Efforts

Just wanted to say thanks, for my part, for all your efforts in re the Omura/BDORT entry. Fucyfre 20:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that we all just want the best possible entry. Thanks, nonetheless. Fucyfre 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

French Connection

You're right about the photo; feel free to revert it. I was just tinkering; after fixing links on 150 "French Connection" articles I wanted a distraction! Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm the one who's been editing the French Connection recently (June 2006). I added some categories and a link to my tribute page, which includes lots of photos, a video, the poem used in their show, and several other tribute links. My sincere thanks to whoever created and updated this article. I was one of Daniel and Montaine's 1st students and friends for 30 years. Robbi 10:10 EDT June 5, 2006

Crum, I'm slowly learning how this works. I see you deleted the Aircraft category. I understand, just thought since it references the CAP10 I'd add it. Thanks for your patience with me. I was going to also add Sky Acres Airport as a school location it that's OK. Robbi 10:15 EDT June 5, 2006

Retroactive changes in AfD discussion

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As is obvious, I didn't notice the AfD had closed. What purpose do you think your comment served, if any? Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry. It obviously wasn't obvious to me that it wasn't obvious to you (AGF?) :P. My intent was to find out if there is some policy or ethics issue I missed, being a rookie. Peace? Crum375 01:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Another editor was was stalking and reverting me also jumped on me about this obvious minor oversight, so I was a bit sensitive. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Omura/BDORT & SV

I think the two entries, particularly as they effectively constitute independent interpretations very nearly identical, may be of use to Richard. Certainly, I would hope so.

Clearly, even in my very brief observation SlimVirgin is an extraordinary asset to the community. The only thing I would hope more than that she find it appropriate to return is that she do what's best, first and foremost, for herself. Fucyfre 01:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your supportive message. The message you left on SlimVirgin's talk page closely mirrors my feeling. [1] I appreciate you taking the time to say it. FloNight talk 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ken Hart

Thnx for your organizational help with the site. --ZorroZ 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser complete

You made a request for a Checkuser to be run, which has now been completed. See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#Completed_requests for the results. the wub "?!" 22:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Crum375/Archive 1, thank you for your interest in VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're all set! {{User:UBX/VandalProof}}

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User:UBX/VandalProof}} (this also places the user box attached) or, [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof|{{PAGENAME}}]] to your user page.

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen TC (Stollery) 02:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

HiveMind

Learning about our adversaries makes sense. On the other hand, I don't think we need to make it easier for malcontents to get administrator's personal information. Phil Sandifer 01:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing my beautiful piece art from the CT article / the author's angry response

I wrote that section. What is wrong with it? Please explain. I accept your removing the section and the image if your have any objection against their quality. Please let me know if this is the case. Then I will shut my mouth up. However, I do not accept this removal if your only reason is the lack of references. How can I provide you with any source if I was the original creator of the text and the image. And one more word: I do not have time to read through the elaborated rules about secondary and other kinds of references. My image is simply an original piece of art that I donated to the World. If you do not like it then let me know. PLEASE.Otherwise I will act like an idiot and you will suggest to excomunicate me. I am from the seventeenth sentury so I rather choose excommunication than learning the stupid IP rights when I am the owner. Please respond!!!! excommunicandus

See [2]

Anna Svidersky

Re. middle name - there were a couple of changes, so I wanted to make sure it was accurate. Tyrenius 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

*blush* where did i put that atlas? Thanks for reverting. Rockpocket 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

KraMuc and Modern Galilean Relativity

I have warned the IP about vandalism... If it continues to misbehave, I will block it—which would take care of KraMuc also if it was him. I'll keep an eye on the situation and take more decisive action if problems continue. -- SCZenz 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your prod for Anna Svidersky

You have put a prod tag on this article (i.e. for deletion). Please note it was nominated for AFD on May 27, 2006. See discussion. In the light of this, you might like to discuss your objections on the article talk page before proceeding further. Thanks, Crum375 19:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted an anonymous IP removing a prod tag. Without accompanying changes to the article, this is typically viewed as vandalism. --Alphachimp talk 19:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Reading the article, I can see that this probably has some personal significance to you. I'm sorry if I offended you. I hope you understand my thinking behind reverting those edits. I see that you have already reverted my changes. --Alphachimp talk 19:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
'Personal significance' should play no role in WP, and I personally did not know Anna. But the issues you raise in the prod, i.e. sufficient notability, were raised and addressed during the AfD discussion. In fact, the article was significantly overhauled and improved to mitigate those and other concerns. Thanks, Crum375 19:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think my original point was that I reverted something that appeared to be vandalism. --Alphachimp talk 19:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Removing a prod is never considered vandalism. Anyone may remove it. It is considered 'good form' to state in the Edit note and possibly in the Talk page the rationale for the removal, but is not mandatory. Crum375 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see why you're getting so upset about this. The article is the way you want it. --Alphachimp talk 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not upset at all. I just want to be sure you understand that prod removal is not vandalism. Crum375 20:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I consider it vandalism without accompanying edits or notes on the talk page if done by an anonymous IP address. Typically, anonymous users remove warnings or deletion suggestions that they do not like. These are almost always reveted and removed. --Alphachimp talk 20:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Alphachimp, please do me a favor and stay in this Talk page to make this discussion easier to follow (I'll have you on my Watch list). Please read the WP:PROD policy. I think you may be confusing it with WP:AFD. There are some important distinctions between them. For prod, anyone (anon IP or not) may remove the notice, and it is highly recommended to explain why in the Edit note. If the original prod inserter still believes the deletion is justified, it is his/her prerogative to follow up with an AFD nomination, but never by re-inserting the prod notice. OTOH, with AFD, only Admins may remove it, after some due process, the shortest of which is 'Speedy Keep'. Please note that these are important distinctions, and I have no ax to grind at all with you - you seem to be interested in doing the right thing, which is very much appreciated. If you still think I am wrong after having read the relevant policies, please feel free to follow up. Thanks, Crum375 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the conscientious reply. It's interesting to see the difference...that's a little bit different than what I had thought. Even so, doesn't it still break [[3]] as it does not note it in the edit summary? --Alphachimp talk 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If you mean "does removing a prod without an Edit note" break the recommendation of the desirability of an Edit note, then yes you are right. But forgetting to include an Edit note can be an oversight (remember WP:AGF), and even if someone intentionally leaves no note - that would still not rise to the level of vandalism, which has a fairly high threshold. Two critical things to remember about term 'vandalism': you have to be absolutely convinced the editor in his/her own mind wanted to reduce the quality of the article, and you want to use the term as sparingly as possible, remembering always WP:AGF. Crum375 20:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
As a point of information, it's not only admins who can remove an AfD notice. If there is a near-unanimous "keep", then non-admins can close the AfD and remove the notice, although this does not seem to be widely known. I have done this myself on several occasions. See deletion process. Tyrenius 01:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Revisions

Be careful when making revisions to Anna's article. I made sure it was cited, so that it is not frivolously reverted. XMattx1224 20:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky

Copied from FloNight talk. Hi FloNight, would you mind helping out by s-protecting this page? Since it survived AfD (by converting its original obit style to wiki and including sources and rationale for notability) it has barely changed in content, yet has become a magnet for vandalism. If you follow its History, you will notice it has (gut feeling based, post AfD stabilization) 1 tiny useful edit per hundreds of vandalisms and reversions. I believe s-protection would reduce the work load of helpful editors significantly, as there are very few vandals from registered accounts. Thanks in advance, Crum37513:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Crum375 : - ) Sorry to be slow answering your message. I've been away from my computer. I looked at the article and put it on my watchlist. I'll help revert and will warn the IP accounts. If the problem persists over the next few days, I will s-protect. Take care, FloNight talk 03:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Will be glad to perform my magic for you on request. Prevents wear and tear on my sysop buttons. FloNight talk 18:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Crum, thank you for your help on WP:V. Much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Law of Attraction (New Age)

Thanks for taking the time to research further into this to form an opinion. Tyrenius 14:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a wiki salvage project to look at articles that are up for deletion, because the way they're written comes across as nn, OR, POV or whatever, whereas the subject itself has merit. Of course, we've been there already with Anna Svidersky, which has shaped up rather well since. Best Tyrenius 14:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Image removal from articles

Please do not simply remove images from articles. Even though you may not agree with the name that the image has been given, you are much better off uploading a new image and marking the old one as redundant rather than simply deleting the image. If you continute to delete links to images which are an integral part of the article, I will have to notify the other Wikipedian operators of your rash behaviour. Daloonik 23:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that wikipedia (WP) is more dear to your heart than to mine, as you are clearly not amused with images labeled as "f*ck". But you are being unreasonable with your time if you are going out of your way to post block recommendations to an operator and undo valuable edits, rather than taking the time to actually upload the image and fix the article yourself. Do you honestly believe that the image is not a useful addition to the article? Please do the right thing and fix the links. Daloonik 03:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary

I was a bit perturbed by your edit summary here. While I have no opinion on wehther or not Daloonik's contributions were inappropriate, all I did was disambiguate a link, which is certainly not inappropriate under any circumstances. Please bone up on Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy before making anymore edits where you feel it's appropriate to talk negatively about other users. Stanfordandson 01:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made many meaningful contributions to Wikipedia, and have not trolled. Please remember to assume good faith. Stanfordandson 06:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Aviation Accidents

I have nominated for deletion the category that you recently created, Category:Aviation Accidents, as an unneeded duplication. There is already an extensive hierarchy of categories for aviation accidents, beginning at Category:Accidents and incidents in the aviation sector, subcategories of which break down accidents and incidents by type of aircraft, geographical location, cause of accident, etc. All aviation accident articles are already members of that category or subcategories in its hierarchy. Adding a redundant category interferes with the hierarchy. Please read Wikipedia:Categorization for a full explanation of how category hierarchies work. Regards, --MCB 18:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful message on my Talk page. I do know what you're getting at; I just am pessimistic that it will work in Wikipedia, since the majority of editors and readers are not going to understand the distinction. I can see perhaps making an accidents category that is a subcat of the "accidents and incidents" category, which would avoid the problem of dilution with incidents, and moving the accident articles out of the "accidents and incidents" category and into the subcat. But then there's the problem of geographic breakdown, since it is the usual practice to split up a large category geographically (which has been done already with the "accidents and incidents" cats.). If we add a global subcategory for accidents, thought, editors will see that an article is in both (for example) Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in the United States and Category:Aviation Accidents, and remove the latter as redundant since they have a common parent (Category:Accidents and incidents in the aviation sector). In fact, it's likely that bots would do it automatically.
Thank you for your response. I guess you at least agree that there is no easy way for me to achieve the simple functionality I need. Right now this cat is helping me a lot, it would be a shame to lose it. I am also very concerned about the existing quality and handling of this topic (aviation accidents - articles, lists and cats) as a whole - it is very sporadic, messy, duplicative, inaccurate, subjective, inconsistent, you can easily add a few more adjectives. I was hoping this simple cat would help rectify at least part of the problem by starting from a well defined point. If people do misinterpret it, the guide at the top of the cat page will clarify the inclusion criterion and we can fix errors without much argument if the rules are crystal clear. Right now all other lists and cats are just not very useful. Anyway, we'll see how the CfD comes out, and I guess I need to keep pressing and improving the situation regardless of the CfD outcome. Thank again, Crum375 17:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Lanza crash articles

Hi there! I found the NYT articles you wanted -- if you send me your email address (brassratgirl at gmail dot com) I can send them along to you. I haven't found the flight # specifically yet, though. best, phoebe 16:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism

Why were they removed? As it would be important to know what chug said. Please reply here as i have this page marked to watch. Thanks Feedyourfeet 03:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Feedyourfeet, I reverted your changes to the Vandalism page for several reasons:
  1. That page is an official WP policy article, and lots of people refer to it constantly to make decisions. Therefore, it cannot fluctuate much or be used as a draft.
  2. Your edits were not previously agreed to on the Talk page via consensus. For a policy page, it is extremely important to have consensus prior to any significant change.
  3. The justification you gave, that someone wanted you to do something, is not acceptable. An edit summary should explain the change on its own merit, not that someone else wants it done.

I hope the above reasons help explain my action. Feel free to ask any question (here) if you are not totally clear. Thanks,

Hi Crum375, I just thought I would clear this up - User:Feedyourfeet incorrectly implied that I told him to change the page. I was telling him to use common sense in conjunction with reading the policy, specifically that silently removing negative comments from his page, or moving them to an archive page that is all but hidden (linked by a single ".") is, although technically "allowed" by the policy, looked upon unfavourably. I won't go into more details here but let me know if you have any questions. -- Chuq 06:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sales correlation

Hi. I recently drafted a proposed notability criteria for books and in doing research for examples of book deletion debates I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest of the Trinity where you indicated that "if you look up the correlation charts, you will see that much better Amazon ratings are needed and that 1.9M translates into just a few copies sold." I was wondering if you could point me to a specific amazon page for the charts or explain how one determines such sales correlation. I clicked on the sales rank number listed for an example book, but didn't find anything pertinent. Thanks in advance. --Fuhghettaboutit 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Since there doesn't appear to be any amazon official interpretation, nor a reliable primary source fixing the sales, I think I won't add it to the proposal, but the link you provided is interesting. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Omura

As I've indicated, I don't feel at this point that I can continue to give the entry any further commitment of time. I did, however, ask a friend in whose judgement I have a high level of confidence to give the entry a look and tell me what, if he knew nothing of Omura, he would make of the man and his practices. He felt the entry made the point very clear on the evidence. The term he used was 'wacko.' Arcsincostan 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Shoot me an e if you're so inclined. Arcsincostan 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Animals only have the right to be tasty

Moved to PETA Talk. Crum375 20:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Proposal

Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject Animal Rights and Welfare. Cheers, Localzuk (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky

I see it's been rated "A" (one below FA) by the biography project. I think we've done alright. Tyrenius 06:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I assumed the order of assessment was fairly arbitrary, but it obviously came across as a credible presentation, which I think it is. I refer people to it as an example of tight referencing (and also two different methods of providing those refs!). Tyrenius 20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I haven't checked through, so I'll take your word, but you certainly played a valuable part and your participation was much appreciated. It was helpful to know someone else saw the objective validity of the subject, and it not's a matter of sentimentality, though I have to confess I was moved at times by some aspects of it. I found it incredible that over 2,000,000 people watched the YouTube video. Obviously a large number of people will want more information and if they search google the wiki article is second in the list (you might be amused to see your user name featured prominently). I feel we have done credit to wikipedia by a demonstration of appropriate policies, and also respected the dignity and humanity required by the subject; both of those were important aspects for me. I certainly spent far longer on it than I ever envisaged! Tyrenius 21:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Something to bear in mind for talk pages! Totally agree - bottom line is that it has to be encyclopedic in all ways. You may have noticed that in the meantime I have been sysopped, so if you need assistance any time, you know where to find me. Tyrenius 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter, 3 Reverts

User Asbl has been doing a LOT of editing in the "Television" section of this article. I count eight (8) edits in the 24+ hours between 12:00 26 August 2006 and 12:14 27 August 2007. I'm new to this, but when I read WP:3RR#Detail, it seems like Asbl is excessively violating the official policy against doing more than 3 reverts in 24 hours.

I've corresponded with Asbl before on her talk page, but it was a very unpleasant experience, and I promised her I wouldn't bother her there again. (Therefore, I'm not interested in talking with Asbl about the violations, warning her, etc., though I'm fine if somebody else wants to do it.)

I don't have any problem reporting the violations, but the format for doing so is daunting to me. In particular, I don't know how to specify the "previous version reverted to," since most of the edits are "Complex partial reverts." (I've printed out a list of the edits, and verified that they're all to the "Television" section. I just don't know how to proceed from here.)

Can you help me in reporting these apparent excessive violations, or can you do it yourself, or ???? (My goal is to get the violations on the record, and I don't much care who does it or how. I just feel a bit incompetent to do it myself.) Lou Sander 18:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

8 edits is legitimate. You will not find 4 reverts. --Asbl 19:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
RE: Opening eyes. I'd prefer to talk via email.

Rewriting the history of Ann Coulter

I recognize that as an enthusiastic Coulter fan, it is extremely difficult for you to face reality and admit that she had one bizarre performance on Hannity & Colmes, but this is not Communist Russia where we can simply rewrite history. The incident happened, and it has to be noted in the article.
You are now sounding like Baghdad Bob saying that Coulter did not threaten to walk off the set. It is right there in the video. --Asbl 19:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Airliner accident

If you are moving high-use templates around, you certainly ought to check for double redirects. You ought to do this anyway, but for templates, used on numerous articles including a highly viewed current event one, it is even more important. —Centrx→talk • 23:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I noticed it is because I found Comair Flight 5191, which uses it, listed as one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia and it had a bad redirect. This new WikiCharts is great. —Centrx→talk • 23:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Troops in Vietnam

Thanks for bugging me about this. I DO intend to gather my researched stuff and put it where it can be accessed. I want to make it 100% factual. That probably won't be a lot of work, but I've got to find the time to do it. Right now, I'm whacked out from lack of sleep. Feel free to bug me again in 24 hours. Lou Sander 21:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

AS

How fast is that: [4] Tyrenius 02:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL Tyrenius 02:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Your comments on Werdna's talk page were exceptional. -- Samir धर्म 14:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:PaolaDiApulia

FYI, I have reported PaolaDiApulia (talk · contribs) as a suspected sock of permabanned user KraMuc (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/KraMuc_(2nd). ---CH 04:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And in that connection, you were right about my last edit: by mistake I edited an out-of-date version. Thanks for the correction. :-) Harald88 15:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc (moved from User talk:Hillman)

Hi Hillman,

I hope you don't mind my adding more of these directly to your list. Thanks, Crum375 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may not be so efficient to maintain multiple sock lists for one banned user. Maybe we should concentrate them in one place? Crum375 19:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been urgently trying to reach Pjacobi to discuss this by email with him.
For now at least, please make your own copy and update that. I'd rather my version be less complete but I should be the only one editing my user subpages. In fact I'd like to see a technological solution and adoption of that principle as policy.---CH 18:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I am going to guess that you yourself have a user page at de:wikipedia.org. What about simply creating a German language version of some or all of my dig pages in your own namespace there, or finding a suitable administrative namespace? One of the greatest benefits which could come out of these pages would be if the German Wikipedia, which I understand is experimenting with implementing more stringent quality control, possibly including some measures similar to ones I have suggested, can use them in the experiment as per Jimbo's call to focus on quality. ---CH 19:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

KraMuc sock list

Hi SCZenz, recently this permabanned user appears to be experimenting again with edits to MGR etc. User Hillman (talk · contribs) has been maintaining a fairly complete list of socks here, but it is unclear to us what the optimal (and WP correct) long term mechanism should be for it, see this thread, for instance. An interesting aspect is that any solution should possibly apply also to the German WP. Any help or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Crum375 20:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We can't do much about the socks, except to permaban the accounts (but probably not the IP's). However, I think Modern Galilean relativity should be deleted; as it stands, it is useless, POV, and a magnet for bad edits—and nobody seems to have time to do the planned rewrite. If someone wants to write a new article on Opposition to the theory of relativity, it can be done from scratch and any needed material can be resurrected. -- SCZenz 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Since I mentioned User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc in the AfD and wrote "look but don't touch!", please help me revert vandalism if you see it. Because of actions against me in which I am held accountable for my user subpages, it is important that only I edit these pages. So far all your edits have been good, but I need to protect myself from charges of having some kind of double standard. TIA ---CH 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky

No problem. :) As I researched the article's background more (and talked with my Myspace-addicted little sister who is the same age as Anna), I realized the value in this article and the particular value in getting it up to GA standards. With the popularity of social networking sites (and the overall potency of the "information age"), I can see similar issues of this internet "mourning sickness" occurring and I do think we need a well-written article to establish precedence in this area. The hardest part will be that balance of wiki-memorial vs. wiki article about memorial and I applaud you and Tyrenius for tackling the difficult and thankless job of trying to achieve that balance. I do sincerely believe that if the focus is turned more on the "internet phenomenon" of the reaction to her death versus trying to establish her background, then that balance will become more clear. I'll be glad to look at it again (though for impartiality in GA, I would probably request another editor to do the actual review). Just drop me a note. Agne 18:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I've left my response on Agne's talk page.[5] Tyrenius 19:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have asked User:Daniel Case if he will have a look over. He's just reviewed Banksy. Tyrenius 21:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to my email re: St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

I've sent a email to Brad and Danny regarding the legal threat. Send me an email with any information you may have about the IP addresses that are editing the article and commenting on talk page. Do not comment on-wiki please. Are there any IP addresses that are making good edits to the article? FloNight 02:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

BLP nutshell

I agree with you about restoring the nutshell. Since the editor who removed it is a Bureaucrat, and he has been removing other nutshells, I figured I should leave him a note on his talk justifying my imminent revert of his edit. You beat me. Crockspot 22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Foundation?

Fixed the link to meta:Foundation_issues. Thx. >Radiant< 14:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, the issue is that most articles really aren't sourced all that well (because most contributors just write what they know, for starters) and we don't want to make it official that we must remove all of that in short order. We get picky if there's negative statements that aren't sourced or verified, of course. And we get picky quite fast if information is non-neutral, but that's also easier to fix by e.g. removing weasel words. >Radiant< 16:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi Crum, I have no firm opinion on the nutshells issue, so please feel free to restore it if you want to. I reverted only because a user who has been somewhat troublesome (to put it mildly) reverted an established editor who is likely to have thought the issue through in more detail. I have a lot of respect for your opinion too, however, so please do feel free to revert me. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP nutshell

Nice change. I knew I hadn't got it quite right, and was relying on someone doing a tweak! No need to reply (I'm starting a wikibreak - I hope. Keep an eye on AS, and email me if you wish). Your general contribution deserves recognition, so I'm awarding you a barnstar. Tyrenius 02:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Br-map-crash.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Br-map-crash.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

Regarding the source for the registration of the Legacy 600 aircraft, I will respectfully disagree with you. Aeromuseu has the complete production list of the EMB145 series of which the Legacy is a derivative, and it lists the serial number (a unique and unchangeable airframe identifier) along with the registration which the FAA lists as reserved by ExcelAire. Aeromuseu is run by Lineu Saraiva, a long-time contributor to many Brazilian aviation publications and should be regarded as a reputable source. I am trying to obtain confirmation from Embraer, but they obviously have bigger fish to fry... - antiuser 04:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re photo: welcome! I think this is what makes Wikipedia so great when it comes to current events – the ability to post reliable information as soon as it surfaces. Fvasconcellos 16:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Still about the registration for the Legacy - the FAA db says the registration number is reserved by ExcelAire out of Ronkonkoma, NY - here's the info I got:
Reserved N-Number
Type Reservation 	 	Fee Paid
Mode S Code		51744527
Reserved Date		06/15/2006
Renewal Date		None
Purge Date		07/15/2007
Pending Number Change		None
Date Change Authorized		None
Reserving Party Name		EXCELAIRE LLC
Street		200 HERING DR
		LI MACARTHUR AIRPORT
City		RONKONKOMA
State		NEW YORK
Zip Code		11779
County		SUFFOLK
Country		UNITED STATES

Thanks for your help with the article. - antiuser 17:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Flight 1907 and Cessna 182 - deletion vs flagging

I have reverted your 182 change for reasons noted on its Talk page.

I have not change the 1907 page but I probably will do so. You say that the reg is "probably correct" yet you have removed it from the article. This seems to me to be inappropriate. Better would have been a "citation required" tag.[citation needed] In that way the "probably correct" information is made known and that it may be unreliable is also!

Please do not delete info from WP which you do not dispute. Flag it, that's what [citation needed] is for. Otherwise everyone using the [citation needed] tag would, by the std you are operating to, be deleting not flagging. And deleting truthful factual info by and large. Paul Beardsell 07:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I note your response on my Talk page and I welcome that even if I cannot find myself agreeing with the thrust of your arguments. That the Flight 1907 article is high profile, I accept; better not to have [citation needed] everywhere esp on high profile articles, I agree. But deleting the info is not the correct response. If it really is a credible possibility that the aircraft was not displaying the correct registration (c'mon! it was also being flown by Martians, possibly) then the article should have been amended to say that the displayed reg was N12345. The Cessna 182 deletion is even less reasonable because (i) the article is not high profile (your point not mine) (ii) with the same effort you took to delete the info you could have found a reference. It seems to me there is other material in the same article which also does not have any references, which are not challenging, but for your approach to be consistent, would have to be moved to the Talk page. It seems to me your arg may be a proxy one: What you really do not like is the "trivia" / TV aspect. There is well established precedent that WP does not have to be a dry list of facts. A little colour is good. Please let's continue the discussion on the articles' Talk pages where others can follow should they wish to. Paul Beardsell 17:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In response once again to comment on my Talk page: No, it is not rudeness that I object to (as that would be hypocritcial). I object to deletion of good material (as opposed to qualification of it or relocation of it). To take a highly relevant recent point: I object to the removal of material which is almost certainly true, no one has any good reason to think is false, and which is entirely relevant: The registration number of an aircraft in the Flight 1907 article was all that and has since been shown to be correct, as all reasonable people should have expected. Now, I am not saying that aircraft never fly with the incorrect rego painted but it is illegal to do so and requires a formal exemption. The correct action there is not deletion but either (i) a [citation needed] tag or (ii) the use of the weasel word "displayed" or (iii) (my mild preference is this case) no action at all!!!! The Cessna 182 argument is done to death and my last comments on that article's talk page suffice. Paul Beardsell 21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crum375/Archive_1&oldid=1136198218"