User talk:Crum375/Archive 10

Your accusations of vandalism
Since you refer me to WP:VANDAL as a policy that I am supposed to have violated, I urge you to quote the specific sentence from WP:VANDAL that defines my edits as vandalism and that sanctions nationalist canvassing. If you can't, I will welcome your apologies. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You still failed to explain:
 * a) which sentence in WP:VANDAL is supposed to substantiate your threats and to qualify my good-natured edits as "vandalism";
 * b) why User:Digwuren is allowed to run from one noticeboard to another accusing me of trolling;
 * c) why a bunch of Ukrainian editors are allowed to follow the edits of User:Kuban kazak and to oppose everything he votes for (WP:POINT).
 * It seems to me you have failed to notice where the real disruption of the process lurks. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The section is named "modifying users' comments". Contrary to your assertions, I have not modified a single comment. Moving them from one section to another or between spaces do not amount to modification. On the other hand, "Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them" - and this is not vandalism. So your aggressive edits on my talk page have no merit. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlike my persecutors, I have no axes to grind. I don't push some pro-Russian POV in mainspace; it's these one-purpose accounts who do. Your reaction to the issue will encourage their witch-hunting and will force me to transfer my activity to Russian Wikipedia, as has happened in the past. Not one of our 1,700 sysops has seconded your opinion that my edits qualify as vandalism. Think about it.

You may close your eyes to the problem of rampant nationalism for as long as you like. For my own part, I am sure this attitude is not going to help Wikipedia to counter the challenge posed by the ethnic cliques who appear to coordinate their activities outside the project and to represent them as astroturfing.

Since calling a troll a troll, a Russian a Russian and an Estonian an Estonian appears to be "inacceptable" to you, I will probably list the editors according to their nationality on the relevant talk page. It is mandatory to expose blatant nationalism and WP:POINTing behind it all. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal
User DIREKTOR is a vandal; needs block him for a lot of WP:3RR in foibe massacres, talk:Foibe massacres and Josip Broz Tito. He is a troll (Internet): you can read talk:Foibe massacres and user talk:Clap. LEO

TAM Flight 3054
Hey Crum, if you can take some time off your admin anti-vandal duties, I invite you to take a look at the TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054 article, given your exemplary work over at Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907. We'd sure benefit from your input in this unfortunate tragedy. Perhaps when the "current event" frenzy has dissipated. Cheers!--Dali-Llama 04:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wassermann
I was hoping this whole ordeal between he and I would be done and over with following a permanent block, but in light of recent discussion between he and you I don't suppose that is going to happen. I am biased in the matter, of course, so let me explain myself.

Wassermann has been incredibly defiant and rude to me and everyone else who has attempted to negotiate with him. His philosophy has been "my way or the highway" the entire time I have associated with him. Conflict began when he, without even the least bit of discussion, began moving numerous articles in a short amount of time. I would have had no problem with that if the moves were justified, but they were renames that clearly were not necessary and in fact went against what Wikipedia guidelines suggest to do. I went out of my way to be kind and civil with him, although the matter upset me a bit because so much had to be undone. (see the original discussion here) He was nice enough and, although he certainly didn't admit he was wrong (even after pointing him to the Wikipedia guideline where such suggestions are made), he and I had no further problems.

Then tensions resurfaced when he began going on zealous edit sprees recategorizing articles. Again, mass recategorization would be fine with me had the actual edits been justified and done in the best way. I am not in any way saying my judgment is infallible, because it certainly is, but when using Wikipedia categorization guidelines for standards of these edits I found them to be sub-standard on numerous occasions. I was upset and a bit irritated, but I again went out of my way to calmly and understandingly bring up the matter with him and see if he could at all see my and what I believe to be the guidelines' point of view (see discussions here and here). Well, he didn't, and he couldn't.

My concerns revolved around a category he was hell-bent on using. I felt the category was too vague and too broad to be useful, but any attempts at trying to terminate the category's use saw instant reversion. He was rigid and unrelenting in his replies to my discussion. In most cases like this, it would be simply a matter of hearing other editors' opinions and garnering a consensus about the issue. That avenue was not possible however due to the lack of substantial numbers of active editors within this field (astrology). I finally had had enough of his arrogant attitude and nominated the category for deletion (see deletion discussion here). Within a week, the vast majority of commentors had agreed with me and the category was deleted.

Shortly after the deletion occurred, Wassermann was quick to get a sock puppet account (User:Astrologist) to begin placing the topics previously housed in the deleted category into a category of his own creation that was merely a recreation of the deleted category. I was extremely annoyed at this point, because not only was he ignoring consensus but he was doing so blatantly going against his block. In this action any previous doubt of his complete disinterest in others' opinions had vanished: it's his way and that's that.

I don't know if he has actually changed his ways. Judging from the discussion on his talk page it sounds like maybe he has. I certainly hope that's the case. I am not sure if you're entirely familiar with exactly what the conflict between he and I was. If not, I hope you take this into consideration when considering unblocking him. &mdash; Sam 18:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving "List of notable X" to "List of X"
Since you raised your comment, I stopped, for now.

I had one last after I read your comment: List of former atheists.

I understand your point, however I offer that in most cases the move is non-controversial, and where I even perceive the slight possibility of controversy I refrain from doing it without discussion. This had led me to start a merge request - List of notable Puerto Ricans -, and re-start an AfD - List of notable asteroids -. As it stands now, notability is a key content rule, and any content that doesn't match it is violating this rule. If anyone finds this controversial they can revert and we can discuss, but I think that listcruft has to stop. --Cerejota 00:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So your opposition is informed by the List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft, if so, please read my comment in the talk page.--Cerejota 01:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)