User talk:Crum375/Archive 14

Reverted edit at Holocaust article
I noticed you undid my edits to the Holocaust article on the grounds that it required mainstream sources. looking at A-M. de Zayas's Curriculum vitae I think he's perfectly reliable, and I quote from the wiki article: "... his international law and human rights publications are mainstream..." Wiki1609 (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the de Zayas's book. It is a history of the German military commission to catalogue Allied war crimes. They did work in the USSR to document Soviet executions of civilians during the 1941 retreat and German soldiers that were captured on the battlefield in the USSR. They also documented a few cases of British executions of German prisoners on the battlefield and paratroops in the air. The book has nothing to do with the Holocaust, the yarn that the Germans knew nothing about the Holocaust is neo-Nazi propaganda. Most 6 year old's in Poland knew that the Jews were being rounded up and killed.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting edits in the Holocaust article, claiming it needs consensus on the talk page, while you do not engage in the discussion yourself. If you have a good reason why I should not add another point of view by a respected scholar then post it on the talk page. If you have nothing in defence of your edits, then stop making them. Wiki1609 (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dresden
I see you found Dresden. I seem to remember you saying a long time ago you were interested in working on that. If you have time, would you mind glancing through the whole thing? I'm thinking it needs a very thorough copy edit, almost to the point of a rewrite. The text is dense, there are grammar/punctuation problems, and there's no flow, no narrative, no three-dimensionality. Or is that just me? A second opinion would be much appreciated. No rush though. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead
Please stop changing that lead. It is good as it stands. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that block
What an idiot... User talk:Cleptomatic007 Alatari (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR
I have added more information, could you please look again. Thanks--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Duchamps_comb's 3RR warning
I'm all about minimizing drama this week; I have no idea if it's appropriate to ask you (especially since you may or may not be working the 3RR backlog today), but can I get some kind of warning if this guy is actually correct? I don't want to ask you to read the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 edit history, because it's a mess, but I think what we have is active, aggressive, productive editing, not an edit war, and WP:BRD is working fine. We have a number of opposing editors who have agreed not to count edits, but apparantly Duchamps_comb isn't one of them.

I had to look at this guy's contribs just to find out he had written a 3RR report. Just want to keep my block log clean. =)

--- tqbf 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I tryed to file it again the way you said. And by the way what tqbf meant to say is he and others bully their way and keep the page the way they want it (with POV) and me and others have to bow down to their edits.--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi will my revision be evaluated, or is it a one shot deal? thanks...--Duchamps_comb MFA 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Can you tell me more about the proper way to file such a report. My report looks like others, I think, I would think that an improper report that showed enough merit; an admin could take a look and find the truth in it?--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks again, -Honestly I am loosing my faith in Wikipedia, so many POV warriors that know how to game the system and run over people, then when a report is not filled properly they laugh at you and leave you snied comments then return to edit warring!! (I know this is not your fault and you have been very helpful) but I my wikistress is gitting very high at my friend, what els can I do except file another report?--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to stay cool. Could this be considered trolling, I think so? --Duchamps_comb MFA 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * I read article Brown Dog affair and I think that it is great. I want to ask you can i translate this article on Serbian?--Vojvodaen (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
By accident, I encountered List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format, which you initiated. (I monitor uses of current, and the recent British_Airways_Flight_38 showed me a bit of what's going on on the aviation end of Wikipedia).

The guideline is a great model for a lot of collaboration and standard setting, for other lists and templates. My experience at Template:United States presidential election, 2008, has demonstrated the desirability of a well considered, and agreed standard for lists. Thanks for demonstrating what is possible. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remove your comment at WP:AN
Comparing trolling to sexual assault is a thoughtless, offensive analogy. Please remove this unnecessarily inflammatory comment. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  04:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would ask you to please consider your own words here, namely, "Unfortunately, despite various policies designed to enforce civility and proper behavior, as well as many admins willing to help calm things down, there is frequently enough incivility, hostility and aggression to drive many women, as well as many mature men, away from that environment." I have no idea who the editor is who is the subject of the unblock discussion, I simply find bandying about rape analogies to be deeply disturbing to read. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  05:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion
Before I get started, let me make one thing clear, I'm not threatening you, I'm certainly not going to block you, or anything like that. Thanks to your comments, we have more then enough of TEH DRAMAHZ, as it is. I just want you to think long and hard about what you're saying there. You are comparing words, no matter how hateful or whatever, to "A psycopath raping your mother and your sister, and then moving in with you" (yes, that's a paraphrase). Do you realize how incredibly over-the-top that is? Congratulations, Crum, you've done what no one else could in that whole discussion.. you've got everyone to agree.. that your comment is way over the top. By coming off the way you are, you are actually doing your cause harm. You are making yourself out to be shrill and with no sense of proportion, which affects your argument. Please, just strike out that section, state you strongly oppose him being unblocked and just let it be. Don't do any further damage to yourself. SirFozzie (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of imported slanderous material on WP:AN
Restoration of that post on WP:AN is insensitive to the others being harassed in that post (including Alison, who was also highly offended by Piperdown's post despite it being supposedly "supportive" of her), even if Mantanmoreland doesn't have a problem with it; it is also a violation of the GFDL, and in past situations like this users have been blocked by the Foundation and the offending content oversighted for doing so. I'd like to please ask you to revert post haste.  krimpet ✽  06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammar in Gol article
See the talk page :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be around when the final report comes! I asked Anynobody to create a CG image depicting the collision between the 737 and the BBJ. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

troll
thanks for the block on kurtmj93 after I called his attention (what a bitter guy). Uk-ravah seems like another to me, but i guess il read up on what trolls do. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Animal testing
A request for mediation has been filed here. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.


 * Hi there, you've been editing this article for a lot longer than me, do you have any idea when these article RfCs were conducted? I would really like to read them before we enter into mediation. I asked Rockpocket, but he/she didn't know. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well, thanks anyway. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

After your bold edit, you got reverted by me. I pointed to an archived talk page discussion in my edit summary of the revert: WT:Verifiability/Archive 23, which is afaik the last time this wording was discussed. The proper next step for you would've been, per WP:BRD, to start a talk page discussion if you felt strongly about your novel wording. Instead you reverted,. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:The War Against the JewsTable.png source?
Hi,

Can you give a source for Image:The War Against the JewsTable.png? (It would actually be helpful in the image's metadata, unless I missed it.) As you can imagine, wacky numbers abound in the various Holocaust articles and subsections for each article.

I'm dropping in on the Holocaust section of the History of the Jews in Hungary, which was poorly written to begin with, and had numbers all over the place.

At least for internal Wiki consistency, can you give the cite so I can give the cite?

Best, Shlishke (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Futurama
Thanks, one user and some IP's: I want to stay anonymous, i don't want to be called "Wikipedian". It is an offense to me, because the mass writing in here has an IQ below room temperature.

--84.56.32.161 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI
AN/I. Relata refero (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of Ryan Utt
Hi. I wanted to let you know I thought that your blocking of user:Ryan Utt was inappropriate, and completely out of line with NPA policy. The worst he can be said to have done is to call another user a liar, and while this is perhaps not very friendly I don't think it comes close to constituting a clear violation of NPA, and certainly was no worse than the accusations being made at him. People do lie on discussion pages at times, and calling someone out on it, whether right or wrong, cannot reasonable be construed as cause for a block.

That said I don't have a personal stake in any conflict between Slimvirgin and Ryan Utt, and think they have both made valuable contributions to WP. I would grant that in this case Ryan Utt was being quite aggressive and perhaps not contributing to the discussion immediately at hand, but a block with a passing reference to NPA did not seem to me an appropriate use of admin powers. Best, Dsol (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to respond. Obviously I read the diffs and can't agree with your synopsis, or else I wouldn't have bothered leaving you a note in the first place. Calling someone a liar is undiplomatic, yes, but not a personal attack. If you really think it is and intend to enforce NPA that way, I would maybe think about changing the policy page to make this more explicit. I can't help but feel that Slimvirgin's identity may have something to do with this case, as I have seen many attacks well above the level of Ryan's offending comment reported to and ignored by Admins. And since I don't think the block was justified, I also don't think the warning makes it any better. It particularly bothers me that he noted in his edit summaries that he did not think he was violating NPA policy, and instead of someone explaining to him exactly how his comments constituted a personal attack, he got a message instructing him "to reflect on [his] actions and read the NPA policy carefully." I realize admins can't debate everyone they find in violation of the rules, but I think that is a bit condescending for a user with as many edits as he has.
 * I do agree with you in hoping he will be more diplomatic in the future if this incident doesn't turn him off WP entirely, but that does not in my mind make me feel better about the block, which anyone who disagress with Ryan Utt in the future about anyone subject can now point to as evidence of his unreasonableness. Ryan Utt seems to me to be a good editor who is on the verge of being driven off WP by what he justifiably feels is heavy handedness and intimidation on the part of admins who have become involved in content disputes. That does not mean he shouldn't relax a bit I guess. Ultimately you are just doing what you think is right though, so there's not much I can say -- let me not waste more of your time. Dsol (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Poor behavior it perhaps was, NPA I don't think so. Also the only time the NPA policy page mentions "epithets" is the phrase "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor." I don't see quite how you are supposed to get that calling someone a "liar" is not allowed from that. Look, sorry, I didn't intend to argue with you, just wanted to share my point of view. best, Dsol (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)