User talk:Crum375/Archive 7

My exceedingly pedantic word usage comment
I noticed that in your Oppose on Armedblowfish's RFA, you used the word flaunt where I believe you meant flout. See here for more usage notes. I will now whack myself with a trout for excessive pedantry, and beg your apology for my obnoxiousness. It's just that this is one of those usage issues that bugs me every time I see it (and it's turned up all over the place, including the BBC!). JavaTenor 01:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Can you please consider shortening the block on, because there was not in my opinion 4 clear reverts of the same material (just 2 reverts each for different material). The user has also has also noted that he was in the middle of starting a discussion on the talk page when the block hit (obviously stopping him finishing it) - something I am inclined to believe considering he has participated in talk page discussion before. I am aware that he has a previous block and that he was asked to revert and didnt - however given that there wasn't 4 clear reverts (or even 3 for that matter) I don't find that entirely suprising. Thanks, Viridae Talk 10:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Use the talk page to discuss reverts. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat 00:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is going around in circles. Propose a solution on the talk page instead of reverting. SchmuckyTheCat 00:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NAS
Hi Crum -- it looks like Jayjg is ok with opening the page. Since we haven't heard from anyone else in some time, I hope you'll consider that sufficient. Please let me know if otherwise. Thanks, Mackan79 01:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Report for WP:3RR
I have explained it on the page where I made the report. If you anymore questions, feel free to ask.Bless sins 05:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the first edit is a revert. It removes the following paragraph: "Opponents to the claims of Anti-Arabism blame Arab leaders for trying to segregate Arab-Israelis from Israeli society and undermine loyalty to Israel. They point out that Arab-Israeli leaders who travel to Syria and express support of Hamas and Hizballah, and some Arab citizens who have also expressed support for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish behaviour have helped encourage this:"

This paragraph (in a similar form) was removed by an anon, but later restored.Bless sins 05:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

However, I'm not sure if I have a case against Jayjg anymore, as he/she just self-reverted. Bless sins 05:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You never did, but now the text you wanted to delete is back in the article. Kinda sad for you, really. Jayjg (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:3RR, "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors".

Jayjg's edit/revert did exactly that, it undid the actions of another editor. Thus I reported it as a "revert".Bless sins 05:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Crum375, I used WP:3RR when making the report. In there I saw no clause requiring "previous version reverted to". What I did see was: "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors."
 * Thus I considered Jayjg's first edit as a revert. Does Jayjg's first edit not satisfy this criteria, or is there somepart of WP:3RR that I haven't taken into account?Bless sins 06:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You said: "when you filed your report, you saw a requirement for a version reverted to". It says,

"For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to." (emphasis added on or)

Thus according to this, it suffices that I provide the text that Jayjg undid/reverted. Also, like I said, I saw no such requirement on WP:3RR.Bless sins 19:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And I provided the text, though not intially, but later on that Jayjg reverted.Bless sins 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I know that all edits either add or move/remove some information. However, Jayjg removed the information (I quoted it above) that was previously removed by an anon and later re-added by another editor. Thus Jayjg partially undid the actions of that editor by removing the info.Bless sins 20:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, I'm talking about WP:AN3. It is WP:AN3 (bottom of the page) that says "For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to." (emphasis added) Thus we may either provide the version reverted to or the text reverted. Bless sins 20:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crum,

You said (on my talk page): "Bless, please keep the discussion here". Can you please respond back to me on my talk page? Thanks.Bless sins 04:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC on User:Mike18xx
Hi Crum375. As you have participated at the ANI discussion regarding the behaviour of the abovementioned user, i just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on themselves in response to the concerns raised during the discussion at the ANI and their avoidance to solve the issue. The RfC is located here. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  10:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

al Jazeera
I posted on the Reliable Sources talk page asking whether Al Jazeera is considered a reliable source, but received no clear response. I'd appreciate your input into this issue. Links to a broadcast in the U.S. edition of al Jazeera were added to naked short selling and I am dubious, but hesitate to remove until I receive a ruling on whether this is a reliable source. Thanks.--Samiharris 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Wassermann's extended block
Hi, Crum375. You can see from my edit history I've had disagreements with this user, and I think the initial block was justified. However, I note that the extended block was applied for "block avoidance" and "Evading block by sockpuppetry" per WP:SOCK. I'm not sure how to reconcile this post to your talk page with an intent to evade or avoid: he doesn't appear to be trying to conceal his identity, as someone trying to evade a block might be expected to. In fact, he continued editing from the anon-ip even after he confirmed his identity on your talk page, as if he were oblivious to the problem (see these diffs:, ).

Obviously he ought not to be editing while blocked, but while I don't wish to split hairs, doesn't "evading" imply that the user is acting improperly for the purpose of getting around the policy, not merely that his actions have the effect of getting him around the policy? Otherwise, why doesn't the policy read "Editing while blocked causes the timer on the block to restart" etc., rather than "Evading a block" etc. [italics mine]? Am I misconstruing the policy? --Rrburke(talk) 15:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, again. I feel I'm explaining myself poorly.  I understand the policy you're referring to: I'm the one who cited it to User:Wassermann.  My point was simply that this comment appeared to me to suggest the the user was not trying to evade the policy, but was merely clueless about it -- this, plus with the fact that he so readily identified himself on your talk page.  --Rrburke(talk) 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I merely meant to ask if there isn't a difference between violating the policy ignorantly -- which would merit a warning -- and deliberately evading the policy, which merits restarting/extending the block. --Rrburke(talk) 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even after you explained the policy to him, so that he was no longer 'ignorant' about it, he kept arguing that by editing non-contentious or unrelated issues as an anon-IP he did nothing wrong. At the same time, he kept insisting that the behavior that caused the block in the first place - calling other editors 'vandals', 'censors', or their actions 'idiotic', was all justified, and he refused to accept or understand Wikpedia's definition of vandalism. Given that this is his second block, and that he was specifically warned previously about this behavior and yet resumed that conduct shortly after he was unblocked, and that he still refuses to understand or accept our rules, it is fairly clear to me that he will resume this behavior if he is unblocked. Therefore I am waiting for him to clarify his approach to editing here prior to reducing his block. Crum375 17:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Crum, could I also ask you to reconsider this? Looking through Wasserman's responses, I see that he stated this: "But since I am willing to make concessions, once I am unblocked I will be 'cleaning' up my user page (removing anything that is potentially 'uncivil,' 'damning,' or 'offensive') and avoiding the use of capital letters in edit summaries in the future (or I might just refuse to leave edit summaries like so many others)."  Is this not reason to give him another chance?  It may be perspective, but I personally find rather troubling the idea of forcing somebody to testify about the value of a particular policy.  If you could reconsider something else, like perhaps a promise to abide by the policies or other specific things (don't use the word "vandal" if an editor appears to believe in their edit in any way), that might allow an easier resolution for both sides.  Thanks, Mackan79 17:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to Rrburke above. Crum375 17:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ALF
Please see Talk:ALF_%28disambiguation%29. At one point, I successfully sourced every acronym, but the consensus of the editors who worked to create this page was to remove the references. If you have a particular concern with a specific acronym, bring it up on the talk page or notify me, and I'll provide you with a reference. Thanks. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Crum, thanks for your polite message. To answer your comment directly and in full, I took a look at Abundant Life Foundation.  The acronym is listed in the second paragraph, and was added by User:Ans-mo at 08:33, 25 May 2007, at the time of its initial creation.   Interestingly enough, the same user added it to the ALF disambiguation page at 09:24, 25 May 2007.  You're absolutely right about the acronym being placed in the lead: I hope you'll move it there.  Going further, I looked online for the acronym, starting with the websites listed on the page.  You'll notice right away the domain name is www.alf.or.th - and looking at the website, we can see that the copyright belongs to "Copyright Abundant Life Foundation (ALF)".  It is also used on their contact page.  Moving on to their parent donor web site, Living Word Ministries,  we can see that the term is used on their "History and Relationship" page: "Abundant Life Foundation (ALF) was established in May 2003 in the nation of Thailand..... The majority of the funding for ALF comes through LWMI."  I had never heard of this organization before, so I did another search and it turned up /another/ organization with the same name and same acronym:   The former is a non-governmental organization in Thailand, whereas the latter is a charity that provides "monetary assistance" to people who need training, or something like that.  Since we are only focusing on the former, it is notable enough to be listed on the official "Royal Thai Government Web site Directory", maintained by the Energy Planning and Policy Office of the Ministry of Thailand, which states that "All Thai public agencies at ministerial and departmental levels, are listed here. All entries are carefully checked to ensure accuracy."  Since the site is quite large, you can verify it on google with this link:. The Abundant Life Foundation is listed under "CHRISTIAN" organizations with the following entry: "Abundant Life Foundation, ALF, Chiang Mai". If the organization is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, it is notable to keep as an acronym.  Please feel free to contact me with any other questions. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, again. To reply to your most recent comments on my talk page,  I don't see how having a Wikipedia article on an NGO in Thailand is a problem when another non-notable organization with no article exists with the same acronym.  I don't have a strong opinion on the notability of the entry as I explained to you, as I neither created it or added it to the dab page, however, it does appear on the official Thai government website.  Perhaps a notable source regarding NGO's would be applicable.   Does it meet Notability (organizations and companies)?  I can't tell if it does or not, but if I had to guess, I would say no, it doesn't, so you should probably go with your intuition and nominate it for deletion.  Then again, I could be wrong. I don't see how the previous version of the dab page (that you removed) "masks out the important sourced ones".  Is there a particular example you can give, including referencing applicable disambiguation guidelines and policies? As for including only notable, well sourced entries on the dab page, you removed around twenty of them without discussion on the talk page.  I'm not sure why you did this, but I notice via your contribution history you are currently working very closely with SlimVirgin.  Again, could I ask you to take this to the talk page?  There are quite a number of dab experts who are watching the page, as you can tell by their reverts.  Please don't keep reverting the consensus version of the page.  Let's discuss it on talk.  Thanks again, Crum. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, we are in agreement on the question of the notability of Abundant Life Foundation, an entry that was added by User:Ans-mo.  As for the other entries, many of them can be found in RS, and I intend on restoring the full version of the dab page.  If you could remove single entries as non-notable instead of making blanking reverts, that would be very helpful.  Also, could you use the dab talk page to explain your edits?  Thanks, Crum. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. But we should be using the talk page, not the edit summary, to discuss this.  Also, when you use the talk page, can you specify exactly what you mean so that other editors can address your concerns?  We're not too far from being on the same page, you and I.  Let's work towards harmonious consensus so that everyone wins. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm contacting User:Ans-mo right now to start addressing the notability criteria, one entry at a time. In order to address your statement whether or not "the principle that important (notable) items should not be hidden among obscure non-notable ones," I would have to see this actually occurring, either in other dab pages or as referenced by policy and guidelines. I completely understand your position that you think this is occurring on ALF, but I'm not yet convinced.  This is why I'm starting by addressing the merits of each entry, one by one.  I hope we can talk about this more on the talk page in the future.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

hmmm
About your revert would it be okay without the links? SakotGrimshine 15:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The empty image was why I put it there as it encourages someone to find an image. It's in many articles like Mario Lopez. SakotGrimshine 16:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So we're not supposed to have those "insert an image" things? I always thought it was some new thing that people thought was a good idea. I know there's a bot that inserts them but I didn't know they were always from the bot. Well there's no point having the infobox in Brandt then. I would be curious what his picture looks like. SakotGrimshine 16:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA :)
Thanks again—your support meant a lot. Feel free to let me know if I start screwing up :) See you around, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of other editor's diffs
Care to expand on why you have removed an edit that I was accused in a that edit's summary of being a sockpuppet ?

How is asking an editor why they have described me as a sockpuppet considered "trolling"? I await your answer with baited breath. User slimvirgin had no such answers to polite, civil requests for an explanation of that edit summary, and an apology for it. For some reason, that editor is beyond such accountability.Piperdown 04:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at the URL for the link. See where it says what user_talk page it is? Ok. Then there's an "oldid" in the url. Look at the edit with the number before that, and the one after, for date/time. And it wasn't my edit that has been removed. It was any record at all of a follow up edit with the sockpuppetry accusation against me in the edit summary. But somehow I don't think you're interested in doing all that. Why are you deleting and restoring someone elses entire user page anyway? Piperdown 04:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Some context: Yechieman was also wondering why the sockpuppet accusation was made about me by SlimVirgin. Solution? SV gets someone, or uses some admin wizardry to self-erase their own entries, to erase the proof that such an accusation was made. . I don't know who did it, but again, your name is the only person on that page's deletion log since May 27th. And the edit by SV was there a few days ago. Piperdown 04:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)