User talk:Crzrussian/Archive 22

So...
... what's your excuse for not joining my WikiProject yet? -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 19:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Though I do possess and even play a guitar, I must say I am thoroughly disinterested in all pop culture personalities, including American Idol contestants, guitarists, Paris Hilton, Kevin Federline, and Jack Bauer. Sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you ARE a pop culture personality. The implications to the time/space continuum are mind-boggling... --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I always posited that I (size XXL) walk into the room, time slows down a bit. Thank you, Einstein. Thank you, PaineWebber. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

GIen's RfA: Thank you!
'''PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)'''

Hmmm...this is a toughy. I wanna make some funny joke here but, I dont want it to be misconstrued by other editors and possibly have all hell break loose! Maybe i'll leave it for a week or two - thanks for the support (and the post rfa laugh too! ;) ) Talk soon mate !!!!

Pere Lachaise
I inserted the Category:Burials at Père Lachaise Cemetery into all those names on your list (User:Crzrussian/Sandbox) plus several others I found elsewhere. I then removed them from the Père Lachaise Cemetery article as you said on my Talk page and made a link to the Category listing. I had then prepared a list of the few names who still needed a Wikipedia biography done but got an "edit conflict" so couldn't post it. User:Crazycomputers reversed my edit it then left me this message. I'm not sure what to do so I thought it best to leave it up to you. Thanks. C. C. Perez 13:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And I replied. --Chris (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rude-sounding language -- Can you discuss with individual involved?
Recent additions to Naming conventions (Hebrew) may be problematic to people who don't understand the the cultural world of Yated (a Litvish Hareidi newspaper) which is apparently used to talking this way.) I'm sure no harm was meant, but I have some concern that this mode of discourse could cause difficulties for the Orthodox community in attempting to present concerns and negotiate with others in Wikipedia. Perhaps a conversation might be in order in the hopes that this method of discourse won't become too widespread. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Translate?
Could you tell me what this reads? Danke. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 22:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "I would like to know what you faschist dog is trying to achieve." The username is "Kill Faschist Jaroslavleff". Please indefblock troll name. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Short disambiguation pages
With these short disambiguation pages, it is probably best not to pad most of them with the Shortpages comment, as many of them actually warrant proper expansion, such as by adding short descriptions that aid the reader in understanding and deciding, and finding other links that belong in the disambiguation page. These aren't deletedpages: they aren't administrative/maintenance/meta, they have the opportunity for expansion, and they are generally not going to be dealt with otherwise. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit war at HaEdah HaCharedis
Edit war with Meshulam. Please step in. I don't get his point, there is nothing POV in my edits. On the contrary, my edits turned a near-stub into a much bigger article, I cleaned up the introduction (gone are all those alternative spellings). I do not understand what his problem is. He also removed the JewsAgainstZionism link, since "this is only one of thousands of positions they have". Apparently the Edah's stance regarding Zionism is just as important as their position on Cholov Yisroel. *cough* Seems to me like that issue, which is what the Edah was founded against (to counter it), is quite a major issue and I do not see why that link should be deleted. Please step in to intervene. (And don't ask me how it can be that this message stays in the blue field of the above message, apparently he didn't close it and I don't know how to.) --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis
He strongly suggested that an attack might occur on that date. Regardless, I don't see why all discussion of his opinion column needs to be removed, since it was rather influential. Deuterium 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Closes
Cool, I didn't know that non-admins could close as well... thanks for the info! ColourBurst 14:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Follow up suggestions
Hello CrazyRussian :-)

Following up with suggestions (as promised) about ways that you can reassure the community about your knowledge of policy and guidelines. These are friendly suggestions so of course no obligation to do them. Going to share with you the way I learned Wikipedia policy. If you think I understand policy you might want to emulate my process. If you do not have confidence in my knowledge then might as well skip the rest of this message. ;-)

The main way that I learned policy was reading the policies. :-) For the main policies, I read the policy article and talk page from the first day they were proposed to the current revision. This gives background information about the importance of the policy. Helps understand the reason that some policies are not deemed as important and others are controversial.

Another way that I learned policy was discussing policy on talk pages. Did this on article and policy talk pages. Also joined English Wikipedia mailing list.  I tend to mostly lurk but do post on occasion. Jimbo posts about policy issues on a fairly regular basis. Many experienced editors make posts that give background context to current policy issues. Some policies like WP:BLP are discussed regularly on the list. Also might want to join the #Wikipedia-en-admins if you like IRC. The list is invite only. Do not think that your invitation will be controversial but can not speak for the list moderators.

My last suggestion is to read Arbitration cases and make comments on the workshop pages. Watching the way that arbitrators apply policy is helpful. Sometimes they agree on which policies are relevant in a case but have different opinions about how to apply the policy. Seeing the way that they work through these issues was quite helpful as I learned to apply policy to real situations because the arbitrators often explain their rationale.

Sorry to be long winded. Wanted to keep my word since I offered to make suggestions. Sure you've done much of this already or other things that are equal or better. Take care, FloNight 16:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionism on the Web
I am curious why you did this? - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My experience with nominating articles on websites for deletion brings in a lot of single purpose accounts. Issues related to the Israeli-Palestine conflict also tend to exacerbate knee jerk reactions from outsiders unfamiliar with Wikipedia's deletion procedures and policies. Do you disagree with my preventative stance? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  21:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

History of CIA-sponsored regime change
I would *guess* that the best thing to do with this material is to merge it with existing pages. I do however have no idea what the relevant pages might be. You say, that it is "redundant to material elsewhere, POV fork, useless as a redirect". Please show what are the relevant articles where this materal is covered (if they exist). Only then can discuss the redundancy of this material. -- Petri Krohn 00:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Chad
Hi CrazyRussian. Reviewed all the references. The only significant media coverage was from Rolling Stone, which basically mentions him as their favourite participant the pre-Idol auditions kookfest. Don't think he meets WP:BIO quite yet (until he becomes a bona fide internet phenomenon). I think it's clearly an AfD candidate. Apologies to your friend. I'll put it up for AfD. -- Samir  धर्म 00:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I expect that it will be laundry day on the AfD though. Socks galore (from YouTube, not your friend, of course) -- Samir   धर्म 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can there be no list of Black Metal bands?
My actions weren't vandalism of any sort, so don't take these actions the wrong way (they weren't intended to be childish, only professional).

Black metal is supposed to remain an underground sub-genre no matter how popular the band may be, though this genre does seem to becoming more and more popular throughout the years.

For example, bands like Xasthur don't want to be hosted on the site because its looked upon as a promotion rather than looking up it's history (thus they don't have a wikipedia page because it is their preference). This also follows for such bands inside Les Legions Noires, Ildjarn, and even Gorgoroth who have been known to tell lyric sites not to host their lyrics for their personal reasons.

Bands that are already on the black metal page are somewhat okay to have hosted because it shows the progression of black metal and its history. If a band does have a page then leave it be, so that the people who know the exact band name can type it in without having to look at every black metal band listed.

If it gets to the point where more bands that were listed and given individual pages, it defeats the purpose for their aims to remain underground.

Tell me what you think.

Teke's RfA thanks
Thank you for your support of my RfA, which has passed with a final tally of 76/1/1. With this overwhelming show of support and approval I am honored to serve Wikipedia in the task charged to me and as outlined in my nomination. Happy editing to you! Teke ( talk ) 17:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI: User:2john
Apparently did not take kindly to your userfying his autobio:. -- Fan-1967 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura
Hey, I am leaving tomorrow to attend my brother's wedding in Michigan, and won't have internet access until I return on Sept 5. Could you do me a favor and keep an eye on Yoshiaki Omura, which I am mediating? I left them instructions to either carry on our discussion or take a break, and they have been extremely civil so I don't expect any disruptions. Just want to make sure an edit war doesn't break out or anything :) -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 14:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1929 Palestine riots
Please check what happened here. Some guy named Ed came in and turned it into an 'incident' (while of course, in Deir Yassin there was not an 'incident' but a 'massacre'). Help needed there. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Already solved. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed on Rav Eliashiv. I would not turn Shabbat into Shabbos, don't worry. But as you say, Rav Eliashiv is Litvish. His own English-language newspaper (the Yated) writes Sholom. I think that's all we need. It's his newspaper, so that counts as his own version of writing his name. Sholom, not Shalom. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * About my engagement: We both think getting engaged at this point is not a good idea. We're letting the issue rest for a while, and then we'll see again. She only very recently underwent giur, many people recommend waiting at least a year... It was kind of stupid to get into it now. That's why we decided to postpone things. Me, too, I have to learn more etc, and I'm not so sure whether I'm ready to get caught up in marriage yet... so for the time being, we're both learning. :) --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

October 7 - or thereabouts
Hey matey, hey who's nomming you? - GI e n 22:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How rude! - GI e n 22:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"acceptabnce" (sic!)
Ouch! Sorry about that, I'm not sure how that snuck in. I'll go fix that one (and any others I can find) and then go check the RETF spelling list. Thanks for catching this. Brian 05:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)btball

What about Lupin spellcheck tools
I've been using Lupins spell check and vandal fighting tools as well as AWB and VandalProof (and sometimes Vandalfighter). If I set up a sanctioned sock for AWB would you recommend running the Lupin spellcheck out of that account too? And using my main account (btball) for everything else (vandal fighting, more substantive edits, translation work, etc.)? Thanks for your advice. Brian 06:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)btball

sleep
Meh. I'm having too much fun trying to figure out how to create a new WP category. Besides, already done with Sugin's homework... Wl219 06:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sugin: according to the syllabus, stuff from Monday + pp. 320-348. Wl219 06:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost
There's really not much to know. If there's a major story, write a few paragraphs on it and post it here, under the "special stories" section. If it's too short, I might merge it with News and notes for that week. The deadline is every Monday at 17:00 UTC- if you have any specific questions, let me know. Ral315 (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, Crzrussian. If you're planning to write something, perhaps I could help. I can't see anything interesting to write myself, so maybe you've got better eyes, haha. – Chacor 03:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

RE #1000
WOW! That is so amazing! I'll make myself a userbox for it if I pass. Thanks for pointing it out, I didn't notice - let's hope that Guinnog does indeed pass, as he probably will. Anyway, #999 is still pretty cool. Again - wow! &mdash;Xyra e l / 08:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to User:Guinnog
Many thanks for adding these to my page! --Guinnog 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp
I made an entry on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp.

Normally, when the discussion closes on an {afd}, I contact the nominator, and possibly some or all of those who voted to delete, telling them that although the {afd} didn't win popular support I remained willing to take their views into account, and invited them to try to communicate their views more fully.

I remain willing to take your views into account.

I found the positions you took during the discussion inconsistent. Is veriability in question? In one of your early replies you said it wasn't But then, in a later reply, you questioned whether the individuals even existed.

Many of those who initially nominated, or who voted to delete, in earlier {afd} around Guantanamo articles, said that they were doing so based on POV concerns, or that the articles were "anti-American". I'd remind them that a perceived POV was not grounds for deleting an article.

It seemed to me that the most aggressive of these wikipedians wanted to remove all references to Guantanamo detainees from the wikipedia, without regard to how verifiable the sources they were based on were, or how well the writing conformed to the NPOV policy, because they perceived the topic of the articles to be "inherently anti-American", and they thought they could turn the wikipedia into an American hagiography.

Those individuals didn't seem concerned with the verifiability of the information in the articles. And you too said verifiability wasn't an issue. I am going to assume that you weren't careful, and you wrote stuff that you wouldn't want to defend, and that you don't really believe.

But I am going to ask you to reconsider your perception of the extent to which I have been confrontational around these issues.
 * I don't think you and User:Kingboyk considered that I would likely be offended by the dismissive tone you took towards my contributions when you discussed drafting an {afd} nominating those article for deletion.
 * I don't think it occurred to the two of you that you might consider contacting the authors of those articles first. As I wrote in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp Wikipedia is not a battleground.  I don't own those articles, even though I am the primary contributor.  But I think both common sense and common courtesy should have lead you to discuss your concerns with me prior to nominating the article for deletion.  If you had discussed your concerns with me your nomination would not have been centred around the serious misconception that the articles used "the same two links".
 * There were important issues connected with the {afd} which you weren't addressing. The main issue in your initial nomination seemed to be that the two articles were two similar in appearance.  But, the articles were then expanded, a side-effect of which was that your main justification for deleting them was no longer true.  At which point your  choices included:
 * Revise the nomination, offering new justifications.
 * Acknowledge your concerns had been met, and withdrawn the {afd}
 * Do nothing, in spite of the appearance this might give of, forgive me for saying so, bad faith.

I was serious above. I will do my best to take concerns you have with the wikpedia articles centred around Guantanamo detainees, if you can explain them to me.

Cheers --  Geo Swan 15:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on talk. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply
I too look forward to cooperating with you in future. -- Geo Swan 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Neturei Karta
Edit war with Meshulam about the phrase "This position (maintaining the shalosh shevuos are halachah) was held by the bulk of the Orthodox world before and even after the Shoah." Please give me a hand. I don't know what to do to convince him. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, the whole list of anti-Zionist Gedolim which I added can be deleted in a second, no problem. Meshulam's claim that the majority of the Orthodox Jewish world before the Shoah was Zionist is totally ridiculous. Take a look at the Chofetz Chaim, Reb Velvel, all of the chassidishe Rebbes, Rav Shach, etc... look anywhere. Look at the words they wrote. Meshulam's claim is totally crazy. I honestly don't know how to convince him that he is wrong. Feel free to try, please. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Recall Archive
Bunchofgrapes created an archive of just the recall petition process. Can I do the same with the recall part of yours, found here User talk:Crzrussian/Archive 19? I'd call it User talk:Crzrussian/Archive Recall Petition just like his ... User talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive Recall Petition. The goal is to collect links to them in a uniform place. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (refactored)No thanks, Lar. It's very clearly labelled right now, and it'll do as is, I think. I see no reason to memorialize that most crappy incident in the history of the crazy russian any more than it already is. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not for you that I want to do this... Rather it is for everyone else, just like any RfC or RfA or whatever, and going forward they all would get recorded. If you don't want it hung off your user space that's fine, perfectly understandable, but I nevertheless do want to have a central place to find all of them. Not intended as a memorial. I'm open to other ways to do it though if you have ideas. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should be centralized. Feel free to link to my archive19 if you decide you must, but I'd like not to replicate it anywhere else. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * what if it were excised from there and kept elsewhere? I want to work with you in any case though. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do what you feel is right. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

RE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoshiaki_Omura/Mediation
Hi, thanks for covering for Andy. Can you help out with some 'technical-policy' WP discussion in the meanwhile if you have some spare minutes? I posted something on the Talk page today. Best regards,Richardmalter 05:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A speedy article for you to look at
Heya. Just thought I'd take you up on your offer of de facto coaching, even if we can't catch each other on Google Talk. I was on newpage patrol just now, and came across Jamfish, which I moved to my userspace in case it were deleted. I just thought I'd check what the proper response in examples such as this would be.

My assumption would be to change the speedy tag to a PROD, since it's not "patent nonsense" in my mind (certainly not by MarkGallagher's definition). However, a google search and look at the actual content (jellyfish, jamfish, marmeladefish...) tells me that this is a hoax. In situations such as this, is it correct to switch the tag with a PROD one, or was the db-nonsense tag appropriate here?

Thanks for your help. Daveydweeb ( chat/patch ) 12:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and just to be clear, I am the artist formerly known as RandyWang. :) Daveydweeb ( chat/patch ) 12:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. It's pretty clearly a hoax and not G1. Hoax is normally a matter for PROD, not CSD. However, sysops do exercise their IAR privilege when following a particular process will necessarily result in a particular outcome, viz. an AfD would certainly result in deletion, no doubt in anyone's mind. As a sysop I would speedy this. I had done so about a dozen times over my 2 months as a sysop, and I used "bollocks" in the deletion summary to indicate so. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fordham Law in the news
I think it would have been better had you tried to find a news blurb than to take out this section, because in its absence nobody will post anything under it. I also think that you could have made the effort to have reached out and let me know after I put the work into it. You have a habit of taking things off, and in a voice that makes it sound like you are the ultimate authority on what should and should not be included. I have a similar problem, and I'm pointing it out to you because I think it's something we both need to work on. As someone who has contributed significantly to Wikipedia and obviously cares about it as much as you do, why don't you pay a little more respect and courtesy? You are good at taking things out, but can you direct me to some of the articles you have created? Mine are listed on my User page, along with my numerous images, some difficult to obtain. --DavidShankBone 20:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Asian American jurists
Hey so I went and put a message box with a link to the section in the Asian American article that discusses definitions of who qualifies. All the names listed were searchable through Google or directly from court websites (Asian affiliation & court/district/part). Wl219 21:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look even at the same List of Fordham University people. Every name either has an article with sources or a link where verification of Fordham alum-hood can be found. Now, where did you get the names from? I presume you have some directory - cite that at least, if not an independent person-specific source. Remember - WP exists to report other people's research, not to report our original research. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at it now. Wl219 03:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, I used more office supplies from BLSA & JCFL than JLSA. All of which is about to end, because I gave back my key. Wl219 04:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Stubsort
The trouble with what you're proposing is that some of the articles aren't stubs (e.g. Law firm). That said, it's easy to add every article to a category using AWB, but I'm not so sure about appending a stub tag. alpha Chimp  laudare 02:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is me going out on a bit of a limb (I suck at regex), but I think we could find something like this:
 * \s*\s*
 * and replace it with . This assumes, of course, that there is only one stub tag on the article. With two, we'd have to set up a more complicated rule to only replace the first one, and then blank the rest. alpha  Chimp  laudare 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol. Regex. Don't expect it to make any sense. Coincidentally, the meaning of all of this is that I *think* alphachimpbot could do this. alpha Chimp  laudare 03:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Omnibus Reply
To make use of this strange mistake of a heading, I will never create a stub without a reference again. In the future. Just offer the advice. Don't go after my work, please. --DavidShankBone 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Omnibus Reply
I wanted to see that you actually could create, and not just tear down. Stubs count. I wouldn't waste your time nominating Arie Kaplan. First, that shows you have not Googled him, so you should do research before you tear down--it's policy. I won't go defending my stub here. It's your job to find out if he should be deleted. What is funny is the significant amount of work I do--thorough research and thoughtful effort at wording with insightful, interesting entries--I also have to worry that you--and you in particular--are going to attempt to be an obstacle. Whether it's an "Under Construction" template I put up as I spent 15 hours working on the William Treanor article (when it clearly says to attempt to contact me); or when I put up a stub on a noteworthy indvidual and you threaten to delete it. You're not my Chinese sweatshop boss, letting me know I have time limits and that you are keeping an eye on the clock while I take bathroom breaks or walk my dogs. If you have administrator status, I am going to complain about your overzealous editing and disrespectful manner if you don't lighten up and let those who create, create. Edit, pick and chew other's work all you want--it's needed. But when you hamper people who create a lot of value, you should question your own power-tripping. Chill out with me. If you see my name on it, think twice. Not because of this threat, but because I have more than proven my ability to know what is worthy of being added and what isn't. You shouldn't be editing in a rush; that's not an excuse.  You're making callous and slipshod judgment on other people's work, and you need to stop. You're not the Wikipedia God trying to answer each and every prayer, bestowing upon us all your eagle eye. I don't get what your sense of urgency is all about, but I give your judgment respect (not your tone of voice). Learn a little humility, or how to communicate with it. I can say this because I have the same problem. The way I'm talking to you is the way you talk to others; it doesn't feel so good. I'm trying to improve. So should you. And you need to accord my judgment the same respect I accord yours. This is my letting you know formally I take issue with your overzealous editing and disrespectful tone. And I will think of you next time I want to critique an edit, or take something out. --DavidShankBone 03:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Russian, thanks for doing the research, but my point was you did not need to do so. There's a nice aspect of Wikpedia: longevity, editing decisions, article creation, and value contribution give editors respect, and leeway.  You have earned it.  That means if came across a reference for a stub you created, I would move on without question.  Why?  Because I know you'll get back there at some point--I respect you as an editor.  You won't leave something permanently sloppy, because you know better.  Maybe it fell through the crack temporarily, or you got caught up working on a paper for a week or so.  Maybe you were in a rush.  I give your judgment more respect than ElHombre72's, above.  But I still talked to him in what I thought was a factual, logical fashion and made sound arguments.  I still sounded heavy-handed and definitive.  Or, as I have been told my entire life, "It's now what you say, David, it's how you say it."  I think you should cherish the respect you have earned.  You do so by according it to others who have earned it.  And you expect it of others.  It's respect, and you've earned it.  You do fantastic work.  Don't let it go to your head, my friend.  I try not to -- and I'm working face to face with my subjects.  I hold nothing against you--I can't begrudge you my own habits.  Hopefully you'll think of me next time you edit or critique.  You don't want to be like me, and I think I've proven that point.  Thanks again for all the work you do.  --DavidShankBone 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Bush userbox?
Hi - Isn't this edit taking WP:BLP a little too far? It's clearly a political statement not in any way meant as a biography, and isn't libel (at least not in the US, for numerous reasons). I am no fan of userboxes, but deleting this one because of BLP strikes me as unnecessary. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference is that criticizing Bush is political expression explicitly allowed in the US. Userpages are not "published" as part of the project and don't need the same sort of scrutiny as article space.  I'm pretty sure calling Zidane an idiot barbarian head butter would be fine as well (in the US).  Public figures are pretty much fair game.  On the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate to delete a userbox similarly attacking an editor or anyone of less than universal notoriety.  Deleting this one seems unnecessary, and I don't think BLP applies.  -- Rick Block (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)