User talk:Crzrussian/Archive 31

Crazy, crazy, crazy...
So wait, how long are you supposed to be gone for? You'll have to come back to answer, then we get to beat you... ;)

Also, you know, thanks for your note of support on my RFA earlier. All kidding aside, I hope your wikibreak does you some good, and look forward to your return. -- nae'blis 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Painted cow
Reminds me of the Australian alderman who got some news coverage for someone spilling ketchup on his shirt in a suffle and who then vociferously defended his right to an entry in Wikipedia. WP:LOCAL needs to be tightened up to curb this, right now it's a bunch of waffle. Sorry I missed your RfB & didn't get a chance to slip a support in. Enjoy your break. ~ trialsanderrors 23:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I notice you are on wikibreak ("Good news, everyone! It's Wikibreak time. Crzrussian has been acting erratically all over wiki lately. That means it's certainly Wikibreak time."). But can we discuss your deletion of xwrits on MSN/Gtalk/etc.? Cheers, --unforg e ttableid | how's my driving? 00:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
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 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Break broken so soon?
Sorry if I stepped in too hastily there: your archive, protect and wikibreak notice had a certain definitive air to it, so I assumed you might be out of touch for a while. I should really have checked... Alai 02:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries about standing me up. Alai took up the slack ;) Good to hear I have at least 2 supporters! ~ Amalas  rawr  =^_^=  02:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic "Halakha" etc?
Hi Crz: On 25 October 2006, User:Inigmatus moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized the  Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "Note: This article deals with Messianic Judaism. It does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations." IZAK 03:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome the NotJudaism template
Hi: In view of the above, please see the new NotJudaism template:


 * Note: The subject of this article or section does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations.

Feel free to use it where applicable. Thanks. IZAK 05:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait half a second
How is imitating templates, coding, organization, etc. and from other portions of Wikipedia harmful? If something works in one area, you shouldn't feel attacked because someone else decided to use "your" code. It's not plagiarism, all Wikipedia code is a shared resource. Am I missing something here? The comment about "the real problem" sounds like WP:OWN crossed with paranoia.

Also IZAK, your template more than likely violates No disclaimer templates. --tjstrf talk 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I picked your talk page because I saw it first. I noticed that it was a cross-post later, but only because I randomly have Jay's talk page on my watchlist as well. I'm not sure I get your explanation though, at least not the bit about how this is actually bad for Wikipedia. I mean, unless the Judaism articles all how really sucky organization or something. --tjstrf talk 06:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

NonSense
Does this consist of non-sense? Julia Ronald Nareklm 04:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Email
FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD for Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow
Good Morning.

I'd be grateful for your help. I posted a resposne to your original AFD sentence. The topic is up for vigorous debate, but the edit you made to the original sentence is troubling. Would you address the comment or educate me further please.

Here's the text:

I'm not sure I understand what a single purpose account is my friend? Are you stating that my contribution is limited to this article - if so that is inaccurate. I have authored another wholly unrelated article on IT, and have begun to create wildlilfe related content to add to the American Woodcock, Ring Necked Duck, and Green Winged Teal articles, specifically regarding their flight behaviors I think your edit may have been made because ( as a new user) I received come advice to add this a copy of this article to my user page as a protection against deletion and followed some cut and paste instructions provived by another wiki-zen

Would you please take one of the follwing two actions:

1) Educate me further on the SPA ? or how to fix my user page

OR

2) Withdraw the comment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James.lebinski (talk • contribs) 2006-11-28 17:44:33 (UTC)
 * It's not prohibited. It's a factor in evaluating the intentions of the writer. You know that very well. - crz crztalk 15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

'''Thanks for the prompt response. However, is doesnlt seem to address the question at hand.'''

Put another way:

1) I previously authored a wholly unrelated wiki-article on IT

2) Later I created the disputed content for a separate acricle

3) Shortly thereafter, I copied and pasted the text of the disupted article to my user page based on an e-mail I received from a wiki-zen advising me to do so

4) Still later you edited your nom to add the SPA comment, which seems to be an attempt to further support the AFD by adding this apparently negative connotation

Now having said all that ( and I am very new to wiki so you shouldn't asssume that I know more than I'm currently blustering about on the AFD page)

If I have two articles on different topics Why Am I an SPA? - or are you mistaken? ( Sidebar: Even if I am an SPA why is that Bad?)

If adding the cut and paste to my user page was the offense - Can i just erase the user page to stop that apparently begative connotation that inaccurately ( my opinion there) supports COI?

Your advice would be gratefully revceived, and if justified, your clarification or withdrawal of the negative connotation of the SPA would be apprcited.--James.lebinski 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The AFD was closed, but when you have a moment I'd still be grateful for your response.--James.lebinski 15:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Beating [[Image:Beating 2Da 2Ddead 2Dhorse.gif|70px|Beating]] with stick [[Image:Stick.jpg|70px|Stick]] per request. Back to your wikibreak! Bad lawyer! Bad!AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

extra energy
Hey, if you are breaking your break and participating at WT:RFA, would you consider using some of that energy to compile actual statistics on downward trends of RFAs? I am instinctively supportive of your hypothesis, but want to see some more data. Not sure how best to do it though...tossing the old versions of User:Dragons_flight/RFA_summary into a spreadsheet and graphing it over time comes to mind (imperfect, but objective). -- nae'blis 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

GET BACK ON WIKIBREAK!
GET! Yank sox 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I missed this one
. It was a big one to miss. -- Samir धर्म 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're on break, Okay.  Ignore this -- Samir धर्म  07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Refs
You were always wrong (really, you should know you are always wrong by now). [sneaks off to look at the MoS]. Yomangani talk 01:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * shortcut - WP:FN - arf :-) Sandy (Talk) 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I felt like "you will not get a menu" was singling me out. I'm not going there now, because they'll pick on me (and I'm several thousands of miles away and it's the middle of the night and I'd have to book weeks in advance). Yomangani talk 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

RFUS
I responded at image RF talk as the challenge seems to me self-evident enough and I don't see the need for this particular image. As for the Democracy Now pic, the image seems to me OK to use but to address your challenge, I need to know what exactly you dispute. Please give an explanation at the Image_talk:Norman finkelstein democracynow.jpg on how exactly you challenge the image's usability. Similarly to the tl:NPOV, tl:DISPUTED tags in the article's space, the disputed tag in the image space are helpful only when the editor supplies them with the grounds of the challenge. Please always provide an explanation on how the usage of the particular image seems improper in the particular article. The last part is important, because all fairuse claims are article-specific.

On a side note, would you prefer to have an allowed by policy image of this person or not? In the former case, please feel free to give a better and convincing rationale for the Democrasy now rather than demand that I come up with the wording. Perhaps, you could do that better than me. It's OK with me in either case. As long you elaborate your concerns at the image talk page, I will do my best to address them.

Finally, as a personal favor, please avoid using generic templates if you have anything to say to me on my talk. Many users see such templates only proper when addressing newbies and take their impolliteness rather close to heart. I also find being addressed impersonally and with the patronizing templates rather annoying. Of course, I cannot demand that but I thought I can still ask it leaving it up to you to decide on this in the future communications.

Cheers, --Irpen 06:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I did not intend to patronize. You know it's not personal - and some people prefer the standard template - it just makes precisely clear what's going on. The policy position as to the image is that, unless the person is dead/incarcerated/otherwise extremely unavailable, the fair use of copyrighted images is not permitted by Jimbo's dictat, even while it is permitted by U.S. copyright law. This has apparently always been on the books and began to be enforced about two months ago. We've gotten rid of a lot of those images by now - at least twenty of my uploading - and are cleaning up still. So yes, w/o picture is better, until someone emails Finkelstein and asks him to release one into PD or snaps one of him himself. Or you can use his PD federal booking photo when the Army puts him away to Guantanamo hehehehe :) - crz crztalk 07:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem and thank you for a friendly response. I respectfully disagree with such an interpretation of the policy. FUC#1 says: "would adequately give the same information" (That is of course within the article's context.) as Fairuse claim are always article specific.

What is meant by "replaceable" is a matter of discussion. How difficult would be to obtain such image? How adequately such image would illustrate the specific article illustrated by the fairuse one? No all-universal statements may be possibly made and certainly no statement like "all living people can diqualify". The issue is not only their accessability but how well the image that can reasonably be expected to be taken would apply to the article and whether it would replace the available FU image adequately. This is addressed by the rationale that should me added to each an every Fairuse image and the specific articles where they are used. The decision should be by the community, based on policy applied to each spefic case depending on its merit.

So, please explain at talk, how you see the image not usable under the fairuse. This is similar to explaining the tl:NPOV added to the article. tl:NPOV also challenges the policy compliance and requires an explanation from the tagger.

Cheers, --Irpen 09:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Cross-space" half life mod list redirects
Unfortunately, it's also the best idea, as leaving them as protected {deletedpage} notices is less counterintuitive. Also, are category: redirects truly cross-space? Proto :: type  10:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bush in Estonia
Luckily I won't be visiting until (possibly) this summer. :P  Srose  (talk)  18:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD
hi.. the article Mission Accomplished (novel) that you recently deleted was bundled with an article on the author, Patrick S. Johnston, whose only claim to fame was the now-deleted book (Articles for deletion/Mission Accomplished (novel)). Just here to remind you in case you missed that, or to find out if I should nominate it for speedy deletion, or to apologize for pressuring you if you just haven't got around to it yet. Thanks, Bobanny 19:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. there's also a redirect page that should probably go too: Mission Accomplished (Novel). Bobanny 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Jodirell.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jodirell.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok  ☠  21:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

TS-MA2_Moebius on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of TS-MA2_Moebius. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

good luck on your finals
I was sad to hear about your "meltdown" a few days ago. Feeling better now? D'you know that my first edit was in Jersey? Best of luck on your exams. DVD+ R/W 00:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That was premature probably
Pisgat Zeev. "user:I like 2 be anonymous" refuses to use talk and is a blind reverter there. Amoruso 06:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL
I'm not sure what you mean. Did you revert because you agree with the other version, or were you reverting to make a point? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not being any more stubborn than anyone else editing the page. In the absence of consensus, shouldn't the page stay at the version before the changes?  I have just been trying to do that until consensus is reached - my edits have all been attempting to restore the page to the version before the revert war.  And you didn't answer my question - do you favor the prevous version of the page, or were you just reverting for the sake of reverting?  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
Thank you for notifying me of my mistake regarding the fair use rationales for these images. The problem I see is that I did not make it clear in the rationale that these are to be used until a free use image can be found. To have these images deleted now would not be good, however once free use alternatives are available this would be fine. Thanks for brining this to my attention. I am currently sorting through all images I have uploaded to fix the fair use rationales. Wikiwoohoo 17:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely this would not mean that all images currently of living television presenters will be deleted unless free use versions are made available. I hope it does not. Wikiwoohoo 17:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It just seems a shame that all the images will be removed and mean many articles are left unable to illustrate the person of whom they concern. There are more than likely many hundred such images on Wikipedia. Could these images not be left until better versions are found? Wikiwoohoo 18:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the articles I edit have been subject to this change in policy. I have not seen any other user mentioning this change in policy either. My apologies. I still feel this is a great shame, for the sake of the article's content now in the very least. Wikiwoohoo 18:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

However, I will begin contacting presenters directly soon to ask for images that can be used within articles under the free use claim. Wikiwoohoo 18:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

BMG article
Are you a student there? do you know anybody thats a student there? If you are a student, please tell me that it is NOT called the crazy house which it seems nobody cared to do yet. If you know anyone please call that person and ask him what the dorm building on clifton and 8th is called. For now - because ther is an agenda that has nothing with the truth called C"H - I'm reverting it.--Shmaltz 19:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Srul Bronshtein
couple of questions: is 'afd judaism related' strictly for judaism as religion? & is there anywhere more appropriate to list similar deletions, apart from the relative country? thnx &rArr; bsnowball  19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasons in Arbcom elections
You opposed some of the people I was considering supporting, and I was wondering if you could give at least brief reasons why, in order to help others such as myself make a decision. At least with supports you can reasonably assume that it at least means "I have found nothing major wrong", whereas there are usually specific reasons for opposing. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Crzrussian :) Is it okay if I email you with some thoughts. If it is a problem for you then I will not bother you. Take care, FloNight 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have compiled User:Crzrussian/ArbCom Voting for whoever cares. - crz crztalk 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

 * Your wish is my command - crz crztalk 18:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:ILike2BeAnonymous
Just letting you know I replied at WP:ANI#Pisgat_Ze.27ev. My feelings aren't too strong on the matter; I'm just a regular patroller at CAT:RFU. :) Luna Santin 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for undeleting xwrits. Cheers, --unforg e ttableid | how's my driving? 07:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

fine dining category
Crz, darling, after all we have been through! Category: Fine dining should be deleted but things like barbeque restaurants should be kept? Please tell me your reasoning! Postcard Cathy 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a category for deletion that I think is deserved!
Category:Restaurants in Poland been around since June and best I can tell, never had an entry! I think unutilized categories should be deleted before categories whose listings are debatable! HUMPH! :) Postcard Cathy 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Welcome
Hello again, you gave me a welcome awhile back, and I was wondering how you thought I was doing. Just H 17:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pisgat Ze'ev
I eagerly await your blocking of edit warriors on more than one side of this edit war. As there was no consensus at all on what the page should say, both sides must be considered equally guilty. Palmiro | Talk 22:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's see, from 12 November when the current spate of edit-warring started I count 15 reverts by the user you blocked and 13 by User:Amoruso. Hardly such a qualitiative difference as to merit a 5-day block for one and a pat on the back for the other. I'm not impressed, to be blunt. Palmiro | Talk 23:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You should have read the talk page from the top, it would have made it clear to you that there was no consensus and that the status quo, in so far as there was one, was simply the result of one side - not Amoruso's side - deciding not to engage in long-term edit warring. I'm not aware that protecting status quos of that sort is considered a mitigating circumstance in administrative responses to edit wars. Thank you for your invitation to take it up on AN/I, I have done just that. Palmiro | Talk 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it did occur to me that I was probably being unfair in thinking that you were being partisan and that you might well just have misjudged the situation! (Though of course, you may well feel that you were neither being partisan nor misjudging the situation...) Anyway, I suppose I owe you an apology for that. Palmiro | Talk 23:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Question for ya
User:Dtcdthingy moved The Jackal to The Jackal (film) (well, actually, he moved it to The Jackal (movie) and then I moved it to the MoS location) so he could turn "The Jackal" into a redirect to "Jackal (disambiguation)". It seems odd to me, since there's really only one notable use for "The Jackal", but more importantly there are a ton of entertainment articles that are now being redirected to a disambiguation page about Jackals.

In my opinion, it should be moved back. But it's also okay with me if it stays at the (film) location, as long as the other articles are fixed to point to the right place. I don't mind fixing the other articles myself, but I don't want to bother if the whole thing is going to end up back at "The Jackal". Do you think anyone will have a problem with it being at "The Jackal (film)"? In the meantime, I've changed "The Jackal" to redirect to "The Jackal (film)" so the article links will still work. Kafziel Talk 01:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Noahide Laws
I asked him to translate that article since I would liket to polish it so it can be featured on the mainpage, though I'm not sure exactly how and what, I've proposed a few things on the talk page of the article. Please check, I dont stand by all of the points I made, and will go allong with the input of other editors. I really want the article to shien and be featured, and will have it translated into Italian, french and greek amonst other lingos to help... In the meantime please check out the talk on Safiyya bint Huyayy... massive chutzpa, she was a Jew, all her tribe and family where killed, she was beatiful so Mohammad kept her as a concubine the definition of which is... ... but on the basis that she accepted Islam (obviously to stay alive), they are saying she cant fit the definition of a concubine and reverted my simple mention. Please advise. Chavatshimshon 03:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I am not sure what you're asking me to do, and I decline to get involved in this. - crz crztalk 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA's
Hello, crz! I just wanted to ask you a question about your RfA voting. Since I've been participating in the RfA process, I can't ever recall seeing you actually support someone. Do you have a standard at all? (if you do, then I must say it has to be pretty high :-]) Why are you so strict? After all, as Jimbo has said, "this should be no big deal." As far as I know (and please, correct me if I'm wrong), there's no sysop-action that can't be easily reverted. Wikipedia doesn't nearly have enough administrators, and in my opinion, you're voting against a lot of good candidates.

Happy editing! --  P.B. Pilh e  t  /  Talk  03:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One oppose in the last twenty promoted RfA's. I have no idea what you're talking about. More on your talk page. - crz crztalk 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!


 * Guess I never saw those particular RfA's. Oh well, my bad :-)  By the way, you forgot to count Chrislk02's RfA, in which you voted oppose not too long ago.


 * While I'm at it, I have an interest in becoming a sysop. My first attempt at an RfA failed (obviously, I was way too new), and I'm now on editor review to see where I can improve (like checking my information before accusing someone of being an oppose-freak :-]).  Do you have any advice?  Happy editing! --  P.B. Pilh  e  t  /  Talk  23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
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 05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please undelete Bisaya Magasin
Friend,

I noticed that Bisaya Magasin has been deleted (although BISAYA Magasin is still there). I redirected the first article to the second, thinking that the second contains the encyclopedic content. (In the Cebuano Wikipedia, the second title is the main article, while the other is a redirect.) I had explicitly stated in the talk page of the article that I would like another week or two to work on the page. However, it was deleted without even a debate. You can see in the Cebuano version of the same article that there is a lot about it. Please undelete it. Thanks. --Bentong Isles 12:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll fix it as soon as I can find the time. BTW, is the Cultural Center of the Philipines' Encyclopedia of Philippine Arts an acceptable reference? Unfortunately the literatures of regional languages in the Philippines still lack a comprehensive documentation at this time. Even Bisaya Magasin itself has only about three paragraphs in it -- I knew more being a friend of the current associate editor. Just a point of clarification, shall I limit what I write in to what is given in the CCP encyclopedia, or can I write other things which I new personally? Thanks!--Bentong Isles 12:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks. ;) --Bentong Isles 13:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice for external links and a proposal for mathematical typing
Hi, I need a little advice about links to "external" encyclopedias. I found some very good voices on Planethmath.org and the Springer-Verlag Online Encyclopaedia (formerly Kluwer) and I have included it in Wiki math voices I have edited as external links: did I infringed some copyright? The access to those resources is free, but I don't want to advertise nor damage someone else.

Next I would like to propose the adoption of a particular capital font for LaTeX: the Raph Smith's Formal Script mathrsfs. It would be very useful in a variety of formulas. Thank you. :) Daniele.tampieri 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA Comment
Hey, I would like to thank you for your criticism on my soon to be ofer rfa. I was nominated sooner than expected, however decided to go through with it instead of decline! It appears as though the consensus is that I need to become a little more experienced. Without criticisms in the oppose column, I would not know which areas that I need to improve on! Your comments about my infamiliarity with WP:FU were true. I am always open for ways to improve myself as a human being and as a Wikipedeian! Thank you for putting the effort forward when determining whether to vote Support or Oppose, as you no doubt have nothing personal against anybody in the votes, just looking out for Wikipedia! If you see me going down the wrong trail in the future, or have any recomendations on how I can become a better/more experienced wikipedia, please feel free to let me know on my talk page! THanks again -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In all honsety, I did not interpret you as being an asshole! Just a very valuable wikipedia whose opinion appears to be fairly respected among other experienced Wikipedians. I look at it as there is a lot I should be able to learn from you.  When it comes to stuff, especially FU violations, you gotta be firm and I respect that!  No hard feelings at all from my side of things.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add that my comments on the RfA (right at the very outset) were borne of frustration and a desire to "protect" the person I nominated (I'm sure you know where I'm coming from with that!) and hope that they were not interpreted by you (although it was by a couple of others) as an "attack". I'd seen Chris around a lot and having been hovvering around the RfA pages for a few days beforehand, I thought he was ideal material – I still have absolutely no doubt about this, but time will tell – or should I say Time will tell. :) Anyways, it was a blunt comment and sometimes we are all guilty of those. Onwards and upwards, eh? Bubba hotep 08:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
I don't like spamming pages, but I thought I'd give a little note to my co-nominators. User:Amalas/RfA Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr  =^_^=  14:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your buddy's back
here. Wonderful. Fan-1967 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like Mailer Diablo's got you covered. Banned again. Fan-1967 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RfS (Request for Studying)
Your continued edits imply a distinct lack of quality study time for your finals. -- Ars Scriptor 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What an addict... OK. Off I go. No more edits until 10PM except in response to talk page message or my two pending DYK nominations. b'li neder... - crz crztalk 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

B&H
The only way I could think of would be to find something in the DV Info Net forums and link to it. You're not going to find journalism or reporting about the phenomenon, would be my guess. I just know because I've been to a lot of video trade shows. Robert K S 11:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Would a picture of their "Sorry, we're closed for the Sabbath" sign on a booth from one of the trade shows be considered original research? Robert K S 12:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear CRZ, Thanks you very much for your assistance, it really is much appreciated.

Over the next few days I will be compiling information for you in their original form, so that you won’t have to do any extra research trying to track down the articles.

I hope to have the information for you before shabbos.

Thanks again for the help, Moshe Rosen

P.S. Yes there are plenty of articles about B&H. :) 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian
I don't know what you mean by "as well" since I haven't lost on Jeopardy!--yet! (Or--maybe you have?) But yes, Ian is wonderful, he's a valued member of the Archive team. Robert K S 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I make a lot of edits to Jeopardy!-related articles... Robert K S 22:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reconsidering and giving me your trust. If I am appointed to a seat, please continue to talk with me about any concerns that you have in general or specific to my actions. Take care FloNight 01:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
I've addressed your question (#8) on my RfA. Regards, --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 22:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)