User talk:Crzrussian/Archive 4

Scott Sigler
In my opinion, Sigler is right near the line of WP:BIO... I can't WP:V the claim of 10,000 subscribers for his podcast, though this has been reprinted in some blogs. I have to imagine he sold at least some print versions of his book since prints of some of his other podnovels are being produced. I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Plus, one Scott Sigler article with a possible link from EarthCore and the recently created disambiguous Infection page would be a better repository for all this info and hopefully when someone explained to him on his talk what is being done (and cautioned him about WP:AUTO), it would disuade him from linking himself in other articles. Heck, in his own article you could even mention his band StoneMojo.--Isotope23 18:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes one article for everything would work nicely.--Isotope23 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The StoneMojo thing was half-joking. Unsigned bands from Detroit don't meet WP:MUSIC...  Since some people have already rendered opinions, I believe you need to contact an admin, let them know you withdraw your AfD, and ask them to close it.  I'll removed my delete opinion.--Isotope23 18:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

EarthCore (Podcast novel)
I have closed the AfD discussion for EarthCore (Podcast novel) per your request on WP:AN. I hope you will be successful in moving & tidying the article... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That was an amazingly quick response!! no problem! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I redid it from scratch. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * nice :) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * sorry, didn't mean to edit bump you! If your version is more fleshed out than mine by all means replace it.  I contacted user:scottsigler to let him know what is happening and advise him of WP:AUTO.--Isotope23 20:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, where did you see he was a Detroit Lions fan? Guy must be a masochist.--Isotope23 20:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Meir Kahane
Hi -

this is something that was in the page for about a year or two; I was surprised to see that it was deleted at some point - perhaps because somebody added an uncalled-for comment about genetics.

I have certainly seen this claim made before by Kahanists - mind you, they were stating not just their personal opinion, but what seemed to be universally agreed upon as the opinion of the founder of their movement. It's hardly surprising, given that such sexual relationships are against halakhah.

I do not have the collected works of this figure, or any such thing. I am a little surprised that you are surprised (by the way, nice to meet you), but if you have any sources to bring to the matter, please do so. Hasdrubal 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well,


 * http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EFDC1338F931A25755C0A967948260


 * I hope that will do - the Internet is a wondrous thing.


 * I do not think there is any likelihood of such a proposal becoming law in the foreseeable future; there is no likelihood of Kach being in power in the foreseeable future! Hasdrubal 00:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been away from wikipedia for so long that I've forgotten how to add links. Can you do it? Also - I do not know how stable a link to the NY Times is.

Well - enough of this for today. Perhaps I should take another long break. Hasdrubal 00:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, glad to entertain you. I was a little concerned that my joke might have been misunderstood as a veiled NPA, but having read some of your other tongue in cheek edits, thought that you'd catch it. Funny that not everybody did. ''' Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! - E@''' 11:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonas Bergh
Thanks for the heads up. Do you happen to know the template for page protection ("has been deleted and should not be recreated without reason..")? I'll close that AfD. Cheers. :) --F a ng Aili 說嗎? 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dayan
what do you think about dayan not forwarding to rabbi?

many rabbis today are not dayonim, and dayan is a position in a community different from a rabbis... gevaldik! 16:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

short stubs
why?

i am good at creating articles, which I and others can improve with their knoweledge over time. is there anything wrong with that? i thought stubbing new articles was a good thing..

see, for instance, edah hacharedit. i started it as a stub, it was nonexistant. now its a few days later, its already an article and has spawned a related article about rabbi moshe halberstam who passed away the next day after i wrote it. (oops... signed!!) gevaldik! 21:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Igor yurgens
I do not see how stating that "Igor Yurgens is vice-president of the Russian Union of Industrialists" (which totals the content of this article) can be understood as discrediting for Wikipedia. -- H eptor  talk 14:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's really pretty simple. If we have articles on sub-notable topics, assuming IY here is such, then we're perceived as having a very low standard of admission. Then the stuff that really is worthy gets discounted by that person through being viewed with that lens. It's not Igor alone, it's the sum of all of them. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi!


 * Sorry, I still don't understand your concern. The person is quite notable and information is easily verifiable. The article itself is completely serious, and some day someone may wish to expand it. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so I don't feel we should limit topics that someone may be interested in. I don't really see the point in arguing over this though. It seems most of the other editors disagree with me, so delete it.


 * Regards, H eptor   talk 21:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I move the entire discussion for consistency (not that I claim it actually is consistent now) -- H eptor  talk 19:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am moving this convo here, b/c it's becoming too silly to keep there. Like I said, no real notability, if you discount my CRYSTAL BALLS, only presumptive notability per MDude's criteria :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, I hope you don't have crystal eggs as well! But, really, if you are a vice-president of some important nation-wide organization, I think we should have an article about you as well. -- H eptor  talk 19:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jocelyn Marcel Keyes
smth? What about the others? Eusebeus 02:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank YOU!
Hehe, I was just bored, so I thought I could do some work on it. And pls don't flatter me, I'm not very experienced at wiki yet. Thank YOU for helping out with the wordings and completing the article! :)

P.S. I hope I don't screw this message up, it's the first time I use the 'talk' option! Gray62 13:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Improving wiki is fun!
I'm still learning to use all the features here, but imho being a part of the effort to create a real online excopedia is very satisfactory. When I have the time and stumble upon something that can be improved, I can glady spent some hours at it. It's difficult to stay at a NPOV and finding reasonable sources for the articles but I hope I am improving. At my first major effort at the Rubin Carter article I was too enthusiastic and hampered by the lack of neutral articles on the subject, but I think I'm becoming more experienced now. My major problem is that english isn't my native language, though.

As for UTR: I accidently found the site through a google search in 2005 and became a regular reader, even though Ianal. But I was deeply disturbed when it turned out that A3G is a guy! :(

Thanks for the encouragement! Gray62 13:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

internal links policy
Thanks for the tip, I aprreciate it. Like I said, I still have to learn a lot about Wiki. And I agree that the articles should have a common appearance, it's just that I sometimes don't know what's the standard. Putting every year into an internal link isn't really a good idea, but I have seen this so often that I thought it ought to be that way. Thanks for clarifying this!

Comparing the early article with our latest version makes me feel proud. Looks like a good job. That's the power of teamwork! Thank you and hope we'll work together somewhere soon (have to quit for today)! Gray62 13:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ianal...
I am not a lawyer! In fact, I'm a german IT techie in his fourties and somewhat underemployed right now. I'm very interested in the US, so I read a lot of blogs and inline news every day. Really have to go now, CU! Gray62 13:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Yoffie.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Yoffie.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Resolved. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

deletion and edit summaries
G'day Crzrussian,

for me, it's the tenth/fiftieth/hundredth (on a bad day) stupid article or improper speedy tag I've seen &mdash; for you, it's the first time, and you're acting in good faith. It's easy to forget that sometimes, and I apologise. I was incivil, and I didn't need to be. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can see your reasoning (all the more reason for me to stay polite :-)). The important thing to remember is the intent of the rule: A7 exists as a way to quickly and easily get rid of vanity bios and suchlike posted by bored schoolkids.  It can be used to quickly delete articles you don't think should exist on 17th-century personalities, but that's not what it's there for.  Your decision to merge the article into John Donne's seems, to me, to be the best way to go.  Good work. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Govoni
Thanks for pointing out the previous deletion. If it comes up again I'll probably protect it. Turnstep 19:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Bratva
Hi there. The topic does not fascinate me a bit, but a merger seems logical (if you want me to vote somewhere regarding this, just point me to the right place). The only reason I edited this article was a chain reaction caused by creation of Solntsevo disambiguation page.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Street cricket.jpg
He made it himself, but that doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. Images are automatically copyrighted when they're created, and they have to be licensed under the GFDL or Creative Commons or some such for us to use them. --Rory096 20:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For use on WP, images can't just have permission for use here; they either have to be copyrighted (and under a claim of fair use), or they have to be free, even for commercial purposes, anyway. --Rory096 20:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa
zdrostvuitye! I just wanted to stop by and say "spassiba" for your support on my RFA. "dasvedanya"! &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sharting
Please show me where it has been deleted nine times before. This particular article has been deleted once and its previous version was not an exact copy for me to delete under G4. Pepsidrinka 05:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well some of those versions were like "to poo your pants while farting" or included stuff mentioning "manpons" and in my opinion, this edit is years ahead of those deleted entries. While it may not be notable, atleast this version uses defecates instead of "poo" and such and it explains where it came from, as some of the others did not. Pepsidrinka 05:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalking?
I look at the edit history of the editors I work with, especially when I see they have arguments on their talk pages (User:The Advocate. It just so happened that I was interested in what Shalhevet Pass was, since I had no idea. I harldy think that constitutes wikistalking. It's a coincidence that it was 20mins, though I did only look at the top of your list. What other pages have we both edited on? The NPOV was for the use of words such as "terrorist", which has since been changed. -- Tompsci 08:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Good luck on finals, hope you do well class
What a hoot. John wesley 14:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC) My finals are next week. John wesley 14:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Don't, don't use the word innovate in your essay answers. Does Jim Fleming still teach Con Law? John wesley 14:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

NYU finals that is
I need the luck cuz I want an A John wesley 19:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Polish cinema
I have an abiding interest.John wesley 19:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Kiwi Alejandro Camera
I noticed that you removed the CSD notice from this article. Only Wikipedia administrators are allowed to make decisions on speedy deletion candidates. If you are to contest the deletion, you insert  into this article prior to writing your explanation. For further details of why the article was nominated in the first place, please visit its talk page before making any premature decisions. --''' Big. P (talk • contribs) ''' 03:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I explained on the article's talk page why I think the subject to be notable and why I think, in any case, that speedy is inappropriate. Notwithstanding that, Big.P is, I think, correct that one oughtn't to remove a speedy tag; we are to trust that an admin, noticing that an article asserts notability, won't speedy the article, after which it may be nominated for deletion.  Where one objects to speedy, the proper course of action, as I understand it, is to express such disagreement on the article's talk page (at which an admin, one expects, will look before he/she determines the propriety of speedying); if an article in which notability is asserted is nevertheless deleted, deletion review is, I think, appropriate.  Joe 04:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that there is no de facto bar to one's removing a speedy tag; I think, though, that such removal is generally viewed as inappropriate, since an admin is, we'd like to believe, unlikely ever to speedy an article where notability is asserted. You've not acted against policy, I think, but simply against custom, even as, as you say, others have done similarly.  I don't think it's in bad form to remove a speedy tag, although one probably ought to inform the original tagger of removal, in order that he/she might try AfD, but I do think many others think removal to be in bad form.  W/r/to your barnstar, I'll find one somewhere for you; in the meanwhile, feel free to award yourself a few... :) Joe 04:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll give your barnstar here, and you may surely place it on your user page wherever you think it best fits...

RFA Thanks
Thank you for supporting my RFA. --Ezeu 08:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

errors in syllogisms
I think you want that page to stay. It is awful. I will propose it for deletion again. The reason it is awful is that it does not begin to do justice to the topic. It does not discuss the reasons for errors, the different theories of why they happen, and the example it gives is poor. It was written as an assignment by a student in my class, as were many other pages, which were all much better than this one. If you really want to know about errors in syllogisms, read the chapter on them in Thinking and Deciding. I do not have time to write an entry based on that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon.baron (talk • contribs).

Israel News Agency Reaches Over 60 Million
Please reconsider your vote for deletion of article re: Michele Shohatovity. This health care professional is well known and respected in Israel. If she does work for the Israel News Agency, then she is an author who has a reach of well over 5,000 people (according to Alexa the INA reaches up to 60 million readers) which qualifies her as a notable. Thank you Idf-barak 14:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rigvedic rivers
I'm on it; this is part of my preparations for a Rigvedic rivers article, into which the stub will be merged. regards, dab (&#5839;) 17:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

B'Show
http://www.hashkafah.com/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=18&t=11694

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:MMo635QPyuoJ:www.jewishpress.com/page.do/9581/Rebbetzin%27s_Viewpoint.html+beshow+date&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

looks like "beshow" might be a better spelling?

help me! im learning..... and im teaching you, too! :)

also, did you see edict No. 11? that is something amazing I had never heard of before?

Dualabs
WP:IAR, and not the first time. Care to ask politely on our behalf? It seems hard to understand the argument in this case, given the posting of the relevant info to the census page. It may also be that my AfDs are being scrutinized more closely following accusations of bad faith and indiscriminate nominations. Eusebeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Teitelbaum (the First)
How shall we rename that article? "the First" makes little sense. Any ideas? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a very good question. Usually when people have the same name we distinguish by field, so for example we would have John Smith (artist) and John Smith (band). In this case they would both be Moshe Teitelbaum (Rabbi). The best thing I can think of is (older) and (younger). We should also probably make the main Moshe Teitelbaum a disambig page with links to the two rabbis. (Which will then involved disambiguating all the links). I know that's not a great way to differentiate between the two, so if you can think of anything better then go for it. --Bachrach44 19:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed this discussion on my watchlist and it caught my eye. Sorry if this is an intrusion. What is often done is to use dates to distinguish the two articles. For example, they could be renamed to Moshe Teitelbaum (1759-1841) and Moshe Teitelbaum (1914-2006). Or base it on location / affiliation Moshe Teitelbaum (Ujhel) and Moshe Teitelbaum (Satmar). It might not be pretty, but there's no way to distinguish them by profession, as is often done. Moshe Teitelbaum would then be a disambiguation page. Alansohn 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It was your page that was on my list. I have "watch" as the default, so I end up watching other people's talk pages after I have a discussion with them. Every rare while, something comes up that catches my eye, as this did. Alansohn 21:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not watching, per se. And 99.99% of the time, I just ignore it and say I should unwatch the user talk pages. I also will watch talk pages for people who have been persistent vandals, where I have given the person a previous warning. Such is not the case with you. Alansohn 21:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see your argument against disambiguation. I personally like having the disambig page, but that may be because I'm predisposed to like them. I could go either way on it, so if you want to leave it without a disambig page, that's fine. I still think we should rename them both though for clarity (we can just have the main MT page redirect to the most recent one). I personally think Moshe Teitelbaum (Ujhel) and Moshe Teitelbaum (Satmar) are the best, since years of birth and death are rarely search terms, while city of residence may be. However, if outvoted it doesn't matter too much in the long run. --Bachrach44 21:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.
Dear ,
 * Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o   P-_ 22:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't worry about that little thing. I suppose that you puny mortals haven't watched Star Wars enough to memorise all of Darth Vader's lines. ;P Don't worry, I don't find you disturbing, its just a small joke. _-M o   P-_ 22:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Uknown prod category
I thought once Tawkerbot finished tagging all of the ones that were broken when it was switched over to prod it wasn't necessary, I've restored, thanks for pointing it out -- Tawker 05:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

legality
I had originally been told the content I was posting was not copyrighted. I subsequently found out it is, and needs to be removed. Thanks for your cooperation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mvaradian (talk • contribs).

Regarding hell
I am offended that you assume telling you to go to hell is something bad. My religion believes hell is a good place. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- 

You seem to have a big problem with me. First, you strike down the CSD on Kiwi Alejandro Camara without even so much as contesting it on the talk page first, as if you had the authority and your opinion was the end of it. I find it highly elitist and offensive that you didn't even talk to me about the CSD and just struck it down. Then, after people without accounts made legitimate votes on the AfD, you exploit the fact that I can't afford a static IP by accusing me of sockpuppetry. Only pure malice or dirty agenda could explain shenanigans like these. If you have a problem with me, maybe you should visit Wikipedia's policy on dispute resolution instead of making vain attempts to damage my credibility. And seeing how you're so adamant about pursuing the sockpuppetry accusation, I challenge you to request CheckUser. If you don't, it'll be more than obvious what's really going on. --  ßίζ ·  קּ‼  (talk | contribs)  23:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From WP:RFCU: "Due to the effort involved, difficulty of interpretation of results and privacy issues raised, checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first." Please don't pester me. Comment on the page I created for this case. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on an image tag
Re: your comment on Image:Joliet-1674.jpg I assume it was done by a bot, as there is a detailed description of copyright status in my original upload, far more than enough to have fully resolved. It's clearly a good upload. If there is a problem, it is with the tagging system. Apply the tag you think it needs. flux.books 00:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Your message
Hi. Can you point me out which clause(s) of WP:SOCK or other WP:RULES the other user has violated? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion.

hakapik.jpg
I'm backpacking across Asia, and I don't have time to figure out which tag to add to hakapik.jpg. If you read the note that I left on the hakapik.jpg image page when I uploaded it, you can figure out which copyright permission applies. The image has been made freely available by its creator for "anti-sealing purposes", which I believe applies to the Wiki page, as the use of the image itself implies its supposedly cruel nature. You would probably know more about copyright stuff than me, so if you could add the appropriate tag, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Bueller 007 03:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How are finals? I myself s/b studyng
Just recopy my notes. John wesley 16:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)