User talk:Crum375

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

---

/Archive 1

Picture of the day

DNA clamp Illustration credit: Opabinia regalis Archive - More featured pictures...

[edit] ArbCom for Omura

I have requested Arbitration because of your lack of willingness to be mediated and continued bad faith.Richardmalter 04:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests

[edit] Flight 1907 and Cessna 182 - deletion vs flagging

Again responding: If "deletion" and "relocation" were the same then there would be no need for two words. They are NOT the same. Deletion removes the material from the current version of the encyclopedia. When Encyclopaedia Britannia undergoes a revision and material is removed by its editors then no one says it is not deleted but just relocated in the old version. When you search for something in Wikipedia (as an ordinary user would) then the archive is not searched. When WP is forked or copied or published in book form the archive will not be present. When I throw my pencil in the trash it is not discarded, merely relocated. And when you search EB 1986 the index does not mention the material deleted in 1926. Deleted material is almost always lost, effectively. Relocated material is not. You play with words in this argument. Maybe not only here. Paul Beardsell 22:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And, illustrating my point marvellously, my previous arguments disappear never to be viewed again. (Viewing is possible, just very unlikely.) Paul Beardsell 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, responding from comment left on my home page: Stop patronising me. I think I know as well as anyone how wikipedia works. Just address the major argument or do not bother. Of course EB takes a year to revise but that wasn't germaine to the point I was making. What I think you must concede is this principle: Do NOT delete without excellent(!) cause so as to avoid information loss, when deleting consider if relocation (a DIFFERENT concept) would not be possible. Paul Beardsell 22:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Well I disagree. Some editors are better than others. The contrary view is PC at best but wrong. And some deletions are inappropriate. A bad deletion is bad for WP. Deletion when relocation would be more appropriate is a case in point. Obviously. And it does not matter how often a false proposition is repeated: it does not make it true. Well, OK, it should not make it true. So, countering one now oft repeated false proposition: A deletion is not just a relocation and it does not have the effect of a relocation. It makes the deleted material difficult to find and will never be found by the ordinary user of Wikipedia. Mostly, deleted material even if good is lost forever! Deletion is bad, relocation is better. Paul Beardsell 23:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to my most recent contribution to this discussion on the article's Talk page [1]. I found the relevant WP guideline following precisely a link you provided early on. It does seem my instinctual reaction to your deletion is, in fact, official policy. I ask therefore that you do not act in quite the way you did at Cessna 182 in the future. Paul Beardsell 19:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The WP guidelines say what they say, not what we each individually may want them to say. To be so ready to quote principles and rules and general the-way-wikipedia-works advice to me is fine, assuming good faith! When, however, I point out a guideline to you which contradicts what you have been saying and doing and you seem not to have learnt anything - as your most recent comment on my user page demonstrates -- and you finish by saying "AGF" then it is imperative that I point out that WP:AGF does not say that good faith must be assumed forever against the evidence. The AGF guidelines do not say what I think you want them to say. If you will not follow the guidelines when they are pointed out to you then any obligation to AGF just fades away. Also your repeated adminishment to me to AGF is specifically dealt with in the guidelines. Paul Beardsell 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:AGF:

This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.

Paul Beardsell 22:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

Just thought I'd once again thank you for your great work on the Flight 1907 article. ||| antiuser 18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussing changes

Hi there! Just a brief note - people are generally allowed to (in their opinion) improve things without having to discuss anything. If we don't want something changed, we protect it to prevent that. If you disagree with a change, please tell the other party what you don't like about it. Yours, >Radiant< 11:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cessna 182 - what next?

Well, how do we go forward from here? I could re-instate the text you deleted, allowing you to move it to the article's Talk page, as per WP guidelines? Paul Beardsell 22:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I will complete the work you started if necessary but I was hoping to give you an opportunity to show you understand what the guidelines say. Paul Beardsell 22:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight 411

Come around when you like and I will gladly take another look at the article. Lincher 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to read. If you find more material to add on this article, like response, testemonies, costs or other stuff you can always add it in order to complete the subject. I look forward to more of your articles in GAC. Lincher 03:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My idea on reviewing is to bring articles to a better level so I can for the time being review it in accordance with the GA criteria but can't put the tag on it for the GA until it is nominated. (I can't review them RIGHT now but will try in the near future). Feel free to also peruse my contributions and leave comments on how I do my work (my english isn't too good on articles but in conversations I'm pretty good). Lincher 04:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Such comments following the review would be posted on your talk page in order to prevent creating a conflict of interest and in order for you to be able to get feedback. Also, reviewing in general is viewed in a good way for people like to get credit for what they have done and with WP:PR dying, the least I can do IS to review others work. (I try to stay objective, is it possible anyway ;) Lincher 12:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Air Lines Flight 212

The citation was already present and cited in the appropriate section. I have placed another reference to it immediately after the link. Perhaps next time you don't see where the information is coming from, it may be appropriate to use the fact template or ask the editor about it. Erechtheus 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Satisfied with that? Erechtheus 18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to why you're so hostile to this link that is now sourced by three references when there is a section below this one without a single citation. Is this a WP:OWN issue? I'll add another citation momentarily. Erechtheus 19:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have ridden the attraction in question on several occasions (as early as the late 70s). It rotates. I have offered the readily available online sources that I believe can pass WP:RS in the order of authority, but I'll check for any others. There are several non-qualifying sources like website forums I can point you to, but they really can't be cited. Erechtheus 23:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this meets WP:RS, but this link clearly mentions rotation. Erechtheus 23:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LANSA Flight 508 review

• In There was evidence the crew decided to continue the flight despite the hazardous weather ahead, apparently due to pressures related to meeting the holiday schedule., where did the pressure come from, who was directing the operations.
• Background isn't an appropriate name for such a section, it should be changed to reflect the fact that the paragraph talks about the whole flight & the crash. This section should be well expanded with the creation of subsections.
• The section Accident investigation should elaborate more on the investigations as it is overwhelmed with citations which deter the quality of the prose of that section.
• Expansion on the mother's death, and expansion on her trekking in the wilderness would greatly improve the section Koepcke's survival. Giving dates to ascertain where she was at every moments.
• Is it possible to have transcripts of the conversations of the pilot with the bases around. Is there any black box information available?

Lincher 17:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by that pressure thing was not to give a citation but to expand that part in order to let people know where did the pressure came from. Just by looking at the citation you placed on my talk page, you can easily add more to that part. Lincher 17:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree then that it isn't reliable material ... I may try to help you with finding stuff if you don't get around to finding a good source. Good luck, and if its not possible then forget it (or add it and say the source isn't reliable). Lincher 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Could the article mention just briefly the '99 movie Wings of Hope which is about Koepcke's survival. Lincher 19:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy you decided bring the article around GAC. I don't know if I will be reviewing it but good luck and I'm also good to see what you did to the article. Lincher 21:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chart image for the Legacy

I forgot they don't like off-site referrals. I put it up on my own site now. ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I will look into the copyright status of the chart and if it's not free I'll look for a free alternative. ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've enlarged the image as much as I could without losing quality - you can still read the flightplan this way. I'm not going to upload it to wikipedia because I'm not sure of the copyright status of the fax, but you can see it here. Congrats for the barnstar! ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I can get to the O Globo page here [2]. Also, the pilot states on [3] that "Embraer filed the flight plan for FL370 until Manaus". ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone posted the image on the airliners.net forum - I think it's from a Jeppesen chart but I can't find one for that area... ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember where I learned about the coding... I'll try to look it up. ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft - tense reversion

I appreciate your support. I think there should be a defined style for the article. Perhaps there should be a vote on the talk page. – Zntrip 00:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I’ll let you start it, I’m not very experienced with these sort of things. – Zntrip 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll know to check the talk page for the article because it’ll be on my watch list. – Zntrip 00:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Not to try to deconvince your oppose stance, which is probably unnecessary at this point, but I really think you're taking it a little too seriously. All I did was mock the stupidest anti-semitic stereotype in response to some serious anti-zionist agitation from an anti-wiki user, who alleged that Zionists control Wikipedia. (whatever!) I did it to escalate the stupidity. No zionists actually drink palestinian blood. I am not a zionist. Addressee was not offended. Most people agree that it wasn't so bad, and all agree it wasn't a WP:NPA violation. Now, I agree that it was in bad taste, and probably offensive (tho not to addressee). That's the long and short of it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This was a rhetorical device in bad taste, not incivility of any kind. But even if I had been incivil here and there, does that really add up to me not "be[ing] allowed to still be here and edit freely"? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thirding

Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect talk page

I have copied your comments from Talk talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format to Talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft, as the former is an incorrect talk page, which I will nominate for deletion shortly. — Tivedshambo (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the page you're looking for is talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format. Talk talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format has appeared in mainspace, and now has a talk page of it's own. Yes, it's confusing, but I can move your comments and Zntrip's to the correct page if you like. — Tivedshambo (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going off-net for a few hours now, but I'm sure some friendly admin can try to unravel this ;-)  — Tivedshambo (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Now your pages are at Wikipedia:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format and Wikipedia talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format. Under control now? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PETA killing puppies

Sorry to bother you but your recent edit to PETA said that the source does not say they kill most animals. Well the article itself does, down in the community animal project section. Any thoughts? Cheers. L0b0t 02:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, here ya go, first line of policy on euthanasia section-

"Policy on euthanasia

PETA does not adhere to a no-kill policy and euthanizes the majority of animals that come into its care."

Just thought there should be some agreement between paragraphs. Cheers. L0b0t 03:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PETA on euthanasia

For the record, your last_edit introduced an inaccuracy. The previous phrasing was accurate. Not counting animals found dead, there are 3 types of animals PETA takes in: 1)animals GIVEN to them for which they find a home 2)animals GIVEN to them which they end up euthanizing and 3)animals NOT GIVEN to them, which they take in for sterilization purposes, and are 'reclaimed by owner. Thus, it is correct to say either: they euthanize most animals given to them or they euthanize all animals either not adopted or not reclaimed by owner. Saying they euthanize most animals not adopted or not reclaimed by owner would imply they keep on the premises a number of live animals that never get adopted or reclaimed by the owner which according to the reports themselves, isn't true. This isn't a matter of POV, it's a simple matter of logic.--Ramdrake 23:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Then, if you subtract animals reclaimed by owners and animals adopted out, ALL the remaining anmals were euthanized. I'm sorry to insist, but your wording is still not correct.--Ramdrake 00:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try again to explain myself. Say, let's take the 2005 report. Please take a look at the columns "Other" and "Reclaimed by Owner". The numbers are nearly identical in each category (Cats, Dogs, Other Companion Animals). It's normal to assume that since these "others" were not "Surrendered by Owner" (they are in the column "other") they were also "Reclaimed by Owner" (by and large) these animals were not meant to stay at PETA's facilities for long. What is interesting in the upper panel ("Received")the number "surrendered by owner" (and the strays), 2107 and 31. Of these numbers, ("Disposition", lower panel) 146 were adopted (6.8%), 69 (3.2%)transferred to another within-state facility and 1946 (91%) were euthanized. 2 (0.1%) died in facility and 2(0.1%) were still on the premises at year-end. What I think is the interesting point is that far more animals were euthanized than were adopted (10-15:1 ratio, depending on whether you count the transferred animals). The current wording totally loses this important distinction. By comparison, the Peninsula SPCA also in Virginia, for the same year [4] adopted out 3557 animals for 6127 animals euthanized (a 2:1) ratio. The Northern Virginia Animal League [5] adopted out 386 animals for 12 animals euthanized (1:30 ratio). So, the legitimate questons is why does PETA have a 10:1 euthanasia/adoption ration when others have a 1:30 ratio? This important question is completely obliterated from the article, AFAICT.--Ramdrake 12:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the reference you were asking for[6],and while it doesn't compare PETA with other organizations, it makes clear that PETA euthanizes 80-90% of the animals given to it, and that this trend has been increasing over the years. I have no problem putting in a caveat that this comes from a site critical of PETA, but in my opinion, the info needs to be made very clear in the article.--Ramdrake 12:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, it's that type of conversation and consensus building that makes the two of you (Ramdrake, and Crum375) such a pleasure to work with. Cheers. L0b0t 12:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It was just refreshing to see some discourse and conversation. All too often when dealing with editors on touchy subjects I feel I may as well be talking to my cats. Though in the interest of full disclosure, I am a very stubborn lad myself. You have provided an example we can all try to emulate. Cheers L0b0t 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, here's my take on it: the numbers they present are verifiable (through the VDACS site), and the assumption they make (which is the same I make) is supported by the scans of the original forms filled out by PETA which they link to (one of the first links I supplied when we started this discussion). As far as this site being non-neutral, hey as far as I know, PETA is not even being neutral about itself (!). What is important to me is that the numbers are verifiable through other sources, and and the explanation for the "Others" column can be found in their link. The PETA Kills Animals is one of the sites produced by the Center for Consumer Freedom, one of the main adversaries of PETA. I believe we should care much more about whether the information is factual and correct (which we can verify) than where it can be found. Otherwise, we would have to trash half the references that criticize PETA, and I don't think political correctness is worth that much, if the information is verifiable by other means. Please let me know what you think.--Ramdrake 14:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, since the number of animals they adopt out is so much smaller than the number they euthanize, I would prefer if we just said that they "euthanize most of the animals not reclaimed by their owners", as I feel it would present the situation just as well and neutrally, while saying they euthanize most animal "not reclaimed by their owners or not adopted" may be construed to mean they adopt out a number of animals comparable or larger than what they euthanize, which is decidedly not the case. I'd settle for just that.--Ramdrake 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Man, you're a tough customer! ;) But at least you're talkable, not entrenched in any position (except defending the quality of WP), and you don't mind explaining yourself at length. So, I did some more grubbing and found these:

1. from a news outlet
2. from the CCF, PETA's nemesis
3. yet another news blurb, very similar to the first one
4. an article from the San Francisco chronicle, saying the same thing, always quoting the CCF, though

That's about all I had the time to dig up. But I think it's in enough news story that we could say that "the CCF charged PETA of killing more than 85 percent of the animals it took in in 2003". Coming from the San Francisco Chronicle, I would hope this is neutral enough. Let me know!

[edit] Yoshiaki Omura

I had CowMan reprotect the page.

Let's stop the edit warring. Seriously. It's not worth it. We can settle this like reasonable people. But until we've reached a state where we can clearly handle this rationally, I'm going to recommend against unprotection.

- Che Nuevara 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm cross-posting this to Richard as well.

[edit] My RfA

Hello Crum375. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) for taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I'm very grateful for your support and kind words. I assure you I'll continue to serve the project to the very best of my ability and strive to use the admin tools in a wise and fair manner. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 08:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

[edit] Pl read sources

I bet you haven't even read the books and exhibits I've cited but yet want to engage in a revert war. CCF is only a small percentage of the source, the rest as given in the talk page and in inline citations are from multiple reliable ones. If you havent' even read the sources, then don't try to push your POV by reverting to an old version which only tells half truths. Thanx Idleguy 19:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Then tag only the statements which you think don't conform to the policies. blanket reverts only destroy confidence in other editors and the time put in to gather data. btw, you haven't answered why AnimalScam isn't considered a reliable source. Some of the CCF statements are backed by US Senate committee hearings and IRS audits so I don't see any harm in it. peta doesn't provide IRS form 990 on their website and if CCF has obtained copies, and presents them, which in turn in presented in insight magazine, then I don't see any problem. The issue is with PETA not providing information. not the other way round. So pl tag only the lines that need a better source and don't do a blanket revert. Tx Idleguy 19:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

CCF cites IRS and Virginia State records. The US Senate has cited the former. So why suspect CCF, after all it isn't making its own statements, merely using information that PETA itself refuses to divulge. Idleguy 20:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for violation of the three revert rule on Yoshiaki Omura for a period of 24 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Cowman109^Talk 05:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I find that you've just engaged in a needles revert given what I've said in the talk page of PETA and that all my edits were sourced. I hope the block serves to help you to properly understand Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Idleguy 07:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to kick them where they are down. Your own editing behavior is also questionable... so take it easy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The reasons I considered you disruptive is because your previous reverts in the article and the fact that this time is a near 3RR. --WinHunter ^(talk) 13:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote from WP:3RR: "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique." In my opinion, repeatedly going near 3RR is disruption. My view is that if it is consensus then it would not require a single editor to even go near 3RR. If you still disagree with my reasoning feel free to ask another admin to review my decision. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for missing that part. My view is: For new users, warnings are required as they do not know about Wikipedia policies. For established users, they are assumed to know the policies such as 3RR. While warnings is preferable, it is not required before a block take place. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. SlimVirgin two days ago came and reverted a number of changes without discussion, including points that were very well established - for example, the policy box has been in the article since March or April this year. As you say, those wishing to make substantive changes are best off discussing them on the talk page first. If SV, or another, wishes to propose them on the talk page, they are free to do so - before then, I think the old format should remain. All the best. jguk 15:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome Back!

Good to see you unblocked and going right back to work! --ABigBlackMan 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Br-map-crash.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Br-map-crash.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Nv8200p talk 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Thanks

Che, I thank you again for all your hard work. It is very much appreciated. I hope you'll find it in you to assume good faith and realize that all I want is a well sourced and balanced version, of this as well as every other WP article I touch. Of course my idea of 'balance' or 'source' may not be someone else's - I am far from thinking that I am always right. In fact, I hope that I am sometimes right, no more. I am also very open to ideas and criticism, although it does take time sometimes for me to become convinced and to change course. I do want to see neutral editors in the sense that they have no ax to grind, no conflict of interest. Dealing with COI-SI (conflict of interest single-issue) editors is very hard, if your target is to end up with a neutrally balanced result. But I think for WP to succeed, and I am sure all of us here want that, we cannot cave in to COI or special interest or any other pressure group for whom our own pillars of well sourced neutrality are not paramount, but their own interests. I think WP will live or die by editors' ability to fight (with civility) for what is right, not what is quick or easy. Thanks again, Crum375 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I do not necessarily believe that you have poor intentions, but I hope you can see that you, Richard, and Rat all were involved in patterns which are antithetical to progress in good faith.

I ought to let know you that Cowman has suggested an RFAr. I am reserving judgment for the time being on whether I will become involved in the actual presentation of the case, but I will make a formal statement. - Che Nuevara 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I believe that Crum cant rise above himself in a number of matters, and I have very little if any trust towards him/her. But I will try to continue to act in good faith towards him. Anyone that represents me in some way, that when I correct them, repeatedly does the same thing, for just one example, does not get much respect; someone that reverts his agreements gets even less. Someone that wants others not to act in one way then acts just like that gets a minus figure for trust. Someone that has a declared bias as Che noted, then denies it, get a bigger minus still. I think Crum is the antithesis of the WP spirit as intended. Maybe he/she will prove me wrong in the future. So far has failed any such test.Richardmalter 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation...

It was simply a recommendation not a requirement. I don't have the benefit of being fully aware of the situation. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, looks like Godwin's Law has been invoked. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

You have reverted the page Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine 5 times in the past 24 hours which is a violation of the 3RR rule. Even though you believe vandalism is occuring it is not clear cut and as such you should defer to an administrator with regard to this matter. Please refrain from more consecutive reverts with regard to this article. 67.177.149.119 03:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See response on your page. Intentionally bogus archiving is vandalism. Reverting vandalism is not subject to 3RR. Crum375 04:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it wasn't bogus since the administrator did archive the page, I was just doing it the wrong way. 67.177.149.119 04:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BDORT

At this stage all that is needed is a statement that will give the arbitrators enough information to decide whether or not to accept the case. There is no need to argue the merits, there will be an evidence phase for that later. I took the liberty of editing your statement down to close to the 500 words the arbitrators would like to see. You might want to add some recent diffs showing incivility or threatening behavior by RM, to go along with the diffs for the IP editor. I wouldn't worry about presenting a defense at this point either, there is plenty of time for that if the case opens. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 03:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your comments...

LOL, I'll admit to not having heard that law before, but I fully accept it. BTW, if you have expertise in AM, and want to help us as a rational and neutral person with specific AM knowhow, I am sure I speak for all of us on that page that we would welcome you with open arms. The dispute there is now in RfArb (not yet accepted, the initiator coming shortly out of a 48hr 3RR block), but when it's all said and done, having someone knowledgeable in WP rules, presumably straight as an arrow (as you'd have to be if you're an admin), would be invaluable. So please consider it - up to now we've only had on the AM side a tendentious single-issue editor who's yet to learn WP's rules after more than 6 months here, or anon-IP's like the one you've met today. Thanks, Crum375 01:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my slow reply. If I can be of any help with mediation in a particular article, let me know... however, I've long since given up the idea of alternative mediating ever being represented fairly here.... don't get me wrong, it's not Wikipedia's problem. It's a problem with AM. *shrug* oh well. Let me know if you need anything. ---J.S ^(T/C) 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"I assume you meant something else, not 'alternative mediating'???" Umm yeah, alternative medicine. Slip on my part:) Let me know when the arbcom case is settled... ---J.S ^(T/C) 06:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)