User talk:Crotalus horridus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Rattlesnakes
I'm glad to see someone who has an understanding of rattlesnakes. I've come within close range of the critters on many occasion, by happenstance, and they've always seemed more scared of me than vice versa. I know, too, many friends who've also had very close encounters yet not one of us has ever been bitten. The people I know of, and have read about, who are bitten are those who try to pick up the snake. Pit vipers are not antagonistic towards people. It's likely that far more people have been killed by rodents, one way or another, than by snakes. -Will Beback 10:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, it may also be true that far more pit vipers have been killed by people than vice versa. I suppose that's unverifiable. Pity the poor rattlesnake - so misunderstood. -Will Beback 10:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bad faith
I feel that your request on WP:RFPP over the protection of the Criticism of Wikipedia page was made in bad faith and followed up by false accusations against Raul654. You say that "Raul has been very outspoken on the issue on the talk page", but the only statement he has made there in well over a month is as follows:
- Those people adding the links to Wikipediareview you mention are, by and large, the same people who have already been blocked/banned from Wikipedia. Insofar as they are concerned, you are confusing cause with effect. I am not assuming bad faith due to the fact that they inhabit wikipediareview; they inhabit wikipediareview because they were kicked off wikipedia after demonstrating their bad faith.
- Furthermore, your claim that Wikipediareview contains relavant criticisms is simply untrue. If I want to read about Snowspinner's teeth, or see shock-pictures labeled as SlimVirgin, or read conspiracy theories about how jews like "Jewjg" are going to take over the world, I'll check Wikipediareview. On the other hand, if I want to read legit criticisms of Wikipedia, I'll go elsewhere. Raul654 07:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This seems reasonable to me. You may disagree with his assessment; most Wikipedians would not. As an occasional reader of Wikipedia Review I think that is an accurate assessment.
At first I disagreed strongly with the remedies made in the arbitration case, but my eyes were opened when you edit warred with arbitrators on the proposed decision page. If you persist in attacks like the one on Raul654, I may go and seek the support of two other administrators (which I'm sure would be an easy task) for an appropriate restriction on your conduct, under the General Probation applied in remedy 2 of the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Having read this post, I simply must know everything there is to know about Snowspinner's teeth. I hope I haven't been sent on a fools errand here! Anon, and away! Hamster Sandwich 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of shock sites
Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 10:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Vandalism_of_Restroom.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vandalism_of_Restroom.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Three Triangles.svg
This is a derivative work of a logo owned by Nintendo. Please see http://www.zelda.com/universe/. Note that there is some discussion going on regarding a virtually identical image at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Image:Triforce.svg. I've retagged this image as {{logo}} and it is now tagged with {{orfud}} as well. --Durin 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brian Peppers
Creating Brian Peppers in popular culture was simply an attempt to get round other titles being protected. I don't care that your article is meticulously sourced and attempts to describe the phenomenon and not the man, have you actually seen Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers? (I have salted your peppers article!) -- RHaworth 09:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] war on blogs
Thanks for checking through them. The need was evident-- I intended to check also but ran out of time.DGG 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:OTRS
Please do NOT revert WP:OTRS actions without discussion with the OTRS member. No, we are not infallible and you are entitled to question us. I could even be wrong here (I've not reviewed it yet), but you are not in possession of all the facts. My talk page is open if you want to discuss it.--Docg 08:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Crotalus, Doc does not mean that OTRS actions may not be reverted, only that you you should find the reason for them, not just blindly revert. In this case, the author to whom the quote is attributed emailed OTRS, very offended, to protest that she said no such thing. You are welcome to follow up the reference and reinsert it if it is found to be accurate, but blindly reverting is not a good idea. Of course it would have helped if Doc had made this comment on Talk, but there are many cases where this kind of transparency cannot be offered without compromising confidentiality, so in the end sometimes you have to take someone's word for it, and responding to and closing an OTRS ticket is slow and laborious enough wihtout imposing additional burden on volunteers. Anyway, I don't think you are evil, or that OTRS is a magic talisman, only that the invocation of OTRS is a flag that caution is demanded; hopefully as an editor with long experience you will be able to accept that. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, my talk page is open. Reverting without discussion is always poor form, and especially in cases like this where you are not in possession of full facts. I sometimes handle dozens of OTRS things a day - I don't pre-explain unless I suspect they may be controversial (with the backlog there is no time), but I respond quickly to questions and e-mails. Once we've discussed it, then you can consider whether it is wise to revert me. In any case, if I've made an error, i will often revert myself.--Docg 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on Doc's talk page. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, my talk page is open. Reverting without discussion is always poor form, and especially in cases like this where you are not in possession of full facts. I sometimes handle dozens of OTRS things a day - I don't pre-explain unless I suspect they may be controversial (with the backlog there is no time), but I respond quickly to questions and e-mails. Once we've discussed it, then you can consider whether it is wise to revert me. In any case, if I've made an error, i will often revert myself.--Docg 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WoW
Hi,
That MfD was ages ago, and in the intervening time, all vandal-naming pages have been deleted. A substantial portion of the deleted content is comprised of links (now RED links) of other similar vandals suspected of imitating WoW. I am reluctant to userfy the whole history to you, especially since numerous repostings have already been attempted in the months since the MfD. Perhaps you might give me some sense of what form you wish your recreation to take, and I could find the relevant information for you in the deleted diffs? It is good to see you back with us! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
