User talk:Crossmr/Archive/Archive 02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Batman2005's user page

Hi Crossmr. I raised the issue of Batman2005's user page before because it was a bit too much. He accepted that, and removed/toned down the questionable sections. In its current state, I think it's fine. I'm not sure why you're still pressing the issue. Best, Proto///type 06:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


I see that you're engaged in what looks like a heated debate, so I thought I'd post here to let you know that while I understand you posts, I have posted that i'm agreeing with the other user about the userpage, I stated that some of the stuff on it i disagree with, but I see no real reason it should be deleted. The policies I think are very vague about this type of thing, I guess my only thing is that while I disagree with what he says on his page, he is allowed to say it. FordTuffinIt 18:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


The Welcome

Hey thanks for the welcome message, some of that stuff looks to be useful! FordTuffinIt 18:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Hey Crossmr, thanks for the welcome! This is truely a monster of a project. I recently installed WikiMedia on my own site, and thought I could help out here on a few topics. Alanlastufka 05:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia articles

Hi, you posted in response to my posting on the Calgary page. I agree that in order to keep the integrity of the articles someone has to watch out and there have to be a few rules, however, I know that the people watching take their work seriously - but really, for a new person posting it can get pretty - mean. I made a mistake, didn't know I couldn't use material from another site (I mean I linked to the sites - I thought that was good enough). Within an hour or two my posting was flagged with a copyright violation and moved to a temp page. Now, I have rewritten the entire article, in my own words, and within hours I get a wikify note - at least that guy was polite. Maybe you can help me with citing references?Trailmix1234 02:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

{{fact}}

That was a bit of a whirlwind... wasn't it? ;-) Netscott 22:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I was as well, but I was even more concerned about losing the tag. As I mentioned in the TfD, I tried to keep the notice as small as possible... but on a tag that is already so small there's not a whole lot that can be done from avoiding a notice looking like crap. Netscott 22:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually subst'ing isn't really meant to be used for all templates. This is one template that really shouldn't be subst'd as it's not meant to remain permanently on a given article. Netscott 22:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Nom withdrawn is only speedy keepable when there are no other delete votes. You should have snowballed it. Kotepho 22:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Crossmr, after seeing your message on Kotepho's talk page I thought I'd just leave a note to tell you that WP:SNOWBALL isn't "policy" per say but is frequently cited when closing polls early where the outcome is overwhelming clear. Cheers. Netscott 17:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
If you haven't seen it you might want to peruse Wikipedia:Speedy keep as well if you haven't already. :-) Netscott 17:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999

I think we should blow up the current RfC against CoolKatt and start up a new one, because it seems the current one will not result in some kind of resolution (unlike the BenH RfC). CoolKatt is again labelling my edits as vandalism (specifically on WKBS-TV (Philadelphia) and WGTW-TV) and something really needs to be done. This time, I would like to be the one starting up the RfC. I may even attempt to use mediation as well.

Here's one more gem from CK, from WKBS and WGTW: "!-- Do not remove the merge tag. Doing so is considerd vandalism. --" So, I guess that means anyone who removes HIS mandatory merge tags (or his worthless "trivia") is committing vandalism? You make the call. Rollosmokes 14:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't listen to Rollosmokes. He himself is a problem editor. CoolKatt number 99999 15:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sims' Importance

Based entirely off this list that the CVG project made. Also consider that only the top 5-10% of cvg articles are even going to get importance ratings; The Sims is currently on the same level as Starcraft, Everquest, and Doom, which I think is good company. Nifboy 20:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the LiveJournal article

Been trying to stay out of the debate on the NPOV stuff aside from flagging it as NPOV in the first place, because as an LJ volunteer I'm way too close to the issue to be a neutral voice. But I'm glad someone else is looking into it. Thank you. Peas 16:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LiveJournal -- POV?

I'm not trying to start a fight with you, but I've noticed that almost all (with the exception of the one about "flist") of your reverts/deletions with regard to LiveJournal appear to be of material critical of LJ/Six Apart management. I respectfully request you to think about whether you may or may not have some kind of POV issue(s) with regard to LiveJournal and whether you're best serving the interest of Wikipedia readers who aren't LiveJournal users by such stringent deletion of critical text and links to verifying websites.

Davidkevin 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed content that I asked for citation on. We do not include all criticism of a site, corporation, or otherwise unless it can be properly cited. If you noticed what I removed, you also noticed what I added which was a blog post by a verifiable employee of six apart in the breast feeding issue that occured. If people want to draw conclusions about how people reacted to that, they can do so from reading that blog. We don't draw conclusions, put for theories or use weasel words to place PoV in articles on Wikipedia. --Crossmr 05:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, it appears (with the exception I mentioned) that all the content you've removed is critical of LJ management. The blog post by an employee of Six Apart promotes the "company line".
The idea that only Six Apart employees can post content which may be cited is inherently biased. It appears to me that whether you realize it or not, you are engaging in a pattern of POV reverts and deletions, and again I respectfully request that you examine your pattern.
Davidkevin 06:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise cleanup

I'm sticking this here as it will end up being archived by the archiver User:Crossmr/trekcleanup. This way we can discuss the various aspects of it without worrying. --Crossmr 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Songs Containing the word Fuck in a Prominent Position

Hey -- thanks for your tagging of this article, but it doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion that I can see. I've tagged the article with PROD instead, and will send it to AfD if anyone deprods it. Mangojuicetalk 03:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think "patent nonsense" is one of the CSDs that has to be interpreted strictly or it would be abused. In this case, it's a clear WP:BAI, with lousy content. But a "patent nonsense" article would be one that doesn't give the least idea what the article is supposed to be about, that can't be improved on because no one would be able to even understand the starting point. Anyway, I'm quite sure this will get deleted, it's just not a speedy. Mangojuicetalk 04:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Companies on Wikipedia

A note to Crossmr: You have no right to say what is and what isn't appropriate for wikipedia you aren't in charge of anything and have no authority to deny legitimate companies from posting on wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.183.63.33 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 July 2006

Wikipedia has standards for companies to create articles on wikipedia. If you're referring to the Sean Malloy Productions article, it does not meet the criteria. Any editor can raise that point and argue it. --Crossmr 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Alessio Tramello

I noticed your note on this article regarding (citation needed). that may be true. I saved this article from the "dumpster" by actually doing some research. Why not remove the word "prime", correct the grammer, etc. There are too many people pointing out too many shortfalls and not enough "just fix it" attitudes. Stormbay 19:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Note

Don't revert rewrites. I removed the tag and rewrote the article. Careful. DS 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Incidentally

It's "could've, should've, would've" - as in "could have". I've noticed you making this mistake frequently. No harm done (since this is a Wiki, after all, and glitches can be corrected); I'm just trying to help. DS 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • My apologies; I'll leave your spelling as is. DS 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Repost

Template:db-repost does not apply to articles which were speedied, only if they were dealt with through xFD (AfD, MfD, etc.) Mak (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, check out Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General criteria number 4. The particular article which caught my attention was deleted because it was empty (you can check the reason in the deletion log) but obviously when it was recreated it was no longer empty, and was actually a perfectly valid-seeming article. Cheers, Mak (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Regarding "Personal Attacks"

Care to explain what you are referring to? 68.69.194.125 06:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I notice that you are quite meticulous about ensuring that all our material is sourced and verifiable. I think it might be more useful for you to give some attention to our biographies of living persons. Given the Siegenthaler incident (and others), it is very important that all information on those articles, especially that which is critical of the subject, be very carefully sourced. You might have a bigger impact, and run into a little less friction, if you focus your efforts there. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


3RR

Please note that you have reverted Lumber Cartel three times already in the past 24 hours, and should be careful not to violate the three-revert rule. As I am involved in the discussion, I would certainly not be the admin to block you, but I know there are others watching the article. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Vandalism?

You're not doing anyone any favors by accusing two admins of vandalism. You're running out of good faith very quickly in my book. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop attacking fellow Wikipedians. Your scrutinizing of an article to insure it is spotlessly clean is entirely out of line. If you want to shove WP:V up people's noses go do it elsewhere. Any more of your nonsense and personal attacks will result in a block. --Pilotguy (roger that) 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Civility

Please be careful about use of the word "vandalism". Disputes over verifiability are quite common on Wikipedia; unfounded accusations of vandalism are uncivil and, if repeated with vehemence, may constitute disruption. Please assume good faith. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


I also note that, in this edit you make a very serious accusation against an administrator. Please don't do that. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

I'm not sure what the best approach is here. I think you and I might be of the same mind, that we should apply the same standards to Internet topics that we do to everything else, lest we open the door to lots of original research, which I would argue certain internet articles are, at this point. (Examples I'm thinking of include GNAA and Encyclopædia Dramatica.) Let's see what comes of this discussion first. At some point, the best way to work is going to be through WikiProjects on certain topics, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Memes, which doesn't appear to exist yet. It would be incredibly helpful to obtain some kind of broad view of just what sort of memes we cover in Wikipedia, and what standards we hold those articles to. Then major points about what should or shouldn't be done could be discussed in their proper context, and not on an article-by-article basis. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Thank you

Your pressure to check facts led me to read the entire thread in which the original Lumber Cartel essay was published; I discovered that, although the essay was indeed taken from Sanford Wallace's corporate site, CAUCE co-founder Gary Frazier identified it as being written by Duane Patterson, a completely separate spammer.

As well, you are correct in stating that the reliability of "Vladimir" is most dubious; however, the discussion thread which sprang from that post is what led to the Lumber Cartel's existence. DS 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for twelve hours. You have violated our 3RR rule on several occasions now. In addition, you continue to display rudeness towards your fellow editors, which is unacceptable. I suggest you cool off, refrain from using WP:V and other policies of the like to make a WP:POINT, and work with your fellow editors or you will face longer blocks in the future. --Pilotguy (roger that) 00:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, because I'm the one who just closed an AfD out of order, and I'm not the only one who noted it. WHy don't you go suggest working with others there. We had a discussion going, Tony stepped out of it and decided to improperly close an AfD. As I noted before. AGF is not a shield for dubious behaviour. This block is also improper as I haven't reverted anything in hours.--Crossmr 00:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You may also wish to see WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_not_be_used which makes your block improper. You're currently engaged in a content dispute with me.--Crossmr 00:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

improper per his involvement in this incidentWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Conflict_with_administrators_on_Lumber_Cartel and this content dispute [1] covered by this.WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_not_be_used in addition according to WP:BLOCK civility is not a valid reason, and I see no equal treatment given to the other editors involved in any edit warring as required per WP:BLOCK. This is just continued bullying on the part of a group of admins. You were required to block User:81.178.225.214 as part of the block as he also reverted the material more than 3 times, or in your haste to find an excuse to block me did you forget that? WP:BLOCK#Excessive_reverts --Crossmr 00:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As a "neutral party", I can say that you clearly violated 3RR and need time to cool off. 1ne 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The incident was hours ago, and User:81.178.225.214 still has to be blocked per the policy as he violated it as well. The only reason I was blocked by this admin was because of the dispute over verifiability.--Crossmr 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
All users involved that violated the rule must be treated equally [2], 81.178.225.214 at 3:59, 4:25, 7:52. 68.69.194.125 at 6:00, 6:41. 6:47. Failure to follow the policy shows a clear bias on his part. --Crossmr 01:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither of these users has violated the 3RR. Another revert by either one would constitute a violation. The rule allows a maximum of three reverts, so it is actually not broken until a fourth revert. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually 68.69.194.125s edit at 5:17 also re-adds information that he added at 1:56, that is 4 reverts on his part. --Crossmr 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, this edit [3] does not count as a revert, this was a copyvio from wikifur, sine he was sourcing wikifur in it, he should know its a copyvio. This is Copyrighted material vandalism and not covered by 3RR.

This edit[4] was to revert attention seeking vandalism (I didn't revert all the changes he made, just the attention seeking part, it falls under "insults" a google search for images isn't any kind of credible citation for anything and was put there to insult the fandom.

This [5] was again removing attention seeking vandalism.

This revert [6] as far as I'm concerned was a self-revert, as I believe Sonjaaa and myself got involved in an edit conflict, they seemed to be working on something else entirely at the time.

and this [7] is a violation of improper use of cite tags. The cite tags were used because he knew there was a problem with edit, and he was trying to use them to cover the edit. 3RR states that reverting vandalism under Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism does not count against you.

That leaves this revert [8], this one[9], [10]. Which is a grand total of 3 reverts that qualify for 3RR. As such my block is improper.--Crossmr 03:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, 68.69.194.125 has now made his 5th revert on the article in question. --Crossmr 03:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the case, I suggest you want out your block and file a complaint against User:Pilotguy when the block is up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.131 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 12 July 2006
This is a known troll/vandal. I reverted his vandalism to your page, but if you want to keep it there more power to you, I guess. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for 68.69.194.125 to be blocked, he performed 5 reverts in 24 hours.--Crossmr 13:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
He's also not a known troll/vandal. Its an american online IP which changes users every few minutes, and hasn't made an edit in 2 days. --Crossmr 13:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and there has been a user from an AOL IP who has been trolling Pilotguy for weeks. Why must you blindly disagree with everything anyone says to you? (ESkog)(Talk) 13:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming you have some evidence of that? As I said I'm still waiting for that IP to be blocked.--Crossmr 13:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As the user had no prior warning that the 3RR existed, I have left a warning. I will block if the reverts continue. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, policy requires that he be blocked. I'm sure I don't need to quote it for you. All involved parties must be treated equally. --Crossmr 13:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

(moving back to left) Practice requires that we warn users before they are blocked for a policy they didn't even know existed to avoid "gotcha" power-tripping. All involved parties were treated equally; as you had already neared a 3RR violation on another page, you had already been warned, and a block for another violation on another page was legitimate in my opinion. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy requires all involved users are treated equally. Your warning above was false as I had not performed 3 reverts on the other article. In addition this user is obviously long term from his comments, and just like you know the above user is some vandal, I know this person knows wiki policy.--Crossmr 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You had performed 3 reverts, and I was trying to prevent you from performing the 4th which would violate the rule. However, the fact remains that you were aware of the rule. Equal treatment is not the same thing as equal block length. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't performed 3 reverts. You talk about my narrow-mindedness. Your second claimed revert was not a revert, but an editing of new content. I did not return it to prior content or edit it in such a way as to resemble prior content.--Crossmr 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is what my first revert returned the contet to: [11] and here is what my edit after DS's revert made it look like: [12]. That is not a revert. Its entirely new material, which I edited to remove information drawn from sources I didn't (and still don't) agree with. As the first was the previous version, there is no way that can be viewed as a revert.--Crossmr 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
actually the first revert does not count for 3RR either, as it was repairing Vandalism. DS should not have removed the AfD tag, and he acknowledged his behaviour. As such, I only peformed 1 revert that counts on 3RR, and your warning was again improper.--Crossmr 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)