User talk:Crotalus horridus/Archive 3

Race of Ancient Egyptians Template Removal

I added that template to generate discussion and you removed it without discussing it on the talk page. Though I don't care about that article anymore, in the future please add to discussion before making such changes. Thanks and peace-out.--Woland37 (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• It seemed that there was no consensus to include the template. Frankly, the template itself is pretty worthless because it doesn't give any clear idea of what needs to be done to fix the article. The template says, "An editor has expressed concern that this article or section may be unencyclopedic and should be deleted. This is primarily a statement about the article's subject, not necessarily its quality or veracity." Do you really think that the subject of Race of ancient Egyptians is inherently "unencyclopedic"? As I noted in my edit summary, it has been discussed in numerous reliable sources, both popular and scholarly. *** Crotalus *** 12:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The template was simply to generate discussion as there were several users who expressed the same concerns that I did. Conflict and discussion is good I think. Anyway, no big whoop. I still don't think that its notable enough but other people do so thats good enough for me. Peace-out!--Woland37 (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. In the future, you might want to check out {{notability}} for concerns related to notability. Of course, if you don't think the article should exist, you can always merge or redirect it, but you should try to obtain a consensus for that first. *** Crotalus *** 12:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

UseModWiki article

Hi! Your recent move of UseModWiki to projectspace looked like some sort of misunderstanding. I moved it back, opened a section for discussion on the article's Talk page, and am just dropping you a note to come join in. I know you're an experienced editor, I'm sure you had either a misunderstanding, a slip-up, or a valid reason (in which case I'm the one who misunderstands). Thanks for your help! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Speedy deletion of Chicago Outfit/Reliable sources

A tag has been placed on Chicago Outfit/Reliable sources requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Freda_Utley#POV_Check

Please see 10 new mainstream references to decide if "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality." needs to be removed, if that's the way it works :-) Carol Moore 02:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Also per talk, I did just realize that the original editors had a lot of laudatory and effusive and otherwise POV language in there that I will make WP:NPOV.Carol Moore 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

RFAR

You say you are considering nominating the page for MfD. If you really want to lessen disruption on Wikipedia, I seriously suggest you do not. The best possible realistic consequence is that someone would remove the tag and ignore you. Otherwise, you will find the crazy discussion has found another five pages to expand to. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, you're probably right. Sigh. I know you're no longer with Arbcom, but I really think you should urge them to reconsider Paul August's motion to close out this case. From my perspective, there's no upside to keeping it open, and a lot of downside. *** Crotalus *** 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand why you say this. I'm not convinced, personally, that giving up is the solution. I don't quite know what is, but thankfully that isn't my job any more. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.usenet.kooks (2nd nomination)

In regard to this AfD nomination, the article on Alt.usenet.kooks is actually now on its 3rd nomination. The 2nd nomination can be seen here. However, that has now been overwritten with the current "2nd nomination" which is actually the third nomination. Could you take care of arranging the move of the current nomination and its edit history to a "3rd nomination" page? Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

curious diff

• Hi Crot, I just would like to call to your attention what I have just posted in Eleland's talk here about a curious "Abuse truth" diff. —Cesar Tort 06:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right: I didn’t pay due attention to AT’s heading before the quotation!

Changing subjects, we don’t need consensus to create Ritualized child abuse. I have been recently involved in a lengthy discussion in talk:Psychohistorical views on infanticide and some people more knowledgeable of WP policies than me believe that the subject lacks notability to merit an article of its own.

I could just move Psychohistorical views on infanticide to Ritualized child abuse: a subject that nobody would dispute that it’s not notable enough. Of course, Lloyd deMause’s theories could be maintained in a section within the article far from the lead called, for example, “Psychological explanations” of ritualized child abuse (just as the infanticide article has such section).

However if I move the page I would need a good lead and also some content totally unrelated to deMause’s theories to justify the moving (I could fix by myself the many articles’ redirects though).

Once Ritualized child abuse is created as a legitimate WP article, there would be no reason to impede us the moving of the legitimate cases of child ritual abuse to the moved article. We can even do it before the SRA page is unlocked. This strategy would comply with WP’s due weight policy by vindicating the majority view in history and sociology that the subjects are distinct (RCA is about actual forensic evidence, while SRA is about a 1980s and 90’s moral panic more analogous with witch-hunts than with ritual crime).

I've left this message in Eleland's talk page.

—Cesar Tort 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• P.S.

I'm having second thoughts. Instead of messing up with the controversial Psychohistorical views on infanticide, I am willing to start from scratch Ritualized child abuse tonight. Nothing in WP policies impedes me from doing it, right?

—Cesar Tort 23:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• P.P.S.

Done! —Cesar Tort 12:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Genovese crime family

You're absolutely right, however, as there are articles on almost every person who are recognized as "capos" or "captains" on the article of the Genovese crime family, and therefore it should be that simple only by clicking on that person's name if you want reliable sources of information. I agree with you that unless the article on that person is veryfied by its reliable sources, Geocities is not a reliable piece of information. Do you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlir91 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Israeli 10 Agorot.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Israeli 10 Agorot.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:GA-tag

A tag has been placed on Template:GA-tag requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Vandalism-warning

A tag has been placed on Template:Vandalism-warning requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Settlements/Neighborhoods

G'day, just wondering if you might be able to take a look at Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Jewish_Neighborhoods_versus_Settlements_of_Jerusalem, I thought it might interest you. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Liberty Head nickels

Hi. What is the status of this article's renovations for GA? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed your comments on the talk page a day or two ago. I'll try to get some work done on that today with addressing your points.

A few responses to the issues you raised:

• How would you suggest I emphasize that nickel=5 cents US face value without it sounding clumsy and out-of-place? I'm trying to think of something but am having difficulty deciding how to fit it in.
• Expanding the lead has been previously suggested, but I don't want to simply repeat what is further down in the article.
• "Finest" is indeed a technical term in this context; it means that the coin was rated higher on the "Sheldon scale" (a standard method of coin grading) than any of the other examples. See Coin grading for some details, though that article needs work.
• I'll try to address the other concerns you raised as soon as I get the chance.

*** Crotalus *** 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am a bit stuck but I just added one in randomly. Feel free to adjust if you wish. As to your second point, the point of the lead is actually to provide a summary and wrap-up of the article. I'll tweak the finest thing for so the uniniated like me can find reading material to clarify things for them. Thanks, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mega Millions lottery fraud incident

Just letting you know I added the prod template to have Mega Millions lottery fraud incident deleted, since you've made a number of contributions to the article recently. I have already moved the information on it to Mega Millions, where I feel it belongs. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Elecia Battle

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Elecia Battle, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of WLS-TV minivan crash incident

I have nominated WLS-TV minivan crash incident, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WLS-TV minivan crash incident. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Haemo (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow

I missed the whole Archtransit / CltFn / god knows who else affair entirely until just now. I'm making some small effort to go through CltFn's contributions, as they consist almost entirely of clever POV forks by the pretense of summarizing a given author's work, including massive BLP violations (Esposito is a Saudi agent, CAIR and the ACLU are jihadist fronts, etc). Help me out if you get the chance. <eleland/talkedits> 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Responded on talk. Turns out CltFn is probably not a sock according to a CU, but definitely disruptive and still banned. Definitely agree with removing the tendentious material. *** Crotalus *** 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Needscriticism

Template:Needscriticism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. szyslak 11:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes in the WMF privacy policy

Hello,

I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site: [1]. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page [2] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposal at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Suggestions_for_changes_in_the_WMF_privacy_policy. Since you have participated in the January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website, [3]. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

revising OTHERSTUFF

Good suggestion, that it can indicate a trend towards changing consensus, let me know when you write it. DGG (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Post Chronicle

I agree that the Post Chronicle links need to be replaced in most cases with something reliable, and the block of Smokefan2007 was sad, but likely warranted. However, it's probably needlessly confrontational to make repeated references to the site as a "spam aggregator" and could provoke more drama. Just my two cents, take it for what it's worth. Nesodak (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Replied on talk. *** Crotalus *** 19:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to locate, sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism mediation

Heya Crotalus horridus.

I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.

Seddon69 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Heya. I noticed that you hadn't left your statement here regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. Seddon69 (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The mediation im getting rolling as its been a long time waiting so i think its best to get moving. Most of the mediation will be on the talk (discussion) page. so make sure its in your watchlist. Seddon69 (talk)

New Antisemitism Mediation

I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:

• Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
• Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
• If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.

PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Following discussion at the mediation talk page, i would like to bring up a suggestion that until the end of the mediation to remove both images from the article. There is currently no real consensus on the images so in the interests of fairness it seems best to simply have no images. If you have any suggestions or comments then please come to the mediation talk page to be discussed. The discussion will be open for around 5 days if there are no problems. But the discussion will go on if there is ongoing discussion. ŠξÞÞøΛ ^talk 00:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Right to Exist

I have just started a page on Yaakov Lozowick's Right to Exist and thought you would be interested.Elan26 (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26

TfD nomination of Template:Legalthreatblock

Template:Legalthreatblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 06:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Superfund-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dark Ages

In preparation for fixing part of Views of Lyndon LaRouche I had requested several books from the library week or two ago that I just picked up before the weekend. One has a chapter on LaRouche's views, titled 'The "New Dark Ages" Conpiracy'. I saw your contribution list and am reporting the coincidence. ;) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe the plumber

Sorry -- looks like our reversions were overlapping -- I'll stay away :) --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 02:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I was just trying to get rid of some of the childish vandalism that was happening. *** Crotalus *** 02:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Asteroids UFO.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Asteroids UFO.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

DRV on Benjamin Emanuel

I wanted to make two comments.

One - You violated AGF and borderline on WP:NPA on the DRV listing. Please don't do that. That was not necessary.

Two - Have you actually read the references listed for the article? You said "It was referenced so it couldn't be a BLP violation". I actually went and tracked them down and read them. The references partly don't exist (anymore?), and what's there does not support several of the claims made in the article. An article misrepresenting what sources say, in a biographical article about a living person, in a manner hostile to the subject of the article, is a classic textbook case of BLP violation.

You know better than this... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am second, Crotalus, it is not necessary to turn Wikipedia discussion into personal attacks like this. Please do not do it again. Happy editing Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would refer to WP:SPADE. I see no reason why passive-aggressive POV pushing should continue to be tolerated on Wikipedia. We've had far too much of that already. Certainly this is an issue where reasonable people can disagree - but Jayjg should not have closed the deletion discussion. Period. If someone with credibility had done so, I probably wouldn't have second-guessed them. *** Crotalus *** 14:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I like WP:SPADE too. Still phrases like "passive-aggressive POV pushing" should not be used by devoted wikipedians. We have WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA after all. Also one man's aggressive POV pushing is often another man's "upholding of neutrality and wikipedia policies". The best way to discuss your disgreements with a user is through WP:RFC process Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The comment If someone with credibility had done so above violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.

Crotalus, if you believe Jayjg has a conflict of interest on these issues you can say that without insulting him. If you continue to insult him, you're in violation of the user behavior policy, and that will get you blocked if you keep it up. You know what the policy says, and why it's important. Please don't chose the path of just being abusive. It does not help the encyclopedia or you in any way. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've said my piece on this issue, and do not intend to pursue it any further. *** Crotalus *** 15:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

Batch nomination of articles for deletion using automated tools such as Twinkle, particularly when those deletions give the strong impression of advancing a POV and of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point is, as you might imagine, contrary to our policy. That many of these nominations have been discussed and kept previously only increases the unfortunateness of this decision.

I have blocked you for 24 hours for this particularly egregious bit of disruption. Please consider your actions more carefully upon your return. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Crotalus horridus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Nominating 3 articles for deletion, with a specific, in-policy reason given for each nomination, is in no way "disruptive." Nor is an article immune from deletion discussions because it has been discussed before; GNAA was listed something like 18 times, Daniel Brandt about a dozen times, etc., and all of them were eventually deleted. If Phil disagrees with the nominations, the appropriate response is to say so in the discussion, not block me.

Decline reason:

Only declining by default, since your block ends in 20 minutes. I in no way support nor endorse...if you take this to another forum, do not interpret my declination as either. — Smashville^talk 18:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd unblock you myself if you (a) showed any sign of understanding why your behaviour was disruptive (b) didn't immediately claim some sort of content dispute as the reason for the block.

Separately: as for the reason for the arguably querulous renomination - just because someone did something stupid before is not a justification to do the same thing again, in any way. Any deletion nomination past about the second is almost certainly querulousness - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

David, I'm trying to understand your position here. I'm having a hard time seeing any consistency in our deletion policy when these articles are contrasted to others. I don't only mean yours - we've deleted or redirected numerous other articles very similar to Michelle Stith and Tim Bowles, where notability seemed to attach more to an organization than to its executive and/or spokesperson. These articles seem quite similar to Daniel Brandt, who was kept for so long because all Wikipedians had heard of him, even though in the real world his importance was nil. If there was any WP:POINT, it wasn't in the deletion nomination, but in creating an article on you in the first place. I admit, I wanted to highlight the contrast between that case and this. I believe that it is important to keep to the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV, and I feel we have failed to do so in regards to subjects where there is a strongly held "Internet Point of View," of which Scientology is one.

Incidentally, I would ask you to please review this edit, which I believe is clearly original research by synthesis. Comparing two primary sources ourselves in this fashion, when no third party source has done so, seems to clearly fall into the range of what is prohibited by WP:NOR. *** Crotalus *** 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for your statement that "Any deletion nomination past about the second is almost certainly querulousness" - would you apply the same criteria to GNAA, Daniel Brandt, and Brian Peppers - just to name 3 I can think of off the top of my head? If so, I give you points for consistency, but I do not think that your view matches Wikipedia consensus, since after all these articles were eventually deleted. *** Crotalus *** 19:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never found the "notability" policy of any use at all, and strongly objected to it way back when it was just a buzzword on VFD (before AFD). Robotically consistent application of it has consistently led to silly results and terrible outside relations. You might have a case on case-by-case, but anything that's survived four nominations is only going to survive a fifth if no-one happens to be looking at that moment. The nominations on GNAA, Daniel Brandt and Brian Peppers definitely have heavy querulousness going on, and are examples of cases that drawing overapplied precedent from would be just dumb to do.

Consistency is not in fact inherently a virtue on Wikipedia - that's a key insight of WP:POINT. Robotic consistency from an inherently inconsistent ad-hoc ruleset is itself disruptive, as the point is not to build a perfect ruleset. And it can't be done anyway. You're never going to Taylorise away judgement. I suspect those who wish to do so only because they don't understand the concept.

Speaking as a somewhat well-known critic of Scientology and the starter of WP:SCN, I've found our Scientologist editors, including the hundreds of sockpuppets from Scientology IPs, as obnoxious and destructive as they can be, have in fact helped the NPOV of the articles. The "internet viewpoint" is critical sites that have all the info and good references, but are so strident they're all but unreadable. NPOV on Scientology is great stuff IMO. But attempting to gut articles isn't going to bring it about - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinion

First of all, let me say that I have no interest in editing or arguing about Scientology related articles and that I've never had much to do with Crotalus horridus- I see him around AfD from time to time but that's about it. I only started poking around here because I noticed what appeared to be a wrongful speedy close by Phil at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_thetan; another editor opined to delete the article so it was not proper per WP:SPEEDYKEEP to speedily keep it.

I think Crotalus horridus has been very shabbily treated and I urge any passing admin reviewing his unblock request to unblock him immediately. The rationale for the block, in my opinion, is weak. CH did not nominate a "batch" of articles as though he's just pointed Twinkle at a random bunch of articles just to make a point. He nominated three. Of those three, one is still being discussed and at least one other editor agrees that the article should be deleted, one was wrongfully closed as a speedy keep because, as above, one editor agregued to delete.

The third was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Bowles_(5th_nomination), and is the only one for which a speedy close is possible. Accusing the nominator of "Querulously re-re-re-nominating" is inappropriate because CH has not been involved in any of the previous discussions. Furthermore, it's been over a year and a half since the last nomination, previous nominations have resulted in no consensus and the very first was closed as "no consensus" despite what appears to be significant consensus to delete.

I don't doubt CH is trying to make a point: namely, that being a spokesperson or representative of a notable entity doesn't automatically make a person notable. To some extent, I agree with that. Although I don't agree with all of his specific examples, he does have a legitimate point and is well within his rights to put the question at AfD.

CH is trying to make a point, but has disrupted nothing. Reyk _YO! 01:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Crotalus talk.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Crotalus talk.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Talk.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Talk.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Skullandcrossbones.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Skullandcrossbones.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Spinetdesksideinjpeg20040131B.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spinetdesksideinjpeg20040131B.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Betacommand

Eh? Is Betacommand a vandal? I don't think so, and surely you know that the Long term abuse page is for vandals only, as it says:

Only add vandals here; if you have been blocked as well as the "vandal" for edit warring or similar, do not add them yourself or use sockpuppets to do so. This page is not for dealing with two sided edit-wars, only one-sided vandalism.

Only add vandals who need to be pointed out, such as sneaky sockpuppeteers, trolls, etc. Really obvious vandals should be reported to WP:AIV or, if they use sockpuppets, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Likewise, vandals should only be added here if their vandalisms are serious (A good rule of thumb is whether or not their primary account has been indefinitely blocked). If you are not sure, ask on the talk page; we'll help.

I'd ask that you add {{db-g7}} to the page. It was clearly created outside the scope of LTA. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ArticleSubjectBanned

Template:ArticleSubjectBanned has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's sexual orientation listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Michael Jackson's sexual orientation. Since you had some involvement with the Michael Jackson's sexual orientation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Pyrrhus16 17:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Revealing non-public, personal information

Hi there. You recently posted non-public, personal information on an editor on Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Per policy, I have oversighted these edits. Please don't do that again, regardless of what they may have done. It's not appropriate - Alison ^❤ 21:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of YouTube cat abuse incident

I have nominated YouTube cat abuse incident, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube cat abuse incident. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tagishsimon (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:AFD/FUCK

I have nominated Wikipedia:AFD/FUCK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ashida Kim

This article has not improved and is not going to improve. Please explain to me again why we need to wait a year to discuss this again while it continues to fail WP:BLP in the meantime? JBsupreme (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientology arbitration

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD Re-opened

As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

File:January 1984 Gazette Cover.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:January 1984 Gazette Cover.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Compute!'s Gazette Premier Issue.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Compute!'s Gazette Premier Issue.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

• Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
• Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
• To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
• Other restrictions :
  • Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
  • ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
  • Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of NYScholar

Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Orly Taitz

The article Orly Taitz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BLP1E.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ray^Talk 20:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Orly Taitz

I have nominated Orly Taitz, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ray^Talk 21:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually created this as a redirect, and someone else expanded it into an article. *** Crotalus *** 13:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rabbi Schneerson

Sorry, no. That link is to a personal rant about being ashamed of the observant and takes any attempt available to bash the religious. There's no way that can be considered acceptable. I suggest you take it to talk before adding it again.

I further suggest that your comment to my talk page could have been phrased much more civilly. RavShimon (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Responded on article talk. If no discussion from other participants is forthcoming, I will revert again. *** Crotalus *** 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Karl Marx

What do you mean, "Date delinking is prohibited"? Only mass date delinking is prohibited by the ArbCom restriction. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Conrad Murray

The consensus at the AFD was to keep the article, not redirect it. Pyrrhus16 16:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• That isn't how consensus works. AFD is about whether the article is deleted or not. Redirecting is an editorial decision that can be made by anyone at any time. *** Crotalus *** 19:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning

This is the closing admin speaking. The clear consensus was to keep the article Conrad Murray . If you attempt to redirect it again, without discussing it first on the Talk:Conrad Murray page, or appealing it successfully to WP:DRV, then you shall be blocked for vandalism. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please also read WP:3RR. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• See response on your talk page. I am very disappointed with this misguided accusation. *** Crotalus *** 13:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Criticism of Conservative Judaism

Hello Crotalus horridus, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Criticism of Conservative Judaism has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - this is a subarticle of a fairly large article (Conservative Judaism) - merging is possible, but would probably give undue weight to the criticism section - deletion is a poor choice as this would remove a lot of sourced info)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Removal of "Yuppie Flu" text

Hi Crotalus. I'm just wondering if you can expand a bit on your reasoning behind this edit. While some of the statement you removed doesn't seem to be explicitly supported by the source, I'm confused by your edit summary "this article doesn't discuss the phrase 'yuppie flu'", given that it's an article about alternate CFS names and the section title is "Yuppie Flu". Thanks! --RobinHood70 (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Schneerson

Please see Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson#Liz_Leyden. I explained there that I reverted your restore of this contentious paragraph until such time as consensus will be reached on the question, should we have this, and if so how to formulate it. I am sure it will be there in the end, one way or the other, but we should not rush things. Also, please note that the subject of messianism is mentioned in a whole paragraph. Just this one sentence is contentious. So let's restrain ourselves to the talkpage for the time being, ok. Debresser (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Uw-rorschachblock

Template:Uw-rorschachblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. –xeno^talk 16:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Human Rights Watch

I don't understand why everybody is just stomping over our concerns on this article. There hasn't been much direct response to our points in Talk. I reverted the last onslaught of HRW bashing and asked for some work toward consensus on the Talk page, but I'm sure it will just be steamrolled. Any thoughts? An RFC?

I reported SlaterSteen for 3RR, and they promptely blocked me--48 hours for a first offense. Then he reverted you for his preferred version...something like 5 reverts in 36 hours...and nothing was done. He seems to have the status of superhero. Noloop (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:JARLAXLE listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WP:JARLAXLE. Since you had some involvement with the WP:JARLAXLE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Cunard (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Máel Coluim mac Cináeda

I'm struggling to see how WP:UCN could give us Malcolm the Destroyer. I must be missing something. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Letter to an anti-Zionist Friend

Please take a look at your DKY nom.Historicist (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Razor blade image on emo-related articles & project

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Emo, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. please stop adding the razorblade image to emo and WikiProject Emo. It is wholly inappropriate and in no way relates to the subject matter of the article, nor to the topic of emo in general. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are using a single source to make a broad generalization. "When the average person hears 'emo,' cutting is the first thing that comes to mind" is entirely your own opinion and irrelevant (and impossible to verify). The article is primarily about a style of music. Keeping it on-topic is not "whitewashing"; it already mentions that it "has also been associated with depression, self-injury, and suicide", with a source. That's all that needs to be said, and trying to sensationalize it by plastering a huge image of a razorblade is clearly giving undue weight to the topic. The source for the statement (Daily Mail) is very poor anyway, being an alarmist tabloid editorial (and the link to your second source that doesn't work). This would be the equivalent of putting a big picture of a heroin needle in the grunge article: that is, totally inappropriate. You're welcome to raise the issue on the article's talk page, but please don't remove my message just because you claim to "know what [you're] doing". Per WP:BRD, the next step is talk page discussion to form consensus on the issue, and I have no doubt the community will side against sensationalism on this topic. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I have to say referring to people as 'cultists' can seem highly offensive, as will as inaccurate when most of the editors don't actually post there. --Nate^t/_c 11:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend

On September 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 16:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)