User talk:Crockspot/Archive 01

Welcome!

Hello, Crockspot/Archive 01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! BD2412 T 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

The deletion of Conservative Underground has been reviewed: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Conservative Underground.--James Bond 06:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding today's PW afd comments

Well, allow me to preface this by saying that I might be a little biased, being that my RL political leanings are slightly leftist, but for the most part are pragmatic/centrist. After looking into what Ben Burch has tried to do with the AFD process, I can only say that I'm flabbergasted that these people are remotely on the same side as me, politically speaking. To show such blatant disregard for WP:POINT, WP:NPOV and WP:Don't Be A Big Grumpbag, is disheartening. The nomination was not only dishonest and in bad faith, but his trying to make a political argument spill over into the encyclopedia was tremendously poor form. Trying to delete a rival's article in the Wikipedia just because they disagree with you is not only underhanded, but flagrantly violates all sorts of guidelines to boot. By any means, let me say I'm sorry for reading only what Burch said in his nomination and first comments without further researching the subject, as was my duty as a Wikipedian. Thank you, and here's hoping you contribute some more while logged in, :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks Kuz, you're allright for a lib. :) Crockspot 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, your comment on the White Rose society AFD is spot on, I'm not sure that the consensus was correct to delete the article regarding Conservative Underground. Whiterosesociety.org's alexa ranking is 166,000, as compared to CU's ranking of 42,800 (note that this means it is three times higher in the ranking than WRS.). With the opinions in the two AFD articles coming down as they did, it should have come out the other way around. I'll see if I can't put some words in the right ear and get the CU article undeleted. Additionally, I'll make a comment of it on the WRS AFD page. Additionally, I was considering registering at the CU forums. I don't know how well I'd fit in there, politically speaking, but I do agree that a lot of what DU is doing in the name of liberalism is counter to ideas that they claim to support (such as the civil liberty of free speech.) By any means, if I do, it'll be under Kuzaar, which I always use. By any means, good to hear from you about the CU's deletion issue. See you around, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are certainly welcome at CU, and anything you can do to get us undeleted would be greatly appreciated. (I already challenged the deletion once, to no avail.) There are quite a few left-leaning people on CU, some of them are even moderators. As long as people back up their arguments with a shred of fact, and they don't spit on our troops, liberals are not banned. Judging from your comments here, I would think you would fit right in, and even be welcomed by most, though a few crustier types will certainly give you a hard time. One of our major pastimes is documenting and commenting on the loonier and/or more treasonous things that get posted at Democratic Underground. I look forward to seeing you at CU.Crockspot 18:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Man, this moderator approval thing takes a long time. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Burch article

I thought you would have wanted his article deleted... He certinly fails WP:BIO and the article been subject to so much wasted energy. Infact, one of the most important parts of wikipedia... the ability to independently verify everything (with reliable sources) would make wrighting an artilce more then 1 paragraph nearly imposble.

And don't think I'm just some DU puppet. I'm closer to being a conservitive then anything else on 85% of the issues.(War in Iraq, taxes, govermental size, etc).

Please... lets keep the AFD nice, civil and clean. Please don't spam the CU forums with some kind of notice about the AFD. Keep or Delete, Out of the 5 AFDs realting to ben, I want -this- one to be the one that goes smoothly. ---J.S (t|c) 07:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben brings these things on himself, and he actually enjoys it. Yesterday, he stated on the DU Talk page "My dear, I've had a lot of serious fun lately. This is quick becoming my new hobby and my model railroad and the live steam locomotive building up in my workshop are gathering dust. I have to monitor the computers here in the studio at all hours from 11 AM through midnight, and so this fills in the time when things are working properly quite nicely."

I already voted Strong Keep on the BenBurch AfD.Crockspot 12:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basicly your voteing keep because he want's it gone? ---J.S (t|c) 15:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I actually think he is notable, regardless of my personal disgust for him.Crockspot 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You may not use external forums to organise disruption to Wikipedia. Just zis Guy you know? 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not organizing, as you can see I am the only person defending the KEEP of the Ben_Burch article. Crockspot 17:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding New Jersey cemetery deletions

I sympathise with your situation, but note that it's only the Lists that were deleted, not the actual articles on the cemetaries themselves. The articles on the cemetaries are still there. If you want to group these cemetaries together in some fashion, perhaps you can use categories to group them together instead of lists. If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know, I do want to help. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased that you have made progress with your quest. However, the fact that you were not aware of the List until you saw the AfD shows just what limited value these Lists have. As Deathphoenix points out, nothing has been lost since anyone wanting to know which cemetaries have articles simply needs to look at the Category. Regards, BlueValour 18:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sparing a user some embarassment on not knowing basic info on Clinton

I put the details on Clinton paying a fine to the court of Susan Webber Wright on that editor's talk page. patsw 16:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to the Democratic Underground page

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenBurch (talk • contribs) .

This is a disingenuous warning, posted by BenBurch, who I just warned about making bad faith edits to the Democratic Underground article, and reverted his edits. I welcome an investigation into this matter. I believe it will be found that BenBurch is the one being unconstructive. Crockspot 05:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this assessment of this warning. Please check BenBurch's talk page. Alphachimp ^talk 00:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to User talk:Ben Burch

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenBurch (talk • contribs) .

This warning was applied in bad faith. Please check BenBurch's talk page. Alphachimp ^talk 00:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of discussion from User talk:Ben Burch

PS, I have reverted your changes. Crockspot 05:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Crockpot, not in bad faith at all! I am just keeping in the spirit of the section. If it must remain, then it ought to be as complete as possible as this in an encyclopedia. BenBurch 05:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this dispute will not be settled between us. I suggest we take this to an arbitration/mediation proceeding. I believe I have sufficient evidence to prove that you are not acting in good faith, and that you have issued a serious warning on my talk page as retaliation.Crockspot 06:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to call for an RFC first, as that is the first step in this process and mediation is for disputes involving only two editors. This does not. And yes, I put a serious warning in there. I'm betting if I looked at your little nest over at CU, you folks have been coordinating strategy here simply against my edits, in total violation of policy. Or am I guessing wrong? You are acting in the very most partisan and disgusting bad faith yourself in attempting to WP:OWN an article about a message board you despise. And it CLEARLY is payback for the AfD of Conservative Underground. That is absolutely clear to anybody. Having said that, I am totally willing to compromise. The section stays. The DUFU link stays. But also the other EQUALLY related offshoots stay too. Or do you factually dispute any one of them? Deal with the facts here, not the personalities. I'd like to see your argument against each and every one of the links I posted. BenBurch 06:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would be wrong on the coordination issue, and on retaliation for the CU AfD. I let the CU thing go, and I have refrained from commenting about your edits on other sites after I was warned about it, even though there was no coordination, just commenting. How exactly does the Randi Rhodes site or the Mike Malloy site relate to DU, other than crossover membership? CU has crossover membership with DU, but we also have archived DU posts that have been deleted from DU, and cannot be found elsewhere. Our DU forum is the most active forum on the site. DUFU is a site that specifically lampoons DU. If crossover membership alone is a criteria, then a link to the Automobile Association of America would also be appropriate, no? I believe you are taking a serious stretch at this. Your motivations clearly seem to be to bolster your argument for removal of the offshoots section. That would meet the definition of bad faith. Add to that your threats on other sites to get your wiki admin friend to ban other editors. Please, take a step back and look objectively at what you are doing. You may be in danger of getting yourself banned. I honestly would not be happy to see that happen. I thing you have made some positive contributions to WP (as have I, to a lesser extent). Sometimes you can be quite reasonable, but other times, I wonder what is going on with you.Crockspot 06:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Malloy board and the Randi Rhodes board are all basically refugees from DU much as the NU and PI boards are. DU came first and people got disgusted and stopped posting there and moved to RR and MM. They are totally appropriate. I accept that the section has to stay, if for no other reason that you intend to WP:OWN it. Given that, these links I have added are the ones I would expect to be there were the section complete. They are all boards where DU members in the DU Diaspora wound up. They all exist in relation to DU in an auxillary fashion, DU being still the 500# gorilla in the Liberal/Progressive world. And they all RECRUIT from DU given the opportunity. And topics banned at DU land on those boards to get thrashed out. A good example would be the Andy Stephenson affair which wound up largely on Malloy's board when DU would have none of it. Do I think this section ought to exist at all? Nope. But pragmatically, I cannot revert it forever given that you have organized to outnumber me. So I intend to make sure it at least lives up to what it ought to be. Unless you intend to extend your WP:OWNership to that as well. BenBurch 06:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another frivolous warning. Consider the source. I have replied to you on your talk page. I don't think your "crossover membership" justification for your additions are sufficient. I assumed good faith until you provided the evidence that you are NOT acting in good faith. (see edit summaries for Democratic Underground. I think you should remove this second warning, if you have the authority.Crockspot 06:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Hi. You have breached the WP:3RR policy (please review it carefuly). Please do not revert the article for at least 24 hours. Breaches of 3RR are subject to blocks, however, I'm inclined to go with a warning as this appears to be your first such breach. Thx. El_C 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to the rule page, I could not find it before. It is my belief that I was reverting vandalism, as my edits were justified in the discussion page, and improved the page with additional sourcing. Anon users were undoing my edits repeatedly, without any justification on the discussion page. Is that not simple vandalism? Am I allowed to make constructive edits to the page? Since the scamdy link seems to inflame people, I was going to go ahead and source specific passages in the article with imbedded links. I will copy this to your talk page also. Crockspot 21:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested page

I have created a sub page via you user page with the deleted piece - be careful what you do with it! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Lucas

A general guide to what makes a stub can be found at WP:STUB. My own opinion is that this article should stay a stub for now, because most of the article is made up of the citation, with only a paragraph or so of biographical information. Of course, it's up to you. I've also made a couple minor formatting changes to help bring it inline with WP:MOS. Feel free to keep working on it or change anything I've done. Have a great day and happy editing! Amalas =^_^= 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Regarding a CSD A7 deletion

Crockspot wrote:

I created a page for Andre Lucas today, and noticed in the logs that you had done a previous CSD A7 deletion on an article of the same name just a few weeks ago. Is there a problem with Lucas as a subject, or was it just a crappy article? Or maybe an article about a completely different person... (Lucas was the commanding officer of the last major battle fought by the US in Vietnam, in which he was KIA, awarded the CMOH, has a school named after him, is a major player in at least two history books, as well as mentions in other publications and television history segments). Crockspot 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, there's nothing wrong with this person as a subject. The previous article with this name made no assertion of notability and was possibly a copyright violation as well (read as though it had been copy-pasted from somewhere). Anyway, it was definitely not the same person, more likely a vanity article created by someone who happened to have the same name. Your current article is fine – Gurch 19:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sheeler

"Call me slow, but I finally figured out that your concern is that he is not really a member of DU. There is a user CarlSheeler4U who claims to be Carl, and all of his posts are consistent with Carl Sheeler's campaign statements. I added a link to the user's profile (which can only be viewed while logged in), and to one of his posts (which are viewable by anyone). There is nothing inconsistent with Carl's views and the views expressed by the majority of DU members. I still don't know how it makes him "look bad". DU seems to be a part of his base. If you would like to discuss this further, please come to the DU talk page, where there is a section heading for Carl Sheeler to discuss your edits.Crockspot 04:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)"

Well I want Mr. Sheeler to win and the Republicans would love to smear the man by tying him to moonbat activity which does take place (alone with normal stuff) on DU. 75.7.152.96 19:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BenBurch spoke with Carl during his live blog at DailyKos, and confirmed that the CarlSheeler4U on DU is really him. Crockspot 20:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Member count code

When you get it, please email it to benburch AT pobox DOT com. Thanks so much. BenBurch 04:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"vandalism"

An editorial dispute is not vandalism and it is not appropriate for you to describe it or the actions of other editors as such. Please see Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. Gamaliel 19:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gamaliel 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using phrases like "you have your head stuck up a dark hole" in reference to other editors is a violation of Wikipedia policies regarding user conduct. If you continue to violate these policies by continuing to conduct yourself in this manner, you will find these policies enforced by means of a block. In regards to the specific edits in question, a content dispute is not vandalism, regardless of whatever compromise has been previously negotiated with other editors. Such a previous compromise does not prohibit other editors from disagreeing and making their own edits. The sources you have provided to cite your claim do not qualify under WP:RS regardless of results of this negotiated compromise. Gamaliel 20:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you for not reporting me for a violation I didn't committ! How gracious of you.

I haven't suppressed anything except some nonsense you're trying to cram into the article by insulting anyone who gets in your way. You can't be bothered to do research and come up with a reliable source that is in accord with Wikipedia rules because you're too busy barking at people. I predict a short future for you on Wikipedia if you keep this up. Good luck. Gamaliel 00:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same utter nonsense

I was reading the talk page on WP:RS and I noticed you're dealing with the same utter nonsense I've been dealing with at The Guardian... on the same day. What are the chances? Contrary to what was stated by other users on the talk page, you did not misuse the term "reverting vandalism" and you correctly followed WP:VAND. Ignore users who tell you differently, they dont know what they're talking about. If you continue to be harassed, contact me in the coming days and I will try and support you. Happy editing, Tchadienne

AMA_request

Brief: I am involved in a dispute with an admin, Gamaliel, over the sourcing and compliance of Jeff Gannon, a biography of a living person. The article asserts that Gannon is a male prostitute, and is categorized as such. The sources, however, fail to meet the extra stringent sourcing criteria of WP:BLP, being editorials and political pieces that fail to provide any real proof that Gannon is indeed a prostitute. Gannon has made no public admissions of being a prostitute, nor has he ever been arrested, charged, or convicted of prostitution. There are several other articles, for example, List of famous prostitutes and courtesans, which also make this allegation. In the example case, there is no sourcing at all, simply a wikilink back to Jeff Gannon, which the admin in question asserts is good enough sourcing. I have removed these statements several times, citing WP:BLP, only to have my edits reverted by the admin in question. I have attempted to discuss the issues with this admin, but he/she will only address what they percieve to be attacks made by me. No fruitful discussion seems possible. I have had political disagreements with this person before, but that does not bother me. This particular conflict, however, is a liability issue for Wikipedia. (read full description) -- Crockspot 18:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (originally posted to ama requests) Crockspot 14:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Fred-Chess and I'll be advocating you in the case Jeff Gannon and List of famous prostitutes and courtesans. You're supposed to write a section in your talk page called "AMA_request" with a full description of the problem.

But anyways, I'll look around.

Fred-Chess 08:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found these quotes:

In the interview, Gannon did not dispute evidence that he has advertised himself as a $200-an-hour gay escort but would not specifically address such questions. [1]

And

It was soon revealed. "Gannon" owned and advertised his services as a gay escort on more than half a dozen websites with names like Militarystud.com, MaleCorps.com, WorkingBoys.net and MeetLocalMen.com, which featured dozens of photographs of "Gannon" in dramatic naked poses. [2]

But I can't find any concrete evidence that he had ever engaged in male prostitution.

Fred-Chess 08:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fred. I pretty well gave a full description in the "brief" description anyway. You are onto what set me off about this, namely, that there is no concrete evidence presented that would allow Gannon to be categorized as a prostitute on Wikipedia. All of the "reliable" sources are mainly editorials written by people who can arguably be called biased, and they present no concrete evidence. Some of the other sources are blogs, which are not reliable sources in general, particularly when dealing with negative info on living persons. If you check "what links here" from Jeff Gannon, (also look at the cats for the Gannon article), you'll find a few other choice articles, such as Self loathing, Self-hatred, List of famous prostitutes and courtesans, which I also believe are non-compliant with WP:BLP. I appreciate your taking this up for me. There is a little bit of discussion on Gamaliel's talk page from yesterday, as well as discussions on the article talk pages in question. For me, the issue is simple: BLP is being violated, and my efforts to bring articles into compliance is meeting resistance from an admin. I will change this header title, and copy over my text to the top. Crockspot 14:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a process development in the last day, and I would like your input. In a small part due to my own pressure, a new noticeboard has just been created. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. This is not an admin-only noticeboard, and since I feel pretty comfortable with my grasp of WP:BLP, and I am generally not too gunshy about jumping into a fray, I plan to watch this board, and help out other editors with the same problems I am having. Do you think I should go ahead and list this issue on the notice board there? Would doing so preclude my getting help from you? Would it be appropriate to comment on your own findings there if I do list it? Crockspot 20:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about another issue: Isn't prostitution a federal offense? According to WP:BLP, special care should be taken into labelling someone as guilty of criminal acts until he has been convicted of a crime.

You can list this at the notice board, no problem. You may also copy and paste any of my comments, as long as you link back to the page I wrote it.

As an advocate, I will not involve in talk page discussions, unless you specifically ask me to. But I have read all the discussions you mentioned.

Fred-Chess 08:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a federal offence, but it is a crime in almost every state. (Legal in the state of Nevada, outside of the city of Las Vegas.) Crockspot 11:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted the case on the noticeboard. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jeff Gannon and articles linked to it Crockspot 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of Crockpot, I would like to point out edits to Kyra_Phillips where Gamaliel actively restored biased and disputed material removed per WP:BLP. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kyra_Phillips&offset=20060831061748&action=history . This is establishes a pattern of behavior and poor understanding of WP:BLP and WP:RS. Electrawn 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of Gamaliel (OMG), I don't think that he fully understands the current BLP policies. Repeatedly reinserting info contrary to BLP is a blockable offense, but I truly believe that Gamaliel was making those edits in good faith. My goal here is to get him on the same page with the policy, so that I may continue bringing articles into compliance with the policy without constant resistance from him. Crockspot 12:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about good faith, however, as Gamaliel is an administrator, just as we have to hold BLP articles to a higher standard, we have to hold administrators to a higher standard as well. This contention is for discussion amongst the administrator circle. Electrawn 16:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

Pleasure to meet you. If you ever need any help, let me know. Looks like your particular focus is on BLP -- mine is on RS and OR, particularly where they apply to conspiracy theory articles. I see that you've also had your run-ins with Gamaliel -- he monitors all of my contributions, so he will see this posting -- Hi Gama! He stalks my edits, and votes in every Afd that I am a party to, but he's sloppy, as he doesn't vote in many others (he will now after seeing this post!). See you around! Morton devonshire 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From said page:

I would hope that other editors would have the same objectivity and desire to bolster the credibility of the project. Conservatives in general see Wikipedia as a joke without credibility, in large part because of rampant violations of this type. They will not even participate here, because they feel that the deck is stacked against them. I would like to change that perception, and make Wikipedia a resource that anyone would feel good about using. Crockspot 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

BLP is being used as an excuse for deleting well-sourced criticism, but abuse of BLP is only a small part of a bigger problem. The deck *is* stacked: you would like to change that perception. When/where/how do we start doing something about it? Sandy 19:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of something along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias or Wikipedia:Esperanza, rather than something at the admin level. IMO, it's the single largest systemic bias problem affecting Wiki, too many users quickly become disillusioned, and there must be a formalized way of addressing something that isn't even mentioned on the Countering systemic bias page and an area in which editors need support. The numbers are staggeringly out of whack, making it impossible to NPOV some articles. It occurs to me because, this week, I became aware of two editors that apparently resorted to sock puppetry and became alienated from Wiki: there must be more that can be done to raise awareness of the severity and disproportion of the bias, and support those that are at risk of alienation. Sandy 00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Foy, Belgium; Kompanie 1; Basil L. Plumley; U.S. 371st Infantry Regiment; Ontario Student Assistance Program; Brent Bozell; Randall Wallace; Shawn Desman; Slow glass; We Were Soldiers; Invasion U.S.A. (1985 film); WCWM; The White Rose Society (website); Jay Marvin; Super low frequency; A Shau Valley; Byron York; 508th Infantry Regiment; 513th Parachute Infantry Regiment

Cleanup: Heterophobia; German 916th Grenadier Regiment; Voter suppression
Merge: Global Justice Movement; Transsylvania Phoenix; Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation
Add Sources: Gary Null; Dextromethorphan; Saturday night massacre
Wikify: Samuel G. Fuqua; Mexican Revolution; Pop Clips
Expand: Age of Revolution; Operation Varsity; Reuters

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close advocacy case

Hi. You seem to be doing OK with your edits. I hope you have had some benefit from my advocacy. Not sure if I can be of any more assistance to you? If so, contact me.

Otherwise, I will now close the case listed on Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests.

Fred-Chess 21:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz

Thanks for dropping by. I had already deleted the article and all its talk pages, so it's hard to see what the problems were. We have a couple of editors who are sore at Ms Schwarz. That poses a hazard. Ms Schwarz would prefer no article. Fred Bauder 23:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crockspot. When you get a chance, can you take another look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barbara Schwarz. I really believe Orsini is using extrapolation (original research) to forward a negative POV in discussion about Barbara Schwarz. Some of Orsini's comments seem to be based extrapolation/interpretation of sources and an anti-scientology POV. --HResearcher 11:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm getting pretty apathetic about that article. Moonbattery on both sides. I still think the thing should be deleted, so not really interested in wading into the quagmire to improve the article. Crockspot 16:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gannon

I made a comment at the BLP noticeboard. I hope I got all your concerns right! Fred-Chess 20:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you nailed the bedrock issues. Thank you. Crockspot 20:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to move on

Hi Crockspot. I suggest that you, before reporting to WP:OFFICE, make use of the WP:RFC facility. In my view, the best method is to request a comment on the article Jeff Gannon, and post it in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. Read the instructions on WP:RFC carefully. / Fred-Chess 21:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, to write that Jeff Gannon is a prostitute is not libellous in a legal sense, which is why I do not believe you will get the attention of the WP:OFFICE. Alas, I have no experience of Office Actions, but I do believe they were created for clear cut libellous claims taken out of the blue. Jeff Gannon's alleged prostitution is -- in my opinion -- not such a case.

Fred-Chess 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably good advice, unfortunately, I already left a message on Dannyisme's talk page. I do see this as a clear case, in that, he is being called and classified as having committed a crime of moral turpitude, without any evidence that he ever engaged in that crime. There are also implications for the treatment of other articles, so I hope that Danny will at least give us an opinion or some other guidance. Gamaliel and I are going to have to work together on the WP:BLPN, and it would be better if we all were in the same chapter, if not on the same page. Crockspot 23:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot . . .

. . . to tell you about this. Thought you might be interested. Cheers and happy editing! Morton devonshire 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were right

Just read your comments on the George Allen talk page. What a double standard. Funny how the "party of tolerance" rarely has any!... Best of luck Dubc0724 15:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Would you please look at my proposal re 911tRtT? Thanks,  Xiutwel (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts

I like them in general, not just for BLP, as I think that, done properly (i.e. short and sweet), they are very helpful for someone in a rush who wants just the main summary points of a policy/guideline. Yes, you can get most of that from a quick read, especially the intro, but I think the graphic effect of having that crispy template helps quick appreciation and retension of the important facts. Crum375 23:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to revert now, if you so wish (I fixed the broken nut template). Thanks, Crum375 00:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with the page for Ray Comfort

~~It's been majorly f'ed with for a while. I'm going to start rv'ing some of the edits, but I'd like some help. Thanks. Jinxmchue 18:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Er... Nevermind. It wasn't as bad as I initially thought. Jinxmchue 18:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mancs - hey, no kicking the dog!

Hey CS,

I saw your note on the Mancs afd nomination -- you're dead right that the pro-pup editors shouldn't be personalizing the debate. However, if you would accept a good faith suggestion, I think your vote to delete or keep should be grounded in the merits of the article, not on the tactics employed by the various sides. (I'm not saying don't recommend deletion, but if you do, it would be more helpful to explain why you think the article meets WP's criteria for deletion).

Thanks -- I've enjoyed your edits, and look forward to seeing you around, TheronJ 18:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that "just because I can" was a clear enough reason. Sometimes, you just have to kick the hive, and hope that your bee suit doesn't have any gaping holes. I doubt my vote will sway the outcome anyway. Crockspot 18:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Malkin

Thanks for your help on the Michelle Malkin photo. --Metropolitan90 04:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for you kind comments on WP:AN/I; sadly, this sort of admin hive attack is driving more and more users away from Wikipedia. I was actually thinking about going for an RfA myself soon, but now, purely because I asked for a check of an obvious vandal, it's almost certain my nomination would never pass, and yet the user that attacked me could probably get a 150/2/0. Under that kind of atmosphere, why would anyone want to stick around? (You don't need to answer; it's just a rhetorical question. I did want to thank you though for actually noticing what was going on there.) --Aaron 20:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]