User talk:Crzrussian/Archive 17

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Eleven people recommended a merge for this article. It seems like a pretty clear consensus to me.... --Hetar 05:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is unanimity [1]. It's a general agreement, arguably a more strict criterion than "majority" decision-making. I suppose it's unrealistic to think it needs to be all-inclusive. We do, after all, want to maintain our relationships. On merging, it appears we don't have general agreement on that issue yet, much less whether it should be renamed or how it could be expanded, all discussion points evidenced by comments in the past 48 hours on the article's talk page.

On a related note, the reason I came to this page was to ask Crzrussian a question: What is the Jewish theological perspective of animals in the grand scheme of things? In relation to humanity? Cheers. Piewalker 17:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on P's talk. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you word the outcome as "not delete" rather than "no consensus"? That seems most irregular. wikipediatrix 21:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prog: The Movie

Just wondering if i get a reason as to why the entry was deleted?

Is it because the entry wasn't complete enough?

Shade471

Was it deleted because the entry was though to be promoting a product??

There were 150 copies printed over 15 years ago, all sold in a few days, no more printed, no more able to be printed.. does that help?

Shade471 06:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)shade471[reply]

Hi

Thanks for the welcome.

--Yunipo 13:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation notices

Thanks for that little note you left on my talk page. I shall do the needful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by nkv (talk • contribs) .

Hey Crazy Russian

good to see you do Cardozo too

How was your interhsip going? Going to take the offer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bona Fides (talk • contribs) .

Sorry about that!

I'm sorry about David Julian Gray - I skimmed it way too fast, and I kind of expected to see a vanity page. I'll remember your advice in future. Thank you! Ruaraidh-dobson 18:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Wasn't that your job, as the closing administrator, to implement the consensus reached? Or are you just too lazy to do that? --Hetar 04:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crzrussian!

I'm curious as to why you deleted the article I posted entitled "Jay Horowitz". NYC political history is a hobby of mine I plan on posting articles on many notable local politicians. Was the article not complete enough? (Should I not continue with writing articles on other notable local political figures?)

Best, -John

Thanks from Yanksox

Hey, Crzrussian/Archive 17, thanks for supporting my RfA, with a tally of 104/4/7...

I am now an admin!!!

I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yank sox 07:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dawg! Theft is a high form of flattery. Yank sox 07:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

getID3 question

Hello. I am new to wroting wikipedia articles.

I do not understand your concern, marking my article on getid3 for deletion. It says

nn, advertising

What does nn mean? Noname?

The word, advertising, I understand. But I fail to see how my article should be that much different from PHP, iconv or zlib.

Is there anything I can do to improve it?

Userboxen

I'm a little crazy

This user helped nominate Yanksox for adminship. Yeah, they know, pick a number and wait in line.

virtex

Virtex is a fpga made by xilinx it's THE fpga right now you cant just ignore it

Maiden_of_Ludmir

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maiden_of_Ludmir

Crazy Russian, can you please close the vote? i believe there is not a single nay (original AfD withdrawn.) shovua tov.JJ211219 05:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historian3

If will look at the logs, and check the Sanhedrin Talk page, you will see that I am acting in good faith. My only reason to create Historian3 was to contact you, not to bypass the block and perform further edits. Please consider removing the block on Historian3 or deleting the account Historian2

Nice Catch

I've nominated a ton on that criteria. Quite a few have also been page protected. I entirely had no idea...nice catch crz =). alphaChimp ^laudare 14:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defatting

Thanks for the message about defatting, which made me revisit it. The first sentence did actually make sense (I still think the rest is nonsense), so your CSD decline & request for expert attention was correct. Anyway, I've made an entry for it's action on the skin. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 14:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My successful RfA

Thank you for your support, albeit weak. I hope that my recent and future actions regarding that section of the Garfield article strenghthen rather than weaken your support of my being an admin. If I ever do anything that makes you regret supporting me please let me know such that I may address your concern. Referencing Lar's question, I do feel that admin accountability is important and am willing to give up my sysop tools if asked by active members of the community, although I can't currently get more specific.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

Hi Czr, just a number of assorted and wholly unconected points:

In the Rav Feinstein article, "Arntsishaw" could well be "Amstislav" but I can assure you that it is not a typo. It is an exact copy of a word used in an encyclopedic article on Rav Feinstein I looked up (offline). Hence, A)they may not be the same place B)the encyclopedia could have mispelled it (unlikely) C)the encyclopedia was using a far less common term, perhaps outdated or one used foolishly by foreigners (more likely)
Thanks for showing me your proposed ORBCW former template. Sorry to say this, but I much prefer the current template. I think it adds a touch of uniqueness, class, boldness and really is head and shoulders over the far more common, dreary and monotonous templates that clog up the page and "are in your face", so to speak
We really have to come to a decision about this week's collaboration - Rav Frank or not?

Finally, I'll be off wikipedia for a fair number of weeks starting this week. Could you, or any other wikipedian you feel fit for the job, be so kind enough as to handle the weekly collab? I'm sure you know how to by now - you've already done it once - all it involves is cutting the OracoCu template from the last collab, replacing that with ORBCW former, and adding the current template to the new collab. It also involves cutting the current collab off the front page and pasting it into the /History (previous collabs) page, with a few minor tweaks. If you can't do it, please let me know ASAP. With many thanks and Kol Tuv, Nesher 19:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boruch Hashem, I'm fine! Just taking a vacation... Nesher 19:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Har Hamenuchos is fine - but I'd much rather dropping Rav Frank as the collaboration (but still editing him on the side for what needs to be done) since his article is not so clearly advanced - check it out. Many thanks, Nesher 19:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice requested

Wanted a second opinion on something from an admin, and I've always thought you were a swell guy. I am mediating a case right now involving Rainbow Gathering, where editors are edit-warring over having information listed in the article. The two editors are Bstone and Lookingheart, who doesn't log in to make edits unless I have the page semi-protected. As you can see from the page history, they seem to be very carefully avoiding 3RR violations, since I warned them about it a couple of weeks ago. They are, though, essentially reverting each other over and over. They are both participating in the mediation, but obviously carrying on their revert war in the mean time. Is there anything I can do to sort of shock them into behaving? Sounds a little crude, perhaps, but they need a message that their edit warring is completely disruptive to the mediation process. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, and in answer to your request: absolutely. I will review everything tonight and respond tomorrow morning. As a side note, I have read the article and find it very interesting; I am compelled to start reading related subject matter :) --Aguerriero (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Rainbow Gathering - still discussing, but it appears that Dante420 is a sockpuppet of Lookingheart. The account was created an immediately jumped into the discussion on the side of Lookingheart, and signed his post using the exact same style Lookingheart does (appears to use four tildes and then types his username afterward). I believe this is considered an illegal use of a sockpuppet. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey'a! Thanks to the both of you for helping with the mediation. Dont count it out and over just yet as Rainbow's usually pull together in time. I intend to try and help keep the energy in a kind mode and work with OceanKat to get some kind of an agreement. BTW: Dante IS a friend of mine though he does have his own opinion of things. I showed him how to set up an account however he can speak for himself much the same as I can for myself. Dante, Twofeathers and I all live here in the same area and know eachother. I do believe Oceankat and Bstone are also friends. 5 of us have had a counsel here in Springfield and intend to take the issue to a larger rainbow counsel circle to get more clarification on the subject matter. As was noted in the conversation by OceanKat, he acknowledges our individual rights to coexsist and that our gatherings and counsels are valid. Will work on the notability part (there are newspaper articles locally and much has been written by other people concerning the issue over the years) Anyhoo, thanks for at least trying over there, shine!!! P.S. Please pass this on to Aguerriero as I am not sure how to send/email on his user site just yet, still kinda new here, thanks. Lookingheart 07:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

A WikiProject Proposal...

I noticed that you were a part of the now inactive WikiProject covering orthodox Judaism. I'm wondering if you'd be interested in a new project I'm thinking over that would specifically expand wikipedia's information on mitzvot in detail. What I'm thinking over is that each mitzvah holds enough depth to be an article on its own, and as I just finished writing an article on viddui I noticed that the amount of information on fundamental concepts of Judaism is sorely lacking (as a test I tried to find information on topics such as shacharit and was very dissapointed). If you'd be interested please feel free to leave me a message! תזכו למצוות!--RShnike 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another advertisement page

I was wondering if you think the Get a Mac page should be deleted, just as the José + 10 page. -- Jeff3000 02:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the lack of response, can I assume that you wouldn't mind if I ask that the José + 10 page be reinserted? -- Jeff3000 19:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Bot

Thanks for the notification. Per my talk page message on WT:RFA, I can't fix it right now (I'm a little busy), but I'll be thinking about it later. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 03:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bafendo not notable?

This is Bryce Frier and I want to know what you mean by my article is not notable enough! I've just begun my article and I plan on improving it and adding more to it. I've seen other articles and I know what they are suppossed to look like. I will make it better. And I want to share the history of my company with whomever may hear about my company and want to lean about it. Please give me a chance to improve it and make it worthy. Please... Please.

Complementarity

Hi. I wonder if we can reach an agreement on this topic. I have economic literature that uses complementarity in the sense of network effects. I suppose you have literature which refers to it as the phenomenon of complement goods, though I am not familiar with that use. Should we make a disambiguation page, then?--Ezadarque 12:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my talk page

I'm not blocked it seems but can't edit my talk page? HappyVR 13:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wickethewok's RFA

Thanks for your support on my RFA. The final vote count was (61/9/3), so I am now an administrator. Feel free to let me know how I'm doing at any point in time or if you need anything. Once again, thank you. Wickethewok 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 31st


Volume 2, Issue 31	31 July 2006	About the Signpost

Onion riff prompts some to cry for change	Professors criticize, praise Wikipedia in listserv discussions
Wikimania last-minute information	Report from the Polish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Elephant:

You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 05:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Office

User:Tarshish is posting the same stuff as Holy Embassy / The Office etc. Saw you blocked HE, so quickest just to let you know? Cheers --Clappingsimon talk 13:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found WP:AIV. Cheers --Clappingsimon talk 13:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Light and Elephants

I had to laugh at the bot entry above, as I watched Colbert Report last night and wondered if someone had quickly protected the poor defenseless elephant page. :)

Let me start by saying I am new to Wikipedia, so please be patient with me, Originally I created a short stub on the band dancing Light. It was deleted. I felt wrongly so and then read the following in your guidelines:

"if you believe you can write a non-trivial non-stub article on the subject, you should be bold and write it, rather than request the stub for undeletion."

So I recreated a longer article, after which it was promptly deleted by KimvdLinde. So wanting to be courteous, I left a message on her talk page before heading over to deletion review, which I have not done yet. Please see my comment on her talk page. User talk:KimvdLinde

Hadn't heard back from Kim, checked her talk page, where she has left a note saying she is no longer active in Wikipedia.

So I was going to submit this to deletion review when I saw that you had also added something after Kim, which made me think maybe you can help us sort this out.

Thank you for helping me and thanks also from the family of Elephantidae, whom I believe do not have their own Wiki user ID, but am certain if they did would be sending a big wet spray of thanks and bag of peanuts your way. Matotanka 13:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Tse

I wonder.......... -Wilfred Pau 15:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your obedience and complying to the request, much appreciated.-Wilfred Pau 04:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You User Page

What happened to your Userpage? It just redirects to your Talk page. But my real main question is: Did you learn in the Yeshiva in Passaic? --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 22:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at Dancing Light

That article was deleted per an AfD and protected against re-creation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing Light. Why was it re-created and protected with no discussion? --John Nagle 00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Yes==

Hi, thanks! See here for the Onlysimchas post. IY"H I'm the chassunah will be at the end of november. --Daniel575 01:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the ~~~~ thing.... I haven't been on forums for a long time (mainly Wikipedia, MSN Messenger, email and reading the news), now I'm back on a forum and I keep on writing in Wiki-format... Very annoying. Thanks! --Daniel575 02:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improper deletion of article on Aquygen

The article on Aquygen or HHO Gas did not meet any of the General criteria as outlined in the Official Wikipedia Criteria for speedy deletion. Yet is was deleted within 10 minutes of being posted dispite giving a HoldOn request which is designed to provide editors with the ability to provide an explaination of why their article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Within 5 minutes of posting the Holdon Request, as I was writing the said explaination, the article was improperly deleted without having been given a chance for administrators to review the said explaination.

The prior article on Aquygen was deleted against official Wikipedia policy also, as the policy clearly states the following: in Articles for Deletion (AFD) "A five-day public debate and discussion on the merits of the article and its best treatment. Applicable to all articles where deletion is unsure, seriously contested, or may need debate, and all borderline or controversial cases." This 5 day public debate was not conducted and the article was deleted prior to recieving a full and proper debate. The new article written on the topic of "Aquygen" does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion for reasons given in the talk page of "Aquygen".

The official deletion policy of wikipedia also states the following:

Abuse of deletion process

"The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship. XfD processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept."

This seems to have been the case with this article, having found no reason to delete the article other than their disagreement with the scientific research. This is in no way in line with the given reasons for deletion per the official wikipedia articles for deletion (AFD). Which constitutes an abuse of the deletion process.

The official policy also states:

"A deletion debate is not a popular vote, but a way of obtaining editors' views as to whether an article meets policy guidelines or not, so these kind of activities don't achieve much."

Early closure "If the proposed solution has not achieved a very clear consensus, the listing should remain for the full five-day period. Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea."

The article did not have "very clear concensus", and was deleted within 24 hours of being posted without proper review and comment. I feel that this constitutes an abuse of the deletion process, and therefore violates the official wikipedia guidelines for deletion.

I would hope that since you were the one who deleted the article, that you would review the policy, review the talk page listed on "aquygen" and also consult the prior article to see if its content violates ANY of the known policies and guidelines of wikipedia. If you do not have access to the information I have a copy of the text and the formatting which I can provide. Thank You!

boyohio02 06:02 2 August, 2006 (UTC)