User talk:Crockspot/Archive 03

• Talk page Archive 01 - 2006-05-08 to 2006-10-03
• Talk page Archive 02 - 2006-10-03 to 2007-04-29

---

I reserve the right to remove anything from my user space that I perceive as trolling, inappropriate or retaliatory warnings from troublemakers, or anything else I just don't want here. If you're here just to rag on me because of my politics, I suggest you examine your own politics, and compare our edit histories before you start lodging accusations. If I obstructed you from adding some unsourced BS to an article, it's because it violates WP policy. Everybody has to believe in something, and there is no crime in being liberal or conservative, nor in disclosing that political orientation. I try to edit fairly and neutrally, especially so when responding to BLP notices. - Crockspot 00:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is legitimate enough for you to consider... Regarding your edit here: Hipocrite put the suspected sockpuppet template on the user page [1], but as of now, the Babaloo account isn't banned or even blocked [2]. I tend to agree with Hipocrite, but I suggest filing on WP:SSP before unilaterally removing his edits as that of a banned sockpuppet. —AldeBaer 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake, I thought that he was indef banned. Self-reverted. - Crockspot 16:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your situation is of no likely impact to you...can't see any reason to believe that any sanctions are coming your way. I would just keep it short and to the point...but you already know that!--MONGO 04:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At what point are you going to be interested in being an admin?--MONGO 09:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'm pretty much there. Do you think I have a decent chance? - Crockspot 12:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only if we call out the secret chimps.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let the arbcom thing end...I need to look that over...you're bascially a witness to the events, right?--MONGO 05:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Basically, yeah. Maybe more of an "expert witness". Crockspot 14:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put some insight into your question on my talkpage...not sure it helps you any...what you have for the case is fine.[3]--MONGO 17:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are only a bit involved, I'd wait to see what others have to present as evidence,. I haven't been watching the case mucgh, so not sure all the issues...but seems that no one has posted any evidence yet. Maybe all you'll have to do is either agree with the evidence presented, or rebut it with counter evidence.--MONGO 06:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not. But come on, inserting [may] and [allegedly] into a quotation. As far as what I see of your dispute resolution, you appear to be catering to a very, very POV editor because, as you already stated, you agree with his beliefs. He has violated NPOV on this article for a long time, and is basically a single-purpose account. The best way to resolve this situation would be to block him. I'm sorry but that's what I think. But I'm sorry I cursed. --Tractorkingsfan 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen square brackets inserted into quotations regularly on Wikipedia, usually it is to clarify a "he" or "she" to a proper name, rather than to insert a view, so yes, you were proper to revert that edit, but it's not the crime of the century to insert square bracketed content into a quote to clarify. As for my POV, I am no more POV than Gamaliel. We are all biased to some extent or another. I just happen to not be afraid to disclose my underlying bias, while working toward neutrality. The other editor is POV, but he does have some valid concerns, similar to concerns I've had about that article for quite some time. I'm trying to help him become a "good" editor, he reminds me of myself a year ago. It doesn't seem to be sinking in yet though. - Crockspot 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but "he" or "she" is quite a bit different. No, it's not the crime of the century, and yes, I overreacted. Unfortunately, I have heavy doubts that this editor is going to be good. Of his 100 some odd contributions, I'd say roughly 80 are to this article, the rest are to various user talk and talk pages regarding this article, in which he is relentlessly inflammatory and, to be frank, very dishonest and evasive when confronted with the inconsistencies in his statements. The other couple of contributions I left out were to insert libel into Hillary Rodham Clinton. What he is doing is being disruptive to prove a point, over and over again, for his entire editing career. So I don't really take him seriously, and I'm surprised that you are. I haven't been that involved in this dispute, but I revert obviously POV edits all the time and chime in on the talk page, so I know more or less what's going on. At some point I saw you swoop in and start, I guess mediating, and I think that to a certain extent you have ignored this individual's history and are giving the minor points he occassionally makes far too much credence and importance. This is a bit wordy, but it's what I think about the situation. I appreciate your goals though, as I understand them. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my further comments on the article talk page. Maybe you'll understand better. My early edit history was not unlike this editor's, and I turned out pretty good. The jury is still out, but it can't hurt to try to help a newbie along. - Crockspot 18:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's working, Crockspot. Having done a lot of research on the Jeff Gannon issue, I became very angry at the lies and smearing going on against him. So, I was extremely frustrated with the very obvious POV in the Jeff Gannon article. But, I let my anger override my good sense. I guess I felt that my POV editing was justified to offset the POV from the liberal left. Anyway, I am trying to become a good editor. I am no dummy. I probably should not admit this here, but I am a school teacher, and am very well informed. Also, Tractorkingsfan, I did not see your comments/question to me from a month or two back, until recently. By then, it was old, so I didn't go ahead and respond. But I really was not ignoring you, nor trying to be dishonest. Contrary to your current opinion of me, I really am very honest. Sdth 03:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't let it consume you. That article has been a bone of contention for a long time, and it probably always will be, but it's a lot better than it used to be. There are more conservative-minded editors around than there were in the past, so conservative subjects in general get fairer treatment than they have. Gannon just happens to be an easy target, and there's a lot of reliable sourcing to nail him with. I think that Gamaliel's main concern is that the article is not turned into a "whitewash". He's of a certain political leaning, so it's only natural that he's going to pay a little more attention to the things he cares about. That's fine. I wouldn't say that he's any more biased than I am. He's a good editor, and I've never known him to be unfair as an admin. He doesn't have a very high threshold for aggression though. So just keep your discussion focused on the content, don't get too emotionally invested, and you should be fine. - Crockspot 04:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement and advice. I used to be really hot-headed. I have actually improved, believe it or not! LOL I guess it's easier to let your righteous indignation get the best of you in the online anonymity, than it is face-to-face. I've dealt with liberals as co-workers for most of my adult life, and over the past several years, have learned a lot about getting along with them face-to-face. I'm embarrassed that I let my anger and frustration get the best of me in an online situation. 70.251.162.103 14:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(back to the margin) I'm working on the Gannon sourcing in my sandbox. There are still some older sources that I want to locate and add to that list, then I'm going to mark the ones that are already cited or listed in the article, put them all in chronological order, and post them to the gannon talk page. As you can see from my last edit of the article, even the old sources that are already cited can yield some new inclusions. The Kincaid article itself is listed, but I chose to use the quote of it from the WaPo article as the source, because it shows that it is a notable enough opinion to be quoted by a reliable secondary source, and it's a short entry (one sentence), so no one can attack it as giving undue weight to a minority opinion. If I had tried to include a lot more information from the Kincaid article directly, it probably wouldn't fly with some editors. I didn't do any editorializing, just reported the facts, and attributed it in a way that makes it clear that it is a "conservative" opinion. I don't think anyone can make a good argument for reverting me. Crockspot 00:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about unintentional changes. My intent was to take just the paragraph regarding the Vitter Amendment from version 129593527 of 18:52, 9 May 2007 by 128.63.16.15, replace existing the two-paragraph rant on the subject with that older NPOV paragraph. Unfortunately, evidently I was editing the very next version, version 129653862 of 22:12, 9 May 2007 by 76.172.150.213, which introduced those two POV paragraphs in the first place. My intent was to revert just those two paragraphs, but because I was editing the version that introduced them, instead of the latest version, effectively I reverted the entire article. Again, sorry, and I'll be more careful in the future. Anomalocaris 18:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with 9/11 conspiracy nutcases? They seem to be totally inoculated against facts, and even uncontrovertible ones. Given the choice between an official NTSB accident report and a bad newspaper article they choose to believe the newspaper had it right. GOD I hate being associated with these idiots!

Thanks. I needed to rant, and I knew you'd understand.

--BenBurch 04:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Have you seen this?: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 2. They try to make a run at MONGO, but get beaten back fairly handily. - Crockspot 14:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good for Mongo. You know, I love the people on DW, but I would be happy if the CTers would just join the damned Green Party and stop claiming they represent Democrats. Grrrr. I've been giving them FACTS, and every one of them gets denied as disinformation. You know I had predicted 9/11 (the attack mode) back in June of 2001 on the Mike Malloy show. We were discussing the Ballistic Missile Defense and I said that a ballistic missile is SUCH a hard problem to solve that there was no credible terrorist missile threat. What WOULD be effective would be if they stole an airliner and crashed it into a target of high value. I was thinking of a nuclear reactor's spent fuel pool or the Union Carbide plant in Institue, WV. We were actually lucky on the day it happened that they chose to attack symbolic targets instead. MUCH less death than an attack on Institute would have caused! I also had computed long before the consequences of the Sears Tower falling (New Madrid fault you know) and knew exactly how much gravitational potential energy was there; The equivalent of 116 tons of TNT. No need for filling the walls with bombs labeled "Property of Bavarian Illuminati - If found drop in any mailbox, return postage will be paid." --BenBurch 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had a chance to take notes on Jeff Gannon's interview at the Q&A Cafe, but I should be able to get to that next week. In the meantime, here are a couple of links that might be useful:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051102152.html

and

http://www.washblade.com/2007/5-11/view/letters/10555.cfm

Let me know what you think. Sdth 05:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought I already had the Blade article that both of those refer to on my New list, but I don't see it now. I added both of yours just now. Letters to the editor should be treated like a primary self-published source, good for documenting what Gannon says, but not much else. - Crockspot 14:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew that, but the Gannon article is woefully lacking in giving Gannon a chance to defend himself. These articles would be in that category, of course. Thanks!

In regard to the Shiela Jackson Lee quote......do we really even need her quote? It really adds nothing to the article. It is nothing but an unproven accusation. Hence, my edit that stated just that. I think we either need to remove it entirely, or have a statement about it being an unproven accusation. Sdth 03:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shows her for the Moonbat that she is. But if it can't be sourced, it should come out. - Crockspot 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockspot, another good source for discounting the garbage about Gannon's allegedly questionable sign-in times, and sign-out times, at the White House. This deals with an ineffective system put into place by Clinton, which distorts the logs. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31154

Thanks for all you are doing. Sdth 16:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding Gannon's byline stories from Talon to the list in my sandbox. There are still at least twice as many as I have listed already. He published quite a lot of articles with Talon. - Crockspot 16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there archived stories on Talon?? Sdth 20:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Talon sold stories as a news feed service, so most of them are online on the Mens News Service, under Talon copyright. Look in my sandbox. You'll see. I'll pass along a tip on citing sources. A valid citation for, say, a newspaper article, would be the title, author, date, and publisher, maybe the page number if available. A url is only a convenience. As long as there is enough information in the cite to find the article at a library, it's a valid cite. It's nice to have a free full text article online, but it isn't necessary. A link to a pay per view abstract or registration required site is fine too. In this case, we happen to have the luxury of full free Talon articles, so that's good. But if someone comes along and challenges the Men's News Service as "unreliable", they don't have a good argument, because MNS isn't the original publisher, Talon is, and the articles were published, and the citations are complete. One of the things that I try to do is complete the citations where people just put an inline URL as a citation. Because that link may go dead some day, and if there isn't title/author/date/pub information, all you have is a dead link. (sometimes there are clues in the address of a dead URL that can help you find the moved article). But if there is a complete cite, it doesn't even matter if the link goes dead. It may be inconvenient, but it doesn't diminish the validity of the cite. Anyone with a library card can usually find articles from a citation for free on the internet. - Crockspot 23:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

archive.org, my friend. --BenBurch 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding your thinking. Please clarify. Just because a source states something as fact, does not necessarily mean it IS fact. To my knowledge, the Plame thing has never been proven. There are many who say that her status is NOT undercover, and that to disclose her identity as a CIA employee was NOT illegal; hence, the lack of an indictment by the Special Prosecutor. He knew from early in his "investigation" that Richard Armitage was the one who told the news media about Plame, yet Fitzgerald did not charge him with any crime. So, back to my point, why can't the article say "allegedly"? Sdth 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I really like the source that I cited. It states that the reason for the lack of a crime being committed is not because she was not undercover, but because the leak was not intentional. It's a subtle difference, and I'm trying to remain consistent with the source, which will possibly prevent further dispute over the passage. There is the view that she was not undercover, but it is not as widely held as the view that the leak was inadvertent, and therefore is not covered by the law that was supposedly broken. Some of the other small word disputes you're having with Gamaliel I'm not sure are really worth the effort. I don't happen to see "claimed" or "alleged" as necessarily POV terms, but a lot of people do, so it's best to just avoid them when possible. It's more important to get the changes that really matter to stick, rather than haggle over fairly meaningless word choices. There is some outdated and incorrect information that needs to be changed (got one today about sleeping over at the white house) which will go a lot further toward making the article NPOV than whether something says "claimed" or "stated". - Crockspot 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see your point, but I would have to be on the side of those who believe that "claimed" or "alleged" CAN be POV terms. I feel very strongly that when someone makes an unproven accusation, that is a "claim" or "allegation." When someone simply makes a statement that is non-accusatory, there is no need to use the terms "claim" or "allegation." For example, Sheila Jackson Lee made a CLAIM that Gannon had penetrated the White House, with no evidence or proof. That is an accusation. On the other hand, Scott McClellan stated or verified that there were no inappropriate White House visits by Gannon. Gannon himself also made statements. These are non-accusatory. Then again, Gannon has made statements that he has been misrepresented, falsely accused, etc., etc., and specifically referred to "the Left", and to "the angry gay left," accusing them of various things. In that case, it would be appropriate to say Gannon "claimed." As to your source about Plame, it is still just a source, and I am not aware of any indisputable proof that Plame was undercover; hence, my preference for "allegedly" undercover. Your thoughts? Sdth 17:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're part of the "angry left", you probably would maintain that McClellan's comments were "claims" as well. It all depends on your POV, which is why we shoot for NPOV. It's better to just try to avoid these semantic squabbles by using terms that connote neither. For the Lee statement, it's now pretty obvious that it is a "claim" without using the word, as it now spells out that she offered no evidence, nor was the allegation ever proven. It reflects poorly on her, without us having to SAY that it reflects poorly on her. - Crockspot 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering.....is there some way that other editors can track that edits that you make? There is a malicious editor that almost automatically reverts the edits I make REGARDLESS of what article it is. It is more than coincidence that they find every edit that I make. Please advise. Sdth 05:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From any user's user or talk page, there is a link on the left called "User Contributions". There is also a "contribs" link that shows up in edit histories. So yes, it's easy to follow someone's every edit. Wikistalking is against the rules though. - Crockspot 13:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just had a look at your edit history. If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, I would be careful about making a charge of wikistalking. Your edit history bears the characteristics of what we call a POV-pusher. (A focus on a small number of somewhat related articles.) It's not uncommon for an established editor or admin to "keep an eye" on a newbie like you. Try branching out into some other non-political articles. There are always improvements that can be made wherever you look, whether it is simple spelling, or whatever. The "random article" link is good for that. After you have built a more varied history, and proven that you are interested in improving the project in ways other than political, you'll find that people are less apt to look at you askance. Also, create a user page so your name doesn't show up red. Nothing says "Keep and eye on me" better than a redlinked username. - Crockspot 14:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's for Ron Paul to be allowed in the debates! [blacklisted link removed] --BenBurch 03:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies -- it appears that Drudge was correct. I did a thorough search on Yahoo! news for any other coverage of this story and having found none, assumed it to be false.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.209.230 (talk • contribs)

• He's not wrong very often. It never hurts to wait a day or two. - Crockspot 04:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockspot, I think I love you. :) I hope they stop reverting it but I doubt it. --Kirkoconnell 05:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I put it on my watchlist. We'll see how it goes. - Crockspot 05:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This editing war has gotten out of hand! egad! --Kirkoconnell 04:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted my changes to the aforementioned article with the notation "perjorative per WP:BLP". I feel that comment, and hence the revision is in error. I'll explain... Ramsey2006 seems incapable of understanding the difference between simply adding perjorative words to an article for the hell of it and adding them because they are relevent to the discussion (he does not, however, seem to have a problem with EXTREMELY perjorative terms under the Discussion section in order to win an argument). Critics of Ms. Arellano specifically call Saul a prime example of an Anchor Baby (something they are vehemently against) which though perjorative is also simply used descriptively by others. In any case, it is apparently not THAT perjorative as it is used in MSM. Ramsey2006 has also misrepresented Saul as simply a 7 year old boy. In fact, he is a public figure who has travelled internationally on behalf of his mother, appeared before the Mexican legislature and done numerous media interviews on this issue. In short, he is a public figure although a very young one. Nevertheless, his mother chose to make him one to advance her cause. Stating that her critics say Saul is an example of an Anchor Baby is not Wikipedia calling him an Anchor Baby or me calling him an Anchor Baby. It is simply being factual in that that is what her critics call him and what they view as a huge flaw in the US immigration system that needs to be addressed. Using the term with its link thereby invites readers to read the linked article and expand their knowledge on the subject. So, is the term insulting? Yeah, probably. Is it descriptive? Yeah, probably. Is it so harmful that it should not be used? Most definitely not. And actually, despite your comment to me stating WP:BLP, the article about that does not mention the use of perjorative or insulting terms at all as far as I could see. In fact, it states "the views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability." Seems pretty relevent to me. Now, there is another issue besides the "Anchor Baby" one that frankly, I think Ramsey2006 slid past you: the whole "undocumented," "illegal immigrant," "parents live under the threat of deportation" thing. I edited ONE instance to use "illegal immigrants," after which Ramsey2006 decided to use the more obtuse "parents live under the threat of deportation." The reason those parents face deportation is because they are illegal immigrants. So, why not say that instead of trying to obfuscate it? Afterall, the article uses "legal immigrants" and the biased term "undocumented immigrants" so I fail to see what is wrong with using a neutral term that is used the world over for people who enter countries without permission. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter when you get a chance. Thanks! LordPathogen 20 May 2007

• My main issue is that to call anyone an "illegal" anything on Wikipedia requires that there be a conviction of a specific crime in court. If the mother has been convicted in court of breaking the immigration laws, and you can provide a reliable source for that illegality, then she can be said to be "illegal", otherwise she can't. The "anchor baby" issue sort of hinges on that determination. - Crockspot 12:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"rv to last BorgQueen version. The subject is neither American nor an anchor baby." Could not agree more here. Sorry about your post above. Frankly I just saw it. She was convicted of using a fake SSN. There was no trial for the immigration violations because she admitted such in writing to ICE multiple times, including the time in 1997 where she was barred from the US for 5 years. In the 2002 arrest, it even says "illegal reentry". In short, the matter did not have to go before a judge because she stipulated to the facts (see pages 4-7 especially). This all comes from the legal brief filed on behalf of her and Saul by her pastor so the facts about this are not in dispute, for once ;-) [| Legal Brief]

I've added a lot of info from the legal brief to the article since that info is stipulated to by Arellano, her pastor etc. See what you think when you get a chance please. LordPathogen 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, I removed the Mexican-American category on the talk page since it has been removed by you on the article itself. Not only did Ramsey2006 put it back again, he also frankly lied on his revert message where he called my change citing you "vandalism." Any suggestions on how to handle his erratic/possessive behaviour about this? LordPathogen 20:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --BenBurch 04:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no copyright violation for the US newesreels since they are public domain. Paris By Night 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, good. With or without the urls, they're still valid citations for the source. The thing I didn't mention is that I'm not sure they source the statement in the article. It seems a little OR. Is there a secondary source making the observations? - Crockspot 20:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockspot, can you help me with the unsupported accusation of Sheila Jackson Lee against Jeff Gannon? Gamaliel keeps reverting the sentence you put in there about no evidence being presented. I'm discussing it with him now, but his response was not even the same thing I was talking about. Sdth 03:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this one is worth going to battle for. Can you find a reliable source commenting on her comments, and lack of evidence? Like an op-ed even? That would give you some real ground to stand on, and little for G to object to. - Crockspot 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the suggestion. Sdth 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with these two abstracts off of google news archive:

• http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/AT/lib00059,10A1B0040DE14EB2.html
• http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/BX/lib00105,10992918ADEB4348.html

- Crockspot 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me know when you get a chance. I'll be glad to nominate you if you would like.--MONGO 05:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur. Do it!  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 05:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I would wait until the NYScholar arbcom was wrapped up, but it seems to be terminally stalled. - Crockspot 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might be best.--MONGO 04:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NYSmaller thing is done. Feel free to move forward with the Admin thing.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 05:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye aye! The exploding heads should be fun to watch. - Crockspot 18:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun, indeed. Lucky that Morty brought me back from retirement just in time to add my two cents! Derex2 07:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I may be just as inclined to go back to sleep, if allowed to rest peacefully. Derex2 07:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did fly around Ripcord. I've looked at the C/158 website and I do not recognize either of the names of pilots listed as KIA on that date. Later I will look up the flight school class numbers. I believe my class was number 68-517 but I'll have to check that to be sure. - Dan D. Ric 03:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AC (Saunders) was my cousin. I think his class was 69-something. Mid to late 69, so you were about a year ahead of him. His tour started around Christmas 69. The 2/506 batt. comms officer (John Darling) was also on board with one of his men. Darling got the Silver Star for the April Fool's Day assault. The CE was the only one to get out, he jumped out right before the crash, and evaded for a full week before he was able to flag down a passing bird from the ridge top. From what I understand, those hillsides always belonged to the NVA, and they were crawling all over the area, so that must have been an interesting week for the CE. But anyway, if you were flying in I Corps in the spring of 70, you must have flown in some of the same assaults. A belated welcome home, and thank you for your work. I hold all Army aviators in very high esteem. Just getting those contraptions up in the air and back down safely is a dangerous proposition. - Crockspot 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know you were military...I was 3/124th Infantry (Air assault)⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I left that impression, I regret that I never served. I was a kid when my cousin was KIA, and another cousin had come home from an infantry tour pretty traumatized the year before, so my father and uncles (all vets of WWII and Korea) soured on the military after that, and basically forbade the rest of us from even thinking military service. It wasn't until after 911 that I really started doing research, and asking questions of my family. - Crockspot 16:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My tour started Feb '69. I looked up Saunders class number as 69-31 so yes I was about 9 months ahead of him. One of 2,197 helicopter pilots killed in Vietnam. I regret your loss. - Dan D. Ric 13:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He really wanted to go, and he loved what he was doing. I figure that he lives on in all the guys he pulled out of some hairy shit, and their progeny. He accomplished more in 21 years than I probably ever will, so any grief or bitterness has been replaced by pride. - Crockspot 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the Vietnam Helicopter Pilot's Association web page about the incident. - Dan D. Ric 13:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have the entire VHPA database on CD somewhere. It's in a box from my last move, and I haven't located it yet. But it's a great resource. I'll let you know when I dig it out in case you want something looked up. - Crockspot 16:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockspot, can you help me get an IP address blocked from vandalism and POV editing? A conservative local talk-show host recently left for bigger and better things. He made his enemies along the way, and someone keeps anonymously vandalizing his Wikipedia article with a lot of POV verbiage, and much name-calling. Here is the link: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_DelGiorno> Thanks! Sdth 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you wrote... "In 2006, four employees of the John Kerry campaign [4] were convicted [5] for slashing the tires of 25 vans rented by the GOP to drive voters and poll watchers to the polls on the day of the 2004 general election." Both of your links are broken. May I suggest that you may be able to find archived versions of articles in [web.archive.org]. While you are fixing things, please be more clear ast to how slashed tires on GOP poll watcher vans keep people from voting. Kgrr 22:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you missed the "voters" part right before the "poll watchers" part. But thanks for the heads up. I'll fix it. - Crockspot 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What RS labeled this despicable incident 'voter suppresion'? TheDeciderDecides 23:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the Associated Press, when they reported that the Judge who convicted those Kerry campaign workers said: "Voter suppression has no place in our country," Brennan told the defendants in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. "Your crime took away that right to vote for some citizens.", which is a quote from one of the sources cited. If you would like me to put that bit into the article, I would be happy to. - Crockspot 23:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockpot, thank you for clarifying how the vans were involved in voter suppression. It reads much more clearly now. Also, thanks for correcting the references in the article. Kgrr 01:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Crockspot 01:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report about 12.205.128.54 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Warned with uw-defamatory4 -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really suspect it was FAAFA. (Watching the Democratic Warrior forum might reveal this for sure.) He was as arrogant, hostile, disruptive, belligerent and accusatory as FAAFA. The indefinite ban and the reason for it really cements that for me, too. Jinxmchue 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. He's a smart enough guy to be able to role play well enough to leave some doubt. Unfortunate that he wasn't able to use that intelligence in a more constructive way in his past life. He would still be around. I've noticed a recent rash of newbies taking shots at me ever since there was discussion of me requesting admin status. It must drive him nuts. - Crockspot 18:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, now the question is when will he be back (if he isn't already)? Jinxmchue 18:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockspot, an anonymous person keeps editing the Michael Delgiorno article with malicious, POV edits. Is there anything we can do to block that person? Please help!! I know the article needs more documentation. I will add that as time permits. In the meantime, I need this person blocked. Sdth 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's violated 3RR already today, but he was never warned until I just did, and if you've never been warned on your talk page, all and admin will do is warn him. If he makes a qualifying revert again this evening, then he can get blocked, but probably for only 24 hours. The problem with IP addresses is they don't like to block them for too long, because many are dynamic, and they don't want to block any innocents from editing. If he's on a dsl, he can just recycle his ip address to evade. This user is on a Qwest network out of Seattle, which might be cable, could be a static IP that can be blocked for longer. I'll give him a vandalism warning as well. That way he has had all his warnings, and an admin can take further action. - Crockspot 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! He has just made a POV reversion again in the past hour or so. Please see about blocking him. Thanks, Crockspot!! Sdth 04:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was your note on Michael Delgiorn's discussion page, aimed at me? (The one about keeping cool?) I did not make any personal attacks. My last note there was an exact copy of one of your previous warnings. Please clarify. I'm confused. Thanks! Sdth 04:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a couple of warnings on the IP's talk page. No warning on the article talk page though. Looks like SlimVirgin just semiprotected the page, so the IP won't be able to edit it anymore. - Crockspot 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I got confused as to where I read it! LOL It's late and I'm sleepy! Take care! Sdth 05:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out how to nominate a category for deletion correctly. I'm stuck on step 3 with editing the Cfd subsection. Have you done this procedure before? (If you just want to go ahead and do it for me instead of explaining it, the category is this one: [6].) Jinxmchue 15:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never nominated a cat before, but it looks like you use the first template (cfd), copy it to the clipboard before you hit the "click here" link, and paste it. - Crockspot 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that with the preview and it just spit the code back at me. I didn't know if that was right or not. Jinxmchue 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and hit save!. - Crockspot 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I finally got it right. You can remove this section now. Thanks. Jinxmchue 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dang. Looks like I made a good nomination with this. Jinxmchue 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy howdy. Practically a snowball. - Crockspot 17:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the edit made by TDD (FAAFA's sockpuppet) here with two recent edits made here and here. Jinxmchue 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this one. - Crockspot 04:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the flurry of activity in two days. And just on talk pages. How weird. Jinxmchue 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about TDD that I am unsure about is that they asked for review on their talk page, but they did not use an unblock template. Foofie certainly knows about unblock, and would have used it. - Crockspot 01:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. He would have told he had he been socking. He hasn't --BenBurch 01:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but TDD's block was based solely on the early admission of being a sock. I'm only 50-50 that it was faffie. There's several things that really pointed to him, and several that don't make sense if it was him. This place has no shortage of screwballs, that's for sure. - Crockspot 01:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that he is simply done with the place. I doubt he'll be back for years. --BenBurch 03:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well since YOU say so, Ben, I guess I'd better believe it. It's not like you would cover for him or anything. Jinxmchue 03:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No bickering here please. - Crockspot 04:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't bickering. That was dripping sarcasm. This is bickering. *nudge* Jinxmchue 17:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, file a checkuser asking if TDD is FAAFA! Sheesh. --BenBurch 03:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this one's very likely a TDD sock puppet. Edit to Michelle Malkin just a few minutes ago matches material TDD was trying to add obsessively. Jinxmchue 02:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long Beach, NY. - Crockspot 02:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted the TDD case with checkuser request. - Crockspot 03:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started trying to do that, but the stupid database was locked into read-only status at the time. Jinxmchue 03:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Came back "unrelated". [7] - Crockspot 04:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I attempted to write a more neutral definition of swiftboating. What thinks thee? KeithCu 09:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sp, you two are friends hmmm... Commented on my talk page. Aaron Bowen 14:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, never noticed his/her name until the above message was posted. Hmmmmm. - Crockspot 16:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does the article about Amanda Marcotte strike you as far as neutrality goes? Just curious. Jinxmchue 05:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, I see a LOT of issues with that article. Don't really even want to touch it with FAAFA's internet penis though. - Crockspot 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol! Um, yeah. I, uh, concur. (Ew.) Jinxmchue 19:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockspot, I noticed from your userpage that you're something of an expert on BLP information. On George Soros's page I, along with some other users, added some information in the criticism section. Most of these criticisms come from Bill O'Reilly who has made many well-documented criticisms of George Soros. Yet everytime anyone posts one of them they are quickly taken down. Either WP:BLP is cited as a reason or the fact that it comes from Bill O'Reilly.

I could be wrong here; I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia's BLP policy, but it seems to me that it allows for criticisms as long as they are well-documented from major sources.

And the fact that just because something comes from O'Reilly is absurd. He's a major journalist. He's not some tabloid writer.

Anyways, I'd love it if you took a look at George Soros's page for me and gave me your expertise on the problem over there. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have limited time, but I'll put it on my watchlist. - Crockspot 00:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think an acceptable solution has been reached there. - Crockspot 14:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. In retrospect my edit was a bit over the top and weighed so heavy that the article sunk at my addition. I'm real pleased about it's current form. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Crockspot- For some reason, the criticism on the George Soros page disappeared entirely. And it doesn't have a history of who deleted it either. Is this really weird, or am I just somehow mistaken? |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it appeared today and I reverted the deletion. Pretty strange, though. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The history databases have been lagging behind lately. - Crockspot 16:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CU's gone. Jinxmchue 13:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It loads for me. - Crockspot 14:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weird. I get a "this page is parked free, courtesy of GoDaddy.com" message along with advertisement links. Did they change hosts and my ISP just hasn't updated yet? Jinxmchue 14:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dunno, but Rob just locked a thread of midget pics in the Lounge. :) - Crockspot 14:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Gosh, I'm missing so much.[/dripping sarcasm] Hey, some at the DUmp are getting the same result as I am and are laughing about it. Jinxmchue 14:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like a DNS server out of the loop somewhere. - Crockspot 14:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You should burn a mole (or make one and burn one) and let DU know. *grin* [8] Jinxmchue 15:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still not able to get to CU. Weird. Jinxmchue 12:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a handfull of members on yesterday, 20+ logged in now, plus over 50 lurkers. - Crockspot 18:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone at my ISP must have their thumbs up their butt. Jinxmchue 04:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I'm getting it again. Weird. Jinxmchue 14:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MFD has closed with a snowball keep. I've almost completely re-written the essay and clarified the points contained therein, specifically addressing the concerns you stated. Honestly, your input was very helpful in focusing the essay, and I'd like to have your input now that it's been more properly formulated. Check it out at USER:Blaxthos/Policy shopping. Thanks! /Blaxthos 02:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second MFD has closed with not only an overwhelming consensus of keep, but also support for the points contained therein. I'd like to once again ask you to re-read and re-consider the essay; you once claimed that policy-shoppers don't exist (and later recanted) -- I'm sincerely hoping that maybe you can take something positive from the essay (and the community's support for it). Intended or not, your feedback really helped focus the essay (which I do appreciate). Personal/philosophical disagreements aide, thanks and good luck! I'm sure we'll be seeing each other, hopefully not always adversarially  ;-) /Blaxthos 07:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen one blatant policy shopper (which I dealt with successfully in a normal way), but I've seen the term thrown around improperly almost a dozen times now. Editors do use the accusation now to obfuscate debate and avoid addressing valid concerns. I know that was not your intention, but that is the effect of your essay. I nominated it because, as I said, the overwhelming number of keeps in the first Mfd were based on it being in user space. It was a valid reason to nominate it, as even Gamaliel agrees. But it's done, so no big deal. In the kettle of fish I have to fry, that one is a minnow. And no, it wasn't anything personal, I just don't agree with the essay, and feel it actually hinders debate rather than assisting it. Though some editors are now using that Mfd to attack me personally in other disputes. - Crockspot 12:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The video isn't on Wikipedia; it's on hotair, which may or may not have the right to have it. It doesn't matter. There's no policy against citing sources just because they may be in violation of copyright laws. Violating copyright laws (let alone possibly violating them) doesn't affect the reliability of a source.

And blogs may be less reliable than other sources, but it depends on what it is that's being cited. In this case the video speaks for itself, so it doesn't matter where it's being hosted. It could be hosted on my own server, in flagrant violation of all sorts of laws, and it would still be perfectly valid to cite it on WP.

Zsero 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are flat wrong. That citation violates a number of policies, such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:Copyright for starters. Any of these violations in an article about a living person also makes it a violation of WP:BLP, and reinserting such content repeatedly is grounds for a block. So check the policies and be careful. The only thing that blogs are allowed to source are articles about the blog or blogger. See WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. - Crockspot 20:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to get my news story noticed? I created the article, http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson_to_Announce_His_Candidacy_on_June_28th, but don't know if I should do anything else. - MSTCrow 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used Wikinews, but maybe you could add some categories to it? - Crockspot 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K, done, thanks. - MSTCrow 01:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan to finish the job, then I welcome the conversion. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: [9]. Think any heads will explode over that? Jinxmchue 01:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I see that material in the article again I will take stern action. Do not re-insert it unless there is a strong consensus on the Talk: page for doing so. WP:BLP is serious. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockspot, for what it's worth, I'm sorry that my asking you for your advice on the Soros page has caused so much trouble for you. I never imagined that other editors would affront your expertise on the subject with such creative interpretations of policies. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockspot, thank you for your efforts with regard to the BLP patrol. It can get stressful and rather than quit it for good, please consider just taking a break from it (says someone who took a break and never came back :) ). I think if you'll just understand that everyone has point of view issues you can accept that when you are sure that you are right and lots of people disagree with you that that may be one of those times when your point of view is clouding your judgement. WAS 4.250 11:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAS, I'd argue that if Crockspot happened to be a liberal, I think he'd still believe in the inclusion of the material, and you would be pointing out the bias (and obvious, if you read the talk pages)of the other editors instead. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here. Man... *rolls eyes* Jinxmchue 17:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I know for a fact that the new user is a sockpuppet of neither you nor of Bellows. — goethean ॐ 22:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your email. - Crockspot 23:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pray tell, why Goethean is so interested in me? Willie Peter 00:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He seems convinced that you are a particular editor with whom he has had a history. I don't know that editor, so I cannot judge the veracity of his claim at this point in time. - Crockspot 00:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since, he has such interest in me, (personal attack removed) I would hope we could focus on the content rather than WP:WL and WP:GAME. Willie Peter 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you are aware: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willie Peter. I'm skipping the tag on your userpage because this is an isolated, simple incident and I see no reason to hurt your reputation when checkuser is pending.--Chaser - T 06:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser came back unrelated. Thanks for your cooperation and sorry for bugging you.--Chaser - T 01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Crockspot 01:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post. I don't think I have singled you out, have I? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just get the feeling that you don't find me particularly trustworthy. Could just be the paranoia though. :) - Crockspot 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post something (like on the top of the Talk page) to that effect? Corvus cornix 05:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Will do. - Crockspot 05:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your recent run-ins with blatant policy shopping, does that change your opinion on the essay's merit? /Blaxthos 16:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Only in that these editors may in fact exist. As you can see, we are working toward a solution by dealing with each claim in a normal debate manner. I still think the concept can be easily abused by editors in order to avoid addressing legitimate concerns in discussion. - Crockspot 16:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't you agree that (1) some desperate editors tend to jump from policy to policy, hoping to land on the one that works; and (2) it'd be a hell of a lot easier if people would list all arguments at once? I mean, why argue about WP:RS when someone's point is valid with WP:NPOV? No need in endless back-and-forth over irrelevant issues if there's already a valid reason that justifies a change... This isn't saying that new ideas don't develop over time, or that the essay can be used to stifle discussion or duck issues. The point is simply that life would be easier (and good faith easier to assume) if it were all said up front. /Blaxthos 16:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the 14 months or so I've been registered here, I ran across one. Hardly seems to be an epidemic, and I was able to deal with it, by using a little Socratic method actually. It's fine if you want to have these sunshine, lollipops and rainbow expectations of editors. You're free to your opinion. I just don't think it belongs in WP namespace. That gives it an air of authority that it shouldn't have. Life would be easier if a big sack of gold fell into my yard. But life isn't easy. It's full of suffering. - Crockspot 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabor what may be a dead point, but I've listed what I think are two examples of what the essay addresses here. If you notice, a lot of text, time and wikispace were addressed in good faith, when the real reason behind the edit had to do more with personal preference than Wiki policy. That's the point of the essay. BTW- At no point in the essay does it say not to do it, but it does warn that it may lead to bad faith assumptions from other editors. BBTW- Your comparison to this with the Socratic method is misapplied. Now although I can understand why that may be annoying (read my userpage to understand why), I don't think continued inquiry (Socratic) is the same as grasping at straws (WP:PS). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this not achieve the same thing, without adding articles on "incidents" to categories intended for biographies of living people only? -- Longhair\^talk 06:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note the above is only tracking edits to talk pages. -- Longhair\^talk 06:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I never thought about adding the subcat to Living people though. The category Living People was created for BLP tracking, I don't see why people have a problem with it. The article is about a living person. Actually, I do know why some people would have a problem with it, because they don't want the blp visibility on the article. - Crockspot 06:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried the subcat thing. Doesn't work. It only tracks changes to the actual category, not to the articles in the category. - Crockspot 06:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You edited Elizabeth Báthory recently, so I thought I'd let you know that an extremely aggressive POV-pusher is using an anonymous IP address to continuously assert several highly disputed claims on this article. I'd appreciate your help in reverting them if they continue (I used up my 3 reverts). DreamGuy 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on his talk page to clear up misconceptions. This is an odd way of colluding. --72.65.88.166 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I reverted some vandalism on that article while rc patrolling last week, maybe warned the user, but that's my only connection with the article. - Crockspot 23:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to comply with 3RR and was aware of it, thanks. Frankly it seems to be a diversion (which often happens when people don't care to discuss). --72.65.88.166 00:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could also look at it as causing a stalemate, giving you the opportunity to discuss. - Crockspot 02:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been discussed over and over. This anon user (already on a number of IPs) is very clear in his demands to push his POV, so if all the prior discussion on the talk page saying that the things he's added are unacceptable a new discussion is unlikely to get anywhere. DreamGuy 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a dynamic IP that changes anytime my router or PC is shut off. Let's quash that insinuation right there. --72.84.58.186 22:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for a straw poll on the Soros matter, and would like you to state a 4th briefly worded position. Smallbones 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: This edit. I know this guy was really asking for it, but it's better not to feed the trolls. Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I figured out later that the image the guy was adding to pages was goatse.cx (if you don't know what it is, it's a very offensive pic you probably don't want to look up). So if you run across this in the future, just report the user immediately at WP:AIV, unwarned if necessary. Cheers! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Crockspot, I wanted to let you know that I put up a newer poll where people could vote on a compromised option. So far all the feedback has been positive. Anyways, just wanted to see if you could stop by for a moment and see if I could get a yea or nay from you. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that User:An unattributed source has just made some rather odd edits [10] over at Bill Clinton. I'm not sure whether to revert them, and I don't feel like getting involved. Would you mind having a look at them? Silly rabbit 12:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've tangled with Crockspot enough. I've personally met, corresponded with or talked on the telephone with most of the living people whose Wiki biographies I have made recent edits to. Go back to watching Rush Limbaugh.—Preceding unsigned comment added by An unattributed source (talk • contribs)

Your personal experiences have absolutely no place in Wikipedia articles. I have already encouraged you to read the original research policy. You should also review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, while you're at it. I'm just going to watch more or less, while you to run out enough rope to hang yourself. - Crockspot 17:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC) BTW, your edit that Silly rabbit linked above is OR, there are characterizations made that are not sourced. If you continue with this tenditious editing, after being advised of the policies and guidelines, you will reach the end of your rope sooner rather than later. - Crockspot 17:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hang?" "End of rope?" Gee, Crockspot, you're not going to call your NRA buddies out on me are you? I'm half-tempted to revert the reversion you just did on the Bill Clinton article and go ahead and cite and annotate sources like NYT and WaPo out the wazoo just to annoy you, but you and your ilk are not worth the trouble. Happy Wiki-ing!—Preceding unsigned comment added by An unattributed source (talk • contribs)

My "ilk" being responsible editors who follow the rules, I presume? Maybe you should read WP:POINT while you're at it. I will give you give you this much, you seem to be better edumucated than the average POV troll. - Crockspot 19:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I will give you give you this much, you seem to be better edumucated... - You said it. 198.207.222.130 21:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't claim that from my own black book. I believe that edumucated is either a Lisa or Homer Simpson quote. - Crockspot 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy is now attempting to revert war over the insertion of tags regarding the plainly evident work the article needs. He has become frankly obsessed with being obstinate against me or simply believes he possesses this article. If this keeps up I intend to take the dispute further. Please comment on the talk. --72.84.41.13 09:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noooo... Consensus was clearly formed on the talk page that this anon user's supposed "plainly evident work the article needs" is not only NOT needed, but that he needs to stop trying to push his POV and acting like *he* owns the article over all of the other editors who have weighed in. That he'd come crying to other people like he thinks he has any support is just ridiculous. DreamGuy 19:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the substance of these remarks on the article's talk page. --72.84.37.68 03:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

• 
  Crockspot For your self sacrificing efforts on the George Soros page. I appreciate your contributions to WP:NPOV and to WP:BLP. Wikipedia needs many more editors like you. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 05:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  --

Thanks. I copied it to my user page. - Crockspot 05:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above named arbitration case has closed. All involved parties are granted an amnesty over the edit-warring that had been ongoing but has given the administrators the ability to sanction anyone who begins disruptive editing again.

You may view the full case decision at the case page.

For the Arbitration Committee,

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble connecting. Sometimes briefly connects and other times it times-out. 67.135.49.29 03:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the following message:

"Sorry everyone, The forum is closed for a little while. Latest update!!! Having to restore the system. Will be back up in a little while.! We will be back soon..."

- Crockspot 16:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must've broke real good. 67.135.49.29 14:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at my page.Ferrylodge 19:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments were very helpful.I appreciate them immensely. You have saved me a lot of time. I no longer respond to either Getaway or Verklempt.I find it more efficacious to be polite and warn others about them. THANKS AGAIN Albion moonlight 06:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it is hard to judge what will be contentious and what will not be contentious, but when it comes to policy pages it is generally best to discuss and build a consensus on the talk page before making changes. Not only that, but if the changes are reverted, then it becomes clearer that the changes are disputed and that a consensus will need to be demonstrated and that an agreement will be needed before amending the policy. Please don't edit war on our policy pages. Our policy pages really shouldn't be protected, especially not for long periods of time, it can prove disruptive to the project and that's not good. Yes, it can be annoying that the policy doesn't read to your satisfaction at a particular instance, but your actions will last longer and be less disruptive if you discuss and build a consensus, or come to some sort of an agreement first. Given the recent history of Wikipedia:Verifiability I am of the opinion that rather than protecting the page it is now time to consider issuing blocks to prevent our policy pages being disrupted in this manner. If established users cannot get their heads together and settle disagreements amicably on these cornerstones of the project, what example does that set the rest of our users. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and if that means a page exists in the wrong version for an hour or a day, so be it. Where this impacts upon the wider encyclopedia, for example where someone amends policy forcibly to prove points in an ongoing debate, then the appropriate action is to raise the matter at the admin's noticeboard to seek a neutral consensus on the issue. Please consider this a friendly pointer; we're all working towards the same goal. Happy editing and good luck with the discussion. Steve block Talk 15:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit history carefully, I made one revert of a non-consensus edit, then went to the talk page. I also made an edit unrelated to the disputed section. I'm not the one who needs the friendly reminder. - Crockspot 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please therefore accept my apology. It goes without saying that you can ignore the message. Steve block Talk 21:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I appreciate your trying to keep a lid on things there. - Crockspot 22:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about sockpuppetry on the passive smoking article. I was a little suspicious about the sudden proliferation of "skeptical" accounts and IP's, though I believe at least some of these are just contrarians attracted to the issue, as so many are. MastCell ^Talk 21:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email. - Crockspot 18:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for you to offer some specifics, as I requested on my talk page. ThAtSo 21:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to commute home from work, buy a new router, install and configure it. Impatience is no excuse for personally attacking me in your last edit summary. - Crockspot 23:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I " put a sock in it " several days ago. But now that the Ward Churchill misconduct issues has been deleted. I am glad and I hope you had a "neutral" hand in it. I haven't heard from Getaway for a few days. I miss him a lot. And thanks for making me smile. Albion moonlight 07:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only hand I had was putting speedy tags on all the redirects after the fact. I actually feel a little guilty for jumping into that thing on Fred's page. I wasn't really taking sides, I was just trying to clue him in that it wasn't unreasonable for someone to think that he was a sock, based on edit histories. But I'm not sure that was conveyed. - Crockspot 00:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I especially liked the part where you said put a sock in it. And yes I know that you were not taking sides but you did make me smile. I think Fred is a very lenient man who tries to be fair. Albion moonlight 06:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just to clarify, I was not saying that the verification would be based soley upon my word. I do have published articles in national magazines etc.--Kickstar1 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then ask the closing admin on the AfD (or any admin for that matter) to restore the article to your user space. (Tell them you have published references, and you want to bring it up to standards.) You can work on it in user space at your own pace and get it up to snuff. When you think it's up to Wikipedia:Notability (music) standards, let me know and I'll look at it, maybe help you get the references all nice and pretty. Do you have hard copies of the references? If so, provide as much publishing info as possible (author, date, publisher, volume, page number, etc.), we may even be able to come up with an online version from that info, but a url is not a requirement, as long as you write a good citation. - Crockspot 23:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I hear you. When I saw the accusations of bias, I checked your edit history (if I happen to have the same opinion as a bad faith editor, I like to know it, even if I still agree with that opinion, so I can distance myself from their overall position) and I saw nothing to suggest systematic POV-pushing. Odd.

It looks like everyone else is pretty much on board to either keep the article out or find a different one. If I was better at keeping cool, I'd just ignore Skopp at this point, heh... but it's just sort of annoying that he/she isn't getting it. Ah well, what can ya do... --Jaysweet 19:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a severe case of projection. I guess I should look at it as a public service to the Wiki community by keeping his attention focused on the shiny object that is me. :) - Crockspot 19:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's a good way of looking at it...

I think I could make a guess at your POV based on the topics you make the most edits to... and though I see no evidence of pushing that pov, I guess maybe some folks are just infuriated that not everyone hates Dubya ;D It's funny because my political opinions would probably be more in line with Skopp's, but his/her actions are just not productive at all. --Jaysweet 20:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I try to edit neutrally, but I do keep an extra eye on conservative topics, because they aren't watched as carefully by the entire community. I'm open about my politics on my user page so that I can be called on any POV I may be inadvertently pushing, but so far, the only people who call me on it have been editors that I have obstructed from pushing their own agenda. - Crockspot 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are doing a great job. Keep it up! --Jaysweet 20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the good words. - Crockspot 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I studied carefully your edits before I made my charges. My study reveals to me that your agenda and campaign is to add negative information to any subject left wing and add positive information to any right wing and USGOV-Bush articles. You are very smarter than some doing all the vandalism 'patrol' and 'reverts' for 'cover' though. I am learning that is so important. Bmedley Sutler 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And these charges are where? Am I allowed to respond? - Crockspot 12:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'very smarter' club is very elite. --Tbeatty 13:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) I'm actually wondering if someone should semi-protect it as well. -WarthogDemon 19:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copied from User_talk:trekerboy):

The deleted article was rescued and moved to Wikia, http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:Filmguide:Zeitgeist , so can you put out the word to the Zeitgeist warriors, so they can stop trying to slip it into Wikipedia? It has been deemed inappropriate for WP, but it is welcome on Wikia. - Crockspot 19:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist warriors? I have no idea who they would be, but if you know of such a community please let me know, I'd love to connect with some of them. Crockspot, I have been inquiring all over wikipedia why this article was "deemed inappropriate for WP". The reasons cited, such as "not notable" and "It is an article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. (CSD A7)" are completely untrue. The notability of this documentary is clear if by nothing else the deletion review discussion [12]. Further, to say that the article is about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject suggests that the person who deleted the article didn't even know that it was/is a full length documentary. The article was not about a a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content, it was about a documentary. I feel very strongly that this article is being censored which is EXACTLY what wikipedia is supposed to be against. --Trekerboy 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean anything by the warriors comment, except that the AfD for that article saw an unprecedented level of sock and meatpuppetry, and participation by brand new users, so I assumed that there was a group of editors interested in it, and that they were somewhat organized. I think you are beating a dead horse trying to get it reinstated on WP, but it was nice of someone to rescue it and move it to Wikia, where it is apparently welcomed with open arms. - Crockspot 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC) PS See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie for the reasons that it was deleted. Be sure you are comfortable before you settle in, it has to be the most convoluted and abused AfD I ever saw. - Crockspot 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, obviously related, blocked them both to be sure. --Stephen ^1-800-STEVE 03:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you read my Deetjen's article. Thank you for the compliment! Maybe you can re-write it a little bit. You can post on my talk page again too if you're nice. I like to 'let bygones be bygones'. So you lived in Santa Cruz for 20 years? It must have been hard being conservative there! It's one of the most liberal places in America. Have you stayed at Deetjen's? It's the best and quite reasonable pricing for Big Sur. The restaurant is great too. I'm going there again in 3 weeks. No WiFi! I think I will leave my laptop at home. Bmedley Sutler 04:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

25 years. I went to college there, then hung on. I was a Green until about ten years ago, then started sliding to the right. I usually camped or took day trips to Big Sur. There's a great little campground a few miles south of Lucia, not the one under the bridge, but the Forest Service one, about a mile further south, where the road to Hunter Ligget cuts over the mountains. The campground is between the road and the cliff right over the ocean. Great spot to spend a few days, you can climb down the cliff to the beach, or cross the road and pick up several hiking trails, or bike up the road to Hunter Ligget (or drive if you prefer), gives you some great vistas. There's no shower though. But this time of year the pampas grass should be tall enough to take bucket showers in privacy. I live in the northeast now, the "mountains" here are like hillocks, and the deep dark forest is a stand of scrubby trees about 20 or 30 feet tall, and the mosquitos will eat you alive, if the heat and humidity doesn't kill you first. Just isn't the same. - Crockspot 04:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and Wikipedia can preach "civility" but it is not enough. What about "empathy"? You can hide behind rules and proper procedure, but your lack of feeling for those who try to do their best but fail due to inexperience, or failing to dot every i is typical of what is happening to American Society. For your information what I wrote about Peter Roskam the first time was absolutely true. Unlike you, I was there. I live in his district, I endured those idiotic phone calls, and I heard on the news what his people had to say about it. The fact that I could not back up every word does not make it less true- I am not a lawyer but I think the use of libel in this case was harsh.

You can delete this if you want, but just between you and me your claim to being impartial does not hold much water.

If you people want to ban me from Wiki, go ahead. I have nothing more to say.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.42.51 (talk • contribs)

Hi Crockspot, I noticed that your quite active with ragards to articles relating to the Vietnam War, so I need your opinion on a historical matter. In 1967 the Australian army launched Operation Bribie with the objective of stopping the Viet Cong from withdrawing from the battlefield following an attack, but they failed to do so. Despite that failure the Australian army claimed victory, and as usual, the Viet Cong also claimed victory. So I wandering if you could read the sources from the links below and tell me who you believe to have been victorious? Thank you for your help.

http://www.hotkey.net.au/~marshalle/6RAR/6RAR5.html http://www.hotkey.net.au/~marshalle/6RAR/Bribie2.html Canpark 07:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to declare a victor from those sources. If the victor is disputed, shouldn't that be reported, rather than Wikipedia attempting to declare a victor? That would seem to be more in keeping with WP:V and WP:NPOV. - Crockspot 12:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Crockspot, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy _U^CP 04:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crockspot. What is the template you use to close BLP/N topics? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's two, they're on BLPN near the top, the long one is for the top of the issue, the short one is for the bottom. BTW, I may need your help on Richard Rossi. User:Achristiansoldier keeps wholesale reverting hours of work I did last night cleaning that article up. He probably should catch a 24 hour block. - Crockspot 19:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crockspot, I didn't notice he'd blanked previous warnings when I gave him the warning. I'll restore Arthur Rubin's messages and give him a final warning too. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Arthur already gave him a level 4. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty good possibility this is a prisonplanet recruit. - Crockspot 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Crockspot! You may remember me from the whole to-do on the Protest Warrior page and several related article disputes. I seem to recall that you invited me to join the forum you post at, Conservative Underground. I wanted to tell you that I looked over your user talk page a while ago. Is it the case that you were interested in adminship? If so, I just wanted to say that I would vote in your support. I haven't been too active on Wikipedia until recently- business in real life has kept me fairly busy, but now (hopefully) I'm back and editing as strongly as ever. Anyhow, thought I'd just pop by and say hello. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Yes, I remember you. I am hoping to be nominated soon, though every time there is mention of it (like this one), I begin to feel a little bit like Jeremiah Johnson going up against the Crow, as newly (and some not so newly) registered editors run screaming out of the woods one by one, trying to sink a hatchet into my head. But like the Crow, so far, each warrior has ended up scalped by his own knife. It's stressful, but a little bit fun at the same time. :) - Crockspot 18:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I understand how it can be. For the longest time I hoped for adminship, but I often think that I've waded into too many messy conflicts to come off with a clean slate of my own, so I mostly stick to being a wiki-gnome these days. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were an admin when I first met you...? But anyway, I think it's not the disputes themselves, but how one handles himself during the dispute that matters. You always seemed to be able to keep a cool head and stay focused, and I think that's what really matters. I've been practicing my Internet Aikido lately. - Crockspot 18:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]