User talk:Crotalus horridus/Archive

Archives[edit]

Welcome![edit]

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

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 21:55, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thylacine[edit]

Hi Crotalus horridus,

The capitalisation of species names is a well-established convention, particularly so in the higher taxa, and is not done without good reason. We capitalise the formal common name of a particular exact species. We do not capitalise the names of groups of species, nor do we capitalise descriptive terms. When you think it through, this makes good sense and is essential to avoid ambiguity.

For example, if I write I saw a black rat today it tells you that I saw a dark-coloured creature of the genus Rattus and of unspecified species. But if I write I saw a Black Rat today, this tells you something entirely different: it means I saw a creature of unspecfied colour, but that it was Rattus rattus, the Black Rat. Similarly, a laughing kookaburra could be any of the four species of kookaburra giving its usual territorial call, but a Laughing Kookaburra is always Dacelo novaeguineae and never Dacelo gaudichaud, Dacelo leachii, or Dacelo tyro.

Now if we were talking about a group of species — hopping mice, for example, then you are entirely correct to insist on lower case (except, of course, where there is a proper noun contained within the group name: Australo-Papuan babblers, for example). But individual species names within that group are identified as such. For scientific names, we italicise and capitalise the genus, not the species: e.g., Malurus cyaneus. For common names, we capitalise all words except those immediately after hyphens: e.g., Superb Fairy-wren. The Thylacine is a particular exact species, and as such, it is always capitalised.

On the old, more-or-less forgotten names "Tasmanian Tiger" and "Tasmanian Wolf", I take your point. My view is that these names are well and truly obsolete now and should only be mentioned in the body text, however this is a matter of degree and I grant that opinions will differ. I think that, bolded, they add more confusion than help - but there is room to differ here and I hld the view only weakly. BTW, while I was typing this, I see that you have messaged me. Thanks for listening.

Best regards,

Tannin 09:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible and mutually agreeable solution. I'll implement it in a moment. Thankyou for being easy to work with. Tannin 07:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WDC[edit]

I don't think the WDC chips are "conceptually seperate" from the 6502. They are all software compatible, and some are even pin compatible. Further, WDC as a company is all about the 6502. They don't do anything else. Mirror Vax 19:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has been remedied. The 65xx CPUs, including WDC models, are now all in one template. Crotalus horridus 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Weasel words[edit]

Template:Weasel words has been nominated for deletion. It's a duplicate of Template:Weasel You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Weasel words. -- Dpark 16:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we've standardized on "weasel words" for the original weasel template (the main opponent has switched sides). If that's satisfactory to you, you could mark yours for speedy deletion, so we don't have two, and don't need to bother with the TfD. It's your call, though. -- Dpark 19:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you want, we could make "weasel words" a redirect to "weasel" and close the TfD. It's probably a useful redirect. -- Dpark 19:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected to Template:weasel and removed the TfD. I didn't remove it from the TfD page, because I'm not sure about the etiquette there, but I struck my comment and noted that we agreed to redirect it. -- Dpark 20:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help![edit]

There is an unregistered user who is constantly vandalizing the Evansville, Indiana page to include a vanity link to his website. The user in question is Evansvilleboneyard and the website in question is Evansville Boneyard. Despite consistent removal by a number of contirbutors, he/she continues to add it back to the Evansville page with such things as "widely read", etc. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it is encyclopedia worthy and the user should be warned and/or banned. We could really use your help in removing these pointless links and keeping this guy from adding them back.--YHoshua 03:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC "extensions" vs "toolkits"[edit]

Hi again, and thanks for the work on the Simons' BASIC article! Regarding such matters, how about strolling by the BASIC toolkit talk page and have your say? --Wernher 07:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga[edit]

You probably would have noticed this yourself, but your edit to Amiga appears to be based on an old version. Yeah, I've done that too... Mirror Vax 13:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate Flag Images[edit]

Why did you replace the obsolete Confederate flag image with the tag "rv van"? Image:Navaljack.png has been replaced by Image:Confederate Battle Flag.svg, because the latter image is a vector image, which means it is scalable to any size desired without pixelation. I have nominated Image:Navaljack.png for deletion because it is now obsolete. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 01:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it because it wasn't working at the time. Glad it is working now. Peckerwood 18:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Russian Federation Flag.svg[edit]

Did you mark this image for deletion? If so, I will delete it. If not, I will un-tag it. While I have drawn the Image:Flag of Russia.svg, there is some debate about the shade of blue. Zach (Sound Off) 00:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for CBMDOS[edit]

Thanks for fixing up those annoying errors I left at Commodore DOS (esp. related to SEQ files). Been far too long since I've programmed anything interesting on C64, if I had done that I might have remembered how limited the file access was. D'oh, had forgotten what's life like when you can't really fseek()... =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

You can change your vote for whatever reason you want, of course, but I feel I should point out that I'm not prone to edit warring. I've only once been involved in a serious edit war, and that was a year ago, and the circumstances were extreme. In fact I disapprove of edit warring and support the 3RR. Everyking 04:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Personal attacks[edit]

I have removed the following statement from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Karmafist:

"but i would support electing Karmafist as most abusive, mendacious, hypocritical, and unfit admin in the WP project."

I feel that this statement constitutes a personal attack, and therefore have removed it. If you disagree with this action, please discuss either on user talk or on the talk page of the Arbcom vote. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for informing me. i reworded it to indicate more of what Karmafist has done rather than simply what he is. i believe this information is important for people to read lest Karma do to them what he has done to me. when an abusive and unfit admin (of whom two of the present ArbCommissioners have voted to desysop him) tries to increase his power by running for ArbCom, there is certainly increased danger of abuse and harrassment to legit editors of WP. r b-j 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSA Naval Jack SVG...[edit]

...Great work!!! Keep it up, dude!

Is there a way we could get the 1st, 2nd, 3rd National flags, and the square battle flag in SVG as well (If you are confused, see our article)?. BTW, the flag you uploaded is not the Battle flag! That one is square. Instead, the flag you uploaded is the Naval Jack. - Thanks, Hoshie | 09:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crotalus horridus[edit]

I love the username... I have a 4 1/2' female Crotalus horridus atricaudatus at home, and the only guy she ever bit was a drunken idiot who disregarded my warnings and reached into her terrarium and grabbed her. Even then, he carried her around for at least 10 minutes before she tagged him (in the hand, of course). Dick Clark 16:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been awarded...a bicycle![edit]

It is up to you if you want to put it on your userpage or not.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No.[edit]

For one who thinks process is important, you have fundamentally misunderstood Wikiprocess. If you don't want pages to be edited, don't put them on the site. R adiant _>|< 09:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, edit it. Just don't mass-blank the contributions of others. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 10:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look up the definition of "blank" in a dictionary. Thank you. I am not talking about IAR, the juxtaposition of IAR and PI is Splash's idea. Nor am I defending juvenile administrators cudgeling others with it. If you look around the Wiki, you'll see people invoking bureaucratic interpretation of the rules on WP:ANI in defense of two obviously disruptive editors, and on DRV in defense of a template created by a troll for trolling purposes. This is what I'm talking about. Do not put words in my mouth, assume I'm promoting unilateralism, and then attack me for that. Radiant_>|< 10:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a warning: Crotalus has a history of stuff like this. One time he said I gave "no justification" for a change, when in reality, I did, but he didn't like the justification. See here: [1]. MrVoluntarist 14:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I fail to see how that is relevant at the moment. Radiant_>|< 07:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good point, what does his improper use of terminology have to do with anything here? What was I thinking? MrVoluntarist 04:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I shouldn't have done it that way and won't be doing that again. However, what I'm afraid of is that PI is turning into a problem. Specifically, the concept is good, and I can understand why the so-called "IAR crowd" (really just three or four editors) is so impopular - but PI is being abused to endorse sticking to process even in spite of common sense (see ANI and DRV discussions recently). What we really need is some middle ground that "process is generally important but there are some reasonable moments when it's not", and I'm not sure how to get there. R adiant _>|< 07:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for your supporting vote! With a 71/1/0 vote, I've been given sysop privileges! Just like any admin, I'm open to suggestions about backlogs or problems to look at.

Now, to go about disrup—improving Wikipedia...

heheheheheh...

Ashibaka tock 00:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Idea[edit]

Great work. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

I, too, am really frustrated with this whole userbox thing. Thanks for trying to be reasonable, I appreciate it. --Dragon695 03:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Netoholic[edit]

I hate to seem like a wiki-stalker, but since I have also had problems with Netoholic regarding templates and his NetBot, and on the assumption that you might not be watching the page, you should be aware that Netoholic removed your warning from his User talk page with no explanation, which in my estimation is poor form at the very least. MCB 03:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the message. Best regards, MCB 07:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's very typical, actually, if you look through the page's history. Makes him not look as bad to a casual observer. — Omegatron 20:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it really is terrible to remove comments from your own talk page. (Please note, that was sarcasm. Crotalus has the right to do it, so do I.) -- Netoholic @ 15:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for stepping down from the Head Clerk's position. I suspect this action will help to restore community confidence in both you and the Clerk's office. It took some courage to give this up for the good of the community. My own opinion of you has improved significantly as a result of this decision on your part. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't step down from the Clerk's office to "restore community confidence in [myself] and the Clerk's office." I stepped down because I'm fucking sick and tired of the constant harassment and perfidy from Wikipedia's so-called community. I stepped down because I no longer want anything to do with the community. I could care less if the community has any confidence in me or in the Clerk's office; I don't need the community's confidence to edit the encyclopedia, and the Clerk's office is unimportant anyway. Now, unless you have something to say to me about an article I've edited, please stay off my talk page. Thank you. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image[edit]

Thank you for creating the image ! Anti-Flag 02:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

It's a good template but the problem with telling people on the talk page of the article about is that is will probably be used incorrectly and new editors will probably use that on anyone. It is better to keep it on the AN so that mainly admins know about it. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I[edit]

This isn't usually a subject for AN/I, please report to WP:AN3. For the moment, I can only count two reverts, and the second was simultaneous with your warning. Physchim62 (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYTimes Copyvio[edit]

Hi there - I only posted 3 paragraphs, out of a 12+ paragraph article. Does that still count? I didn't mean to violate copyright. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on user talk. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Personal attacks: Policy Extension to non-contributors[edit]

I've taken up your suggestion to restrict this proposal to article Talk page only (I think it already applies to articles as a non-neutral point of view). You may wish to consider amending your vote. (See Policy Extension to non-contributors) --Iantresman 21:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coke/Pepsi + Georgia/Pennsylvania[edit]

Thank you regarding Coke/Pepsi deletion attempt.

Btw, regarding your GA/PA userbox, "was" should be "were" due to the Subjunctive Mood, in case you would like to know. (I did not want to change it on you.)

//MrD9 21:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheer balls![edit]

Rattlesnake; Ok man, I really think you should remove that tag from Requests for comment. I usually agree with what you are saying, but, uhh, it might be construed as a disruptive act if you attempt to remove an avenue of the dispute process. It is a dispute resolution process, so it follows that all that is posted to it is not going to be sweetness and light. What we need is a clear statement saying in essence "If you post material that is incivil or attacking in its rhetoric, you will be removed from the discussion and have to find some one else to advocate your position for you." And make it stick. Have some kind of ombuds-person looking after the page, who can block problem editors and not be undone by other admins. In fact, I think that with all the different policy discussions and dispute resolution processes, an Ombudsman is a helluva good idea for Wikipedia in general. Call the position a referee, one who can block editors and not have his/her blocks removed by other admins, on the penalty of their own de-sysoping. Ideas, comments would be welcome. Of course everything I have posted here is my own idea, and I am generally full of shit, so take it for what its worth, ok? Regards, Rattler, Hamster Sandwich 02:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

process[edit]

If you continue to be disruptive by making improper use of the deletion process, I will show you how much value Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct has by making sure you experience first-hand again. -- Netoholic @ 03:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, keep it up. I need more evidence of your disruption. -- Netoholic @ 03:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the fact that you disagree with the nomination is not a speedy keep criterion. Secondly, I am far from the only person who has raised serious concerns with this page. In fact, I quoted a number of other contributors, some of them admins, in my nomination. Thirdly, I don't respond well to threats. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AN/I where I've laid out a detailed justification for this nomination. Bottom line: User RFC proceedings are so broken that they must die. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Concerns" over a page does not equate to deletion. Discuss your issues with it, and by all means try and come up with something better, but don't screw with things that are obviously of high value. -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your analysis of RFC/USER's value or else I would not have nominated it. Do not disrupt the process again. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted again, this is a ridiculous MFD nom, please don't MFD the page again. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted it on AN/I and I plan on elaborating my reasoning there in just a minute, I assume you'll probably want to elaborate yours as well. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider withdrawing this MfD and placing you ideas elsewhere, for example at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)? While many people have concerns with user RFCs, the chances of abolishing them by simply deleting the process page are minute. I have to warn you about the risk of 3RR violation as well, as you have made your third revert in less than half an hour. Physchim62 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 3 hours for repeatedly removing MFD notices from a closed MFD subpage. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've agreed to withdraw the MFD nomination, but the block is clearly unjustified. I still see no ground for the speedy closures, and Netoholic's actions were simply attempting to start a fight (though yours and Physchim's were in good faith). I will pursue other avenues for discussion if desired, but the existing state of user RFC's is so bad that almost any change would be an improvement. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is not helpful either. You are currently at 4RR. Please stop now. Physchim62 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fact that you withdrew it and blocks are not punitive I am going to unblock you immediately. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now let's see if we can get a productive discussion going somewhere. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you sleep on it first. I used administrator discretion, something you usually abhor, not to block you for 24 hours for 3RR (normally the only sort of automatic block on Wikipedia). You might still like to consider refraining from editing on this topic tonight, to avoing accusations of WP:POINT. Physchim62 (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Netoholic, Physchim62, and Jtkiefer are still looking at this page, I think you owe Crotalus an apology. You (especially Netoholic) have been uncivil and have failed to assume good faith. CH has every right to nominate the page for MfD as he sees fit. To speedily close without any discussion is bad form. Blocking him was out-of-line. I urge all parties to please "shake hands" and move forward consturctively and civilly. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Reform[edit]

If you do please let me know on my talk page and I'll contribute to it, also you might want to publicize it on VP and on AN as well as probably giving the folks over at the Wikipedia:Signpost a heads up since they seem to like writing articles about process reform. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement already exists... -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but my concerns rest not just with enforcement, but with the serious civility problems inherent in the current process, as well. I'm attempting to compile an WP:AAP-style poll that will discuss multiple issues. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, please advertise it well when you get a page together. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a heads up on that as well, SVP. Hamster Sandwich 04:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, already seen it... may need to think a little more before answering some of 'em. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in, too. In particular I am concerned about resolution issues. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

13:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Conrad-14 year old socialist[edit]

The editor has not responded to the message I left on his talk page, which linked him to the discussion you took place in at WP:ANI. Perhaps a short block is now in order based on WP:Point. If so, how long would you suggest is appropriate? Regards, Hamster Sandwich 13:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

past[edit]

What, if any, usernames have you used in the past? -- Netoholic @ 17:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, none. WTF? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're User:Firebug, right? -- Netoholic @ 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Believe it or not, multiple users have problems with your behavior. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no doubt several users disagree with me... but ever since you got involved, I've been feeling that it was out-of-place and that the arguments were repetitive. Your name is Josh. You both have an interest in obscure video game/PC hardware [2] and in specific political issues like right to exist and List of Stalinists. Are you also User:LevelCheck? -- Netoholic @ 20:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL, next you'll be asking me if I'm his sockpuppet too. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I think I've ruled you out on this case. -- Netoholic @ 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Vandalism[edit]

Join us on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#User:talk_pages where we are discussing your use of the phrase "outside comments" Wjhonson 01:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: statement you made on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion[edit]

"...Incidentally, what do you think the Foundation is going to do and on what basis? They can't, after all, get rid of AFD entirely, or else the disks would fill up with nonsense."

You have to remember that AFD and its archives also take up disk space. Also, deleted articles are kept. Articles that are AFDed are typically short. Not counting backups, disk space usage would therefore roughly DOUBLE by opening an AFD on an article, even when it is deleted. Articles that are kept could at times even TRIPLE disk space usage.

But that's an old optimistic estimate, assuming delta compression. In reality, no delta compression is applied. This means that the way in which afd is conducted can lead to enormous disk space usage, because everytime someone adds an opinion, a whole new copy of the AFD subpage is saved each time.

I think that solidly covers the disk space argument. AFD takes up more space than the articles it deletes. I hope the argument won't recur often this year. :-)

-- Kim Bruning 18:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic[edit]

If you want to draft an RFC and have me look at it to see if I'd endorse it, that's fine with me. I do think he's gotten a little out of hand lately. (I'd suggest drafting it in userspace (something like User:Crotalus horridus/RFC/Netoholic), having me take a look and yea/nay it, then copying it into place if it looks good). If you need help putting together diffs/evidence, let me know what you need and I'll see what I can do. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, I am not unreasonable, but if you really are going to push this, I will push back. User:LevelCheck is already banned, and I can show the connection between you, LC, Firebug, and some unfriendly IP addresses. I can show more as well. Just get back to editing articles, stop fretting over userboxes and policies, and me. -- Netoholic @ 03:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't engage in intimidation, it's unbecoming. Unless you've had a CheckUser performed to prove your allegations, I strongly suggest you stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser was done as far as possible for the present AC case. Firebug's last edits were outside the checkuserable window, so it can't be used to establish anything either way - David Gerard 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faux Pas/ warning[edit]

Jimbo Wales very rarely edits or modifies policy on wikipedia. When he does he has consulted with the arbitration committee, and at times with lawyers, or whoever else might be relevant.

According to Foundation issue 5, Jimbo is the ultimate authority on any matter, if and when he choses to make use of that right (which is very rarely indeed.)

Therefore, it is a very strict policy indeed to never ever revert, remove or undo a policy descision that Jimbo Wales has made.

Kim Bruning 11:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firebug[edit]

Netoholic said you left Wikipedia before, on January 2, and pointed to an edit on Jimbo's talk page. Blu Aardvark deleted that. But the edit was by a user called firebug. Was that an account run by you? --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case[edit]

Aaron Brenneman has dived in and created a workshop page for the arbitration case; I got someone elese to open the case more or less properly, but because I cannot do clerking on this case I wasn't able to do it myself and I cannot correct his omissions. In any case please consider this a courtesy call letting you know that the case is (sort of) open and you can submit evidence and workshop proposals:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Evidence

(I am definitely not speaking for the arbitration committee here). --Tony Sidaway 09:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway[edit]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've just been awarded points for staying clear of the arbitration. Keep of the good work! Oh, and just for the record: I do think you've contributed to the mess, so don't be suprised if I'm not all fluffy bunnies and sunshine when it comes to proposed remedies.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 23:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration[edit]

I have opened an arbitration request which involves you - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Crotalus horridus. -- Netoholic @ 17:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/Quarl[edit]

Hi Crotalus horridus, thanks for your strong support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 11:57Z

Centipede clones[edit]

How many Centipede clones do you expect there to be? :) I only know of one other, Rollerpede, which was an Amiga game. But there are a few games which bear similarities. Spottedowl 01:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clones[edit]

Ah, I see. You bring up an interesting point, one which I think no-one has addressed in the games project; for early games there are often many clones (Asteroids, Defender, Galaga, etc). I'm just wondering how easily a category on them could be filled, though; how much can be written about a clone that's basically the same as the original game, for example?

Llamatron is an example of a clone game that has its own article. Spottedowl 11:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of capitalism[edit]

Hey, I'm posting you this notice because I remember you recently editing the Capitalism article. I moved the "criticisms" section and other criticisms embedded in other sections and their responses to Criticisms of capitalism. Atm the ordering of the sections isn't very logical, since all I did was moved separate sections. Please help, and/or comment at Talk:Capitalism#When_to_split_off_criticisms. Thanks! Infinity0 ^talk 22:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVGs[edit]

How do you generate SVGs in Notepad, like you say you did with the PSP logo? --Thorpe | talk 01:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for the useful information. --Thorpe | talk 11:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop trolling[edit]

Stop trolling. -- Netoholic @ 08:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for an Arbcom ruling to be enforced is not "trolling", and this is an example of exactly why I dislike that term: it tends to be used to apply to any behavior that the person using the term dislikes. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic[edit]

Spam - You might want to comment on this: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help merge articles[edit]

In relation to the following arbitration case, which is nearing completion:

SimonP and the King James Version

And in relation to the following completed centralised discussions:

Some assistance is requested, once the arbitration case is closed, in merging together the following articles

And any other such articles that may currently exist

I have already prepared example merges of some of these articles

Merge Example 1 is a merge of verse articles from Matthew 1:1 to Matthew 1:17 -> should be merged to Genealogy of Jesus
Merge Example 2 is a merge of verse articles from Matthew 3:1 to Matthew 3:17 -> should be merged to Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (or similar title)

For titles check out List of New Testament stories (many are currently redlinks)

--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AC decision pages[edit]

Please do not edit these pages. They are for Arbitration Committee members only. Thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main ways of communicating with the Arbitration Committee. Firstly, there is the decision talk page. We do read this, but we don't often reply as it involves a long debate which we don't want to enter. To be honest, we don't have the time. The second option is to email an arbitrator (my email address is smoddy AT gmail DOT com) and they will forward it to the private mailing list. We actually have discussed the case extensively. Ironically, the cases with the most discussion on-wiki have least on the mailing list. Where we have little on-wiki discussion, it probably means the case is either very simple or we have discussed it so extensively privately that we know each other's opinions well enough for on-wiki discussion to be unnecessary. However, editing the proposed decision page is far more likely to get you ignored. Cheers, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, the primary discussion takes place on a private mailing list that I have no way of reading or responding to. This is exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about when I stated earlier that off-Wiki policy discussion should be considered harmful. This proceeding is a travesty of justice - and I'm not talking about legalisms, I'm talking about basic fairness. Why do the arbitrators feel I should be prevented from editing my own user page? No disruption was ever claimed regarding it. I haven't gotten a straight answer from any of the arbitrators regarding this, and to be honest it looks to me an awful lot like the bandwagon effect I've seen on so many other polls on Wikipedia - one person votes, and a half dozen more follow in quick succession, with no real attempt at explaining reasoning. We're told that "voting is evil", but I see nothing here but a raw vote, with no justification given. I suppose transparency is too much to hope for, but I'd at least like to know who I pissed off to get this done to me. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. You are creating a straw man: we aren't banning you from editing your userpage; we are banning you from editing userboxes. If you want to change your userpage, it is very easy to do so by removing the userboxes. This may not be the precise wording, but it's very clearly the intent. We want you to stop associating yourself with userboxes. As for why we discuss privately, I refer you to Wikipedia:Off-wiki policy discussion. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which userboxes on my user page are objectionable, and why? Furthermore, why should I continue to stay and edit when I must deal with this level of disrespect for me and my contributions? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting words into our mouths. We aren't banning you from editing your userpage. We are banning you from editing userboxes in general. Your edits in the past to userboxes have prompted this, not your userpage. I suggest you try functioning without userboxes for a bit. You might enjoy it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this all about? Any Wikipedians is entitled to use userboxes. Maybe you don't like people making a point when using them but that is just your personal choice. This user should be left alone. Feel free to stop using userboxes yourself. Live and let live! Asterion 15:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has reached a final decision in this case. Crotalus horridus is prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage). If Crotalus horridus edits a userbox, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be one year. Crotalus horridus is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If, in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, it is found that he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Tony Sidaway is prohibited from reversing any administrative action more than once. Each reversal shall be accompanied by an explanation in the appropriate venue, including especially a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review in the case of a disputed deletion.

Should Tony Sidaway or Crotalus horridus violate any of the remedies in this decision, they may be briefly blocked, up to two weeks in the event of repeat offences. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

leaving and arbcom[edit]

As it is customary behavior to leave when the arbcom has "ruled" in a manner that is not 100% favorable, I am hereby requesting that you do not leave. I think it is at the same time refreshing that Tony has been sanctioned, and also disturbing that the sanctions are as limited as they are. I don't think that their response to you is entirely surprising, given the near-reactionary politics played by the Committee, but I also don't think it is entirely fair.

It is my hope that you will remain a contributor and valued editor on the project.

Yours, alex.

... aa:talk 01:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]