Misplaced Pages

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Craftyminion/I%27m_not_proud.

Crafty,

I was alerted to this comment of yours. Since I unblocked you, I take some responsibility for your subsequent behavior, and I don't want to see foul language. Now, I think you're kidding around, but be careful ... not everyone gets it that way, and an AfD can be fraught enough without needlessly raising the temperature. Daniel Case (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You should have kept it out. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup I was doing teh funneh. Your advice is noted. ;) Crafty (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Re this, I'd already requested speedy per g11. → ROUX ₪ 03:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. You got swift moves, Quick Draw. ;) Crafty (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Naa, just happened to refresh my watchlist at the right moment. I really don't know what to do about this kid. I don't believe for a moment that the email from the 'father' was from anyone other than GHC. And I am unable to figure out whether he is an aggressively clueless 13 year old who refuses to listen, or is actually autistic (or some other mental disorder in that general family). I think ultimately it doesn't matter; competence is required of Misplaced Pages editors. In fact, I think I have an idea of how everyone can walk away from this nice and happy. → ROUX ₪ 03:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Whether he's some creepy old weirdo or an adderall crazed 13 year old aspie is not relevant. He's disruptive and doesn't do anything constructive. I mean check out the fucking User page. It looks like a Powerpuff Girl has puked on Perez Hilton at a meth party hosted by Lady GaGa. It's time one of our Old Testament Adminstrators manned up and and swung the block-hammer on his pointy little head. There are plenty of other places he can wreak havoc on Teh Intahtoobz. Crafty (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a very evocative description. In any case, the solution--maybe--is here. → ROUX ₪ 03:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

← You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. Seriously, I admire the effort you're taking with this kid. I suspect part of what he likes is the attention he gets here and that until that's been cut off his behaviour will continue. I shake my lucky eight-ball and all I can see in GHC's future is the Wiki-Shitcan. Crafty (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh hardly. I'm a fucking douchebag--ask anyone around here. I'm just trying this new thing where we make some allowances for children. → ROUX ₪ 03:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well from one douche-nozzle to another, you deserve a beer. ;) Crafty (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Crafty, could I have your urgent attention to this edit I've made. It looked like you'd inadvertently edit conflicted with Will Beback's post and I was trying to fix things up. But edits are proceeding apace there, my bad for assuming I had even a few seconds to get it all straight! Anyway, I just want to be sure that you know that your comment is currently hovering out in space somewhere, and I was real honest trying to sort it out but it may be a little messed up now! :( Franamax (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now made my edit after 3+ edit conflicts. Your reversion was frustrating and inexplicable but this is a fraught issue. I will, therefore, assume good faith on your part undue haste on mine and suggest that we all take a deep breath. Crafty (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, inn't it? :) What I saw when I checked the diff was what looked like a replacement of everything but "have", "the" and "they". I checked the recent versions and one had Will's post and one had yours. That looked to me like one of those oopsie moments, so I tried to fix it. Or at least I started trying. Me personally, I always copy my putative post to the clipboard, and if I get an edit conflict, I recall the entire page and hit again, cursing all the while, then try again. I don't even try to use the edit-conflict page to try to resolve it, I just start over. So at least I avoid the possible problem you ran into, but not sure 'cos it's never happened to me, so I dunno. I do share in the cursing over edit conflicts though, I have a cage of mice and a sledgehammer for just such emergencies. ;) And I agree that this is a very fraught situation. Rest assured that I was trying to act in wholly good faith! Regards. :) Franamax (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, all is well. Once more into the breach and all that! ;) Crafty (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I perfectly agree with your assessment of the situation. I hope my comments to Porch will be well received. I know my comments were a bit stern (not too much I hope), but I felt that I needed to be pretty serious given the potential negative implications of his actions. Biting new editors discourages them from staying and continuing to contribute to the project. Users like Voodoobug can potentially be higly productive good editors in the future if we treat them well and help them to be better wikipedians.Plumadesabiduría (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, your comments were fine. We need more editors like Voodoobug who can write articles on subjects such as Zavrtal and it's easy to see how they would give up when presented with character like Porch. Crafty (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: Yeah, I saw that. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! :) Crafty (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for reviewing my article. I am confused. are youtube videos of the software being used in peoples homes and in arcade cabinets not notable? please give specifics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefoxian (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Replied on your talkpage. Crafty (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is? The dude was complaining about receiving a templated message (albeit with nasty language) and you replied with another template (complaining about his language)? Good intentions -- yes. Good way to communicate it -- no. -- Samir 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My only warning is not the same as him telling people to get fucked. That was my point. I trust that's a good enough communication. Cheers for your reply. Crafty (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, that is a good point. A very good one indeed. My intention was not to make you look or feel bad and I apologize if I did. I rather was trying to de-esclalate on that talk page and clearly I did a poor job of that. Best regards -- Samir 00:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite alright. These things happen. :) Crafty (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok! But check this video out, I'm dieing! YouTube video — Preceding unsigned comment added by A3RO (talk • contribs) 14:37, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oy. Fratboy antics? On my talkpage? Apparently it's more common than I would think! Crafty (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha! yessss sirrr! Cheers! --A3RO (mailbox) 04:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this (rather aggressive) comment you've made. I never endorsed John Carter's protection of his talk page, and indeed, I agree that it was inappropriate. But the dispute was largely a result of UnitAnode's actions, hence my initial post. –Juliancolton |  03:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my tone seems aggressive, but I find this stuff rather frustrating. John shouldn't have protected his talkpage, he should have sought the assistance of one of his brother admins. You need to understand that the rest of us have to put up with talkpage grief all the time and we don't have the privilege of the protect button to deal with hostile editors. Further it's this sort of carry on (and your rather bland equivocation in response to it) that is degrading the reputation of Misplaced Pages's administrators. Crafty (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but Misplaced Pages's administrators are only human, and they occasionally have lapses in judgment. JC acknowledged his fault and quickly endeavored to correct his actions. –Juliancolton |  03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's funny how y'all are above reproach until there's a clusterfuck. Then you're "only human". It's an easy way to be, Julian. No wonder the ArbCom is thinning the admin ranks at a rate of knots of late. Crafty (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

.. Thanq for participating in my RFA. While I sincerely value your choice, I just felt like letting you know that I have been offered to nominate at RFA many a times earlier, which I had thankfully declined till now. Having said that, I am looking forward to co-operate and collabrate with you on wikipedia regardless of the outcome of the RFA.Feel free to let me if I can help you in any way on wikipedia/ Thanks again. Have a gr8 day ..-- Tinu Cherian - 14:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Qwiggalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It is my belief that the user you just called a vandal is nothing more than a harassment SPA, aimed at harassing you, as, they have not edited any articles you have, and therefore, there is no other way they could have found your page.— Dædαlus 08:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. Why do you raise this with me? Crafty (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thought you should know.— Dædαlus 08:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm in your debt. Crafty (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to chime in at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 18#Colorado balloon incident (closed) but if I did, I would've endorsed the closure as a stellar example of following the processes and procedures on this page. Yes, it was out of process, and yes, by doing this he opened himself up to being burned at the stake for making a mistake. However, his actions were approved resoundingly by acclaimantion, both in the DRV and on his talk page with the barnstar and follow-on endorsements of the barnstar. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar? Really? Well if I'd realised that barnstars were being thrown around I'd have abandoned my genuinely held opinion on this matter in an instant and joined the adoring throng. Thanks for popping by, kid. Crafty (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• - Allied Artists Pictures Corporation is still in existence, and is unrelated to Allied Artists International per here.

• Do you know how to dig deeper to see what is really going on here?

• I suggest you and everyone start out HERE - ] - , by getting out your Microfishe Reader, as you will not be able to search it, and find the name Allied Artists Records.

• I transcribed this] - into Microsoft Word yeserday, but I do not know how to post such information on Misplaced Pages, after doing all that work (as a periphheral observer to a curious spectacle at first, but now a party in what you all call an edit war, in which I am out of my league).

• I poseted the above on the main article talk page up for deletion for NN. I believe KDR's SP is the originator of all these Allied Artists pages.

• But it is likely the article will be deleted entirely, leaving all of the other WarriorBoy articles associated with this still standing and hard to find.

• I am just a Philosopher of Mathematics, not an Encyclopedia of Corporations researcher. My best friend's father-in-law ran the Mathematics Olympiad in Gansu China, and I began to edit articles on China. So I am about as far from reality, physical or virtual, reality as it gets.

• I came into this because I do assistance to famous high end thinkers who are abandoned in old age, such as people going blin with macular degeneration, who need someonw to read to them the latest Journal of String Theory, etc., which the Braille Institute does not provide for, but I do. These people have minds that work fine, but their bodies are failing.

• I was personally helping Louis Lesser, a 93 year old man who is computer illiterate.

• Lesser told me, INCREDIBLY, that he used to be partners with President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in the largest urban renewal project in the history of the western United States, Barrington Plaza. Lesser said that he sold the Las Vegas New Frontier Hotel to Howard Hughes, and that he was landlord to Hughes Aircraft. Lesser said that he was mentor to Warren Buffett and Kirk Kirkorian, and others whose names i knew from the press. Lesser said that he sold the Taj Majal in New Jersey to Donald Trump, and stayed with Trump in a spare bedroom of the Trump Towers penthouse whenever he was in New York. Lesser said he was partners with so many incredible people, that I did not believe a word he said.

• I checked everything, and every thinkg he said turned out to be true!

• Then Lesser said he was a part owner, with others of historic note, Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, WHICH STILL WAS IN EXISTENCE. Again, I suspended belief.

• Lesser said that some "crook" was trying to make others think otherwise.

• One of those to whom Lesser was mentor said that a convicted felon, KDR, had committed massive fraud on Union Bank, and other major banks, using the name Allied Artists, and associated names.

• I went to Misplaced Pages to get information, and found nothing but the pages of KDR's SP's. I found what seemed like hindreds of them, in a virtual fraud scheme similar to what I read in the federal indictments.

• I just now found this here - - . What does it mean?

• • Then I found the many newspaper articles, most from the late 70's and early 80's on microfische, on solicitation to commit murder, felony wire fraud convictions, computer fraud convictions, etc., at which point I got that CLEAR LEGAL THREAT.ChinaUpdater (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Then I found out about WikiLaw, and EditWars. Whew!

• • I do not want a hit put out on me, like happened in one of KDR's prior convictions.

• • Do you know anyone who can find out online what exactly is going on here? As a retired philosopher of mathematics, I am not exactly up to the task. My first efforts at joint editing ended up with the exposure of KDR, his SP's, and his MULTIPLE (hundreds of them) phony ADVERT NRS NN WIki pages. Who at Misplaced Pages is good at finding out who really owns this company? ChinaUpdater (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Crafty just said I could post this on his talk page. Cheers :)ChinaUpdater (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There, doesn't that feel SO much better? ;) Crafty (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, is that a Dore print in the image in the previous section?ChinaUpdater (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea. Ask User:Kww - he put it there. I like it. Crafty (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Half the joke is missing if you don't recognize the image: that is Gustav Dore's illustration of Virgil and Dante approaching the entrance to hell, from Henry Cary's translation of The Divine Comedy.—Kww(talk) 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dante eh? Meh all that dago hand wringing is way above my league. I has the dumb. Crafty (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

. Tim Song (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Sinebot fucked me up. I went on to fix it by hand. Crafty (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I thought I fixed it :) Tim Song (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I twinkled and when Sinebot's talkpage opened I realised I'd reverted to something the vandal had posted. So I opened the history page and restored Jusdafax's last edit. We must have clashed, we must have. :) So long as it's all fixed now. Crafty (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment means a lot to me. When I first saw the two articles I felt like just quiting - I can't be a part of a project that gives a soap-box to anti-Semites. I am gratified many hav voted to delete his articles but still like you disappointed by the apparently large numbers of people who see anti-Semisism as just another "point of view" we have to represent. I don't know what more tio di, i wish we had more editors like you around! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're doing the only thing you can - speaking out. I wish I had been as eloquent and as cogent as you in my opposition to Neolander and his odious barrow pushing. Ah well, onwards! Crafty (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. One admin closed down the AfD on "misuse of anti-Semitic accusations" - and then DGG (an editor for whom I usually have the utmost respect) left this comment

Appropriate or not, his insisting that his view of those with whom he disagrees - e.g. me - is the correct view is a real refusal to assume good faith. I am sure that his vote to keep the article was made in good faith. Why can't my vote to delete it be in good faith? I don't think DGG is an anti-Semite but I think this is one example of how good Wikipedians in good faith can really misread the issue. But I havde to admit, it is th implied refusal to assume good faith on my part that really gnaws at me .... Slrubenstein | Talk 10:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Now this ... it really makes me feel sick ... Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. The flimsy arguments offered in both cases are just mind boggling, especially from DGG. On the upside these vile articles have been removed. That the community can see anti-semitic POV pushing when it occurrs is heartening. Hopefully Noleander will now depart for climes more suitable to his tastes and leave us be. Regards, Crafty (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I recognise that extremists, fanatics and bigots of many kinds - Christian Right, Neo-Nazis, Islamic extremists, Anti-Zionists - wish to talk up the idea of Jewish control of Hollywood/the Media/the World, but I still hold that the topic of 'Jews and Hollywood' is notable and can be written about neutrally, in particular due to the existence of mainstream sources covering the topic in depth. Does this make you think that I am an antisemite? I'm not insistent on the need for an article on Jews and Hollywood, but there is certainly room in Antisemitic canard for material on the accusation, and in American Jews for content about the actual history of Jewish people in the US film industry.

The deletion review was opened due to the closer failing to give a rationale for their decision on a long and complex debate, not because Equazcion couldn't face losing the argument. If it did actually make you feel sick, you may need to find ways to avoid becoming too emotionally invested in debates on Misplaced Pages. I'd not have opened the deletion review myself - I took my complaint directly to Coffee to be met with intransigence - but it is really a 'point of order' rather than a genuine attempt to overturn the result.

We need to be able to write and discuss articles on sensitive topics without accusing each other of racism without good evidence, even though there will be some bona fide racists around. Race and crime in the United States is another article where editors need to be robust without mudslinging. I recently came across the poorly written Immigrant criminality, which is currently a gift to anti-immigration campaigners, but I'd not call the author User:Dbachmann a racist: but what if such an article was about "Jewish criminality"? Fences&Windows 01:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The locus of dispute here as far as I can tell is not really the subject matter, but rather the editor Noleander himself. As I mentioned on Slrubenstein's talkpage a review of his contributions in toto reveals him to be an anti-semite, intent on pushing his point of view. The articles as they stood when he authored them reflected that not just in my opinion but in the opinion of others. Cheers Crafty (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better to look at his editing rather than his motivations. The articles were poorly written and clumsy, the titles were a mess, and the use of sources was careless. Antisemite or no, this wasn't good editing. To allow myself to speculate on his motivation, it seems to be an interest in criticism of religion and religious controversies, his focus has been on the Mormons. I think he was naive in the extreme rather in malicious in creating these articles. He's not edited for five days, when and if he comes back he will hopefully have learned a lesson. Fences&Windows 02:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And it's from his editing that I draw conclusions about Noleander himself. Most glaringly his copyvios from Stormfront. However as to what drives him, we may just have to agree to disagree. ;) For my part the assumption of good faith only stretches so far. Noleander lies somewhere further. Cheers, Crafty (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Copying from Stormfront is crossing the line by about seventy-five billion miles. I'd missed that. Fences&Windows 23:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Which why a number of us have taken such a strong line. I don't apply the label "jew-baiter" lightly. Nevertheless I do appreciate your points -- the subject of anti-semitism is fraught with danger and we must take care not to stifle genuine intellectual efforts because of misplaced sensitivities. Neolander, however, is a singular case. Crafty (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is something very wrong when - as was the case with several editors, not just Fences - the fact of copying from Stormfront made Noleander and anti-Semite, but prior to learning about that the line was always "judge the editing, not the editor" or "We can't question motives, we have to assume good faith" etc. The most obvious reason is: obviously IF he was an anti-Semite after we learned about x, he was an anti-Semite before we learned about x. This raises some difficult but important questions: why could some recognize him as an anti-Semite, but others could not (I say this NOT to tarnish nyone who couldn't recognize him as an anti-Semite but rather in the hopes of figuring out how we can call attention to what makes someone an antisemite, how we can educate other editors)? Why are accusationso f "anti-Semitism" so quickly rejected or even criticized at Misplaced Pages? i consider these serious questions that merit discussion somethere else and involving more people.

My own view for now is that in addition to a "no personal attacks" policy we need another policy. I cannot think of a good name: "No impersonal attacks?" "No collective attacks?" The point is, if someone says "All Jews are money-grubbing liars" that person as not technically violated NPA; she has not attacked an individual person. She has attackd a whole class of people. What do we call that? Whatever it is, we need a policy against those attacks. This will not solve the problem - we need more dicussion about the questions I raised - but it will help.

Crafty is right to call attention to the articles as originally written, and the fact that they were all written at the same time. Crafty may wish to initiate a WP:RfC against Noleander, although this may be premature. if it is, I urge Crafty to watch Noleander with a checklist of a couple of more things he has to do to merit an RfC and then go for it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Collective attacks on any group of people are already unacceptable on talk pages per WP:CIVIL: 1b. "personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities." Repeated derogatory references to Jewish people or any national, religious or ethnic group should cause the editor to be blocked.

Noleander agreed at the AfD that Stormfront is not suitable as a source: "I created that section that summarizes Medved's article "Jews Run Hollywood" from Moment magazine. That summary of his article contains some inflammatory text between the quotes, and I apologize for cutting-and-pasting it without proofreading. That body of text is online at many websites, including RadioIslam and many others. I dont have a clue who assembled the quotes originally. I dont recall where I obtained the text from, but it would not be Stormfront, since I dont consider that a reliable source." If we take him at his word and if he didn't use Stormfront elsewhere, he was using the antisemitic site Radio Islam as a convenience mirror for a Moment magazine article. This was at the very least grossly careless editing and no editor should be careless in such a sensitive area. His lack of due care may point to a blind spot in not realising the offence that can be caused by such editing.

Why are accusations of antisemitism sometimes not taken as seriously as those making the accusation might wish? The answer is probably the Israel/Palestine conflict. Irrational hatred of Jewish people certainly exists within pro-Palestinian circles, but some pro-Israeli activists have made unwarranted accusations of antisemitism against some individuals who characterise themselves as 'Anti-Zionists'. Also, because those who are not themselves on the receiving end of discrimination have less understanding and awareness of it, accusations of discrimination may be too quickly dismissed.

I saw one comment that made my heart sink: "Keep important article that explain how the jew have unproportion number and control of the hollywood and the news. Ani medjool (talk). That editor has bought into the conspiracy theory and I criticised him for posting that comment. Fences&Windows 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are accusations of antisemitism sometimes not taken as seriously as those making the accusation might wish? -- The same can be said for any concern. When you have a valid concern that people agree with, it'll be taken seriously. I've learned though, that as frustrating as it may be, when I bring up a concern and others are dismissive, to take the hint. Since others don't share the feeling that it is a concern, it probably shouldn't be as much of a concern for me either. Copying from Stormfront for an article on antisemitism is no evidence that someone's an antisemite, any more than copying Mein Kompf for a paper on Hitler is. The copyvio was an issue, and was dealt with; but I see no grounds for making further assumptions regarding his personal feelings. If he says the copyvio was a mistake, then that's what we have to assume for the time being, per AGF, so I don't see why this issue is still ongoing. The prudent course of action would be to simply watch his future actions, rather than continuing to draw on this occurrence. Equazcion (talk) 17:20, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Fences misses my point about our policies. CIVIL prohibits personal slurs, including slurs directed against one's race, religion, etc. This is another example of what I mean by a policy against a personal rather than a collective attack. here, the personal attack involves attacking one's associations with others, but that is not the same thing as an impesonal attack. An individual still has to be the direct target of the attack, according to this policy. If CIVIL simply said that the use of racial slurs is prohibited at Misplaced Pages, I would agree with Fences. But it starts, as it always does, with "Personal attacks , including ..." - our policies always begin with an attack directed at a person. I am not wikilawyering, this is a real gap in our policies. My point is that there are collective attacks that are impersonal i.e. not directed against any person. We have no policy to cover that. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's consensus against editors making "derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities", whether directed against a specific editor or not. Slagging off entire groups is definitely against the spirit of WP:CIVIL even if the current wording is potentially ambiguous on this issue. I can see your point though, so where we should raise this general issue? Fences&Windows 21:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think what may be needed is a new clause to the civility policy. Perhaps the first step is to check to see what policy we have on pornography. I do not know whether we have a written policy, but in practice, we never censor anything that has sexual graphic content if it is used for encyclopedic purposes, but we do delete it if it is used for salacious purposes. We face the same issue here: Many people thought Noleander's articles anti-Semitic because, despite the trappings of an article, there was a general feeling that the anti-Semitic content was being used to attack Jews in general. In article on anti-Semitism, Nazis, etc. anti-Semitic content is considered acceptable because it is clearly being used for encyclopedic purposes. So we would need a standard - how to tell the difference between gratuitous use of anti-Semitic content versus appropriate encyclopedic use. We can do it - we basically do it with sexual images - we just need to figure out the appropriate wording. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so i dont get into trouble again, who CAN I template?Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 20:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Crafty (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your last question of me. Of course you are not obliged to further explain yourself. But I would be grateful if you tried. Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno what else you want me to say. I think I was pretty clear about interpretations of policy. Crafty (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat, I know you are not obligated to respond further.

I pointed out WP:Coatrack#What_to_do_about_coatracks says: "An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate."

This passage is the only passage where WP:Coatrack addresses deletion. If, when you said: "I dunno what else you want me to say..." Well, if you could only say one thing I would ask you to start by trying to reconcile what WP:Coatrack actually recommends about when it is appropriate to argue articles should be deleted with the repeated calls for deletion that claimed they were citing the coatrack essay. Geo Swan (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there enough drama for you at the DRV? You have to track it across the carpets of my talkpage too? Crafty (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

— Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. :) Crafty (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please DO NOT subst: this template!

Yikes! I didn't realise. Thank you for letting me know. I hopes I didn't break teh intahwebz! Crafty (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob seems to want to change the universe to fit his own agenda. I am just stating facts in a logical maner. Off2riorob is trying to change the definition of the words opinion and fact.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.109.248 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You're a vandal, a troll and a POV pusher. Look those words up in your Merriam-Webster. Crafty (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Cut the crap and the personal attacks." That sounds like an attack to me. It's not crap, it is a fact that Romanon Polanski raped a child. So..... what is the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.109.248 (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)