User talk:TrueCRaysball/Archive/9

Active discussions

Talk Page Archives

Nov. 2009 - Mar. 2011

† UserspaceNavigation


Archive 8 |
Archive 9

Welcome back

! :) –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. Happy editing. Yotcmdr =talk= 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Ditto, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back. иιƒкч? 00:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back, Christianrocker90. --Bsadowski1 00:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all of you :) --   CR90  00:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Two hours late, but welcome back! EhJJTALK 02:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :)--   CR90  02:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back. ;) Pmlineditor  03:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
ty.--   CR90  03:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tekken mas removal

I can't be bothered simplifying the story sections and no-one reads them anyway. But I'll put it back if you want. And I was going to put more stuff onto those articles later. --Claimgoal 09:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Simple News #13

GoblinBot3 (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello and good evening (or whatever). I would like your opinion on your return to WP. Part of the reason you were banned was due to your POV pushing including your Christian and American bias, agreed? Part of, my issue at least, and others, was your userpage, username and edits.

  • I note you have changed your username however it is still very pro-Christian. We all agreed that WP was not to be used as a soapbox for your (and ours, mine included) political or religious opinions. I'd like to know why you saw it best to keep "Christian" in your username.
  • Your userbox:
This user is a Christian-Pentecostal.
  • Your bible quotations:
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
— Philippians 4:13 (NKJV)

And then at last, the sign that the Son of Man is coming will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the peoples of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with the mighty blast of a trumpet, and they will gather his chosen ones from all over the world—from the farthest ends of the earth and heaven.
— Matthew 24:30-31 (NLT)

  • The about me section:

"I am a proud American, Floridian & Christian."

  • The banner:
  • And the cross (†) at the start of every section.

I am interested in knowing your reasoning on why you chose to do these things after these were specifically mentioned in your ban? Regards Kennedy (talk • changes). 22:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, your story seems to be strangely christian biased too. Perhaps Andrew from NC was the only user to see it in its true form: "It's just one more reason why dating is wrong. Biblical courtship is the proper way to go about finding the person who you are to marry". Is this the purpose of the story? Kennedy (talk • changes). 22:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This message was not directed to me or the community as a whole so I actually tend to not want to respond but the more I read your comments Kennedy the more I felt obligated to. I'm not going to say that everything on his userpages are perfect, personally I think it's a bit to myspacy for my tastes, but it is what it is and I know to me it looks more like someone trying to express themselves then trying to soapbox.

I'm more concerned because your comments above look an awful lot like you have vendetta against him and are looking for every little thing to harp on and hopefully draw him out to be hostile towards you (so you can block him per his probation?). To harp on a user-box that says what religion he is? Countless users do that, religion is a pivotal thing in many peoples lives and it is hard not to include that when you are describing yourself, and that's coming from me as someone who basically turned his back on his religion because of what he saw as stupidity in it. You seem to go specifically through everything with your mind already made up that he has to be in the wrong even if you can't see it, even his story is somehow a problem. I hate to say this to a fellow admin but to me you are showing much more bias in your critique of his user page then he actually does on the page. Jamesofur (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The one thing I will respond about, Kennedy, is that my story has nothing to do with Christianity, it does not mention nor imply it. My story is a love tragedy.--   CR90  00:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You are correct Jamesofur, it was not aimed at you or the community, however I will answer your points regardless; I am not 'picking on' him, I was simply asking him for his views, hence the reason the section is titled "Opinion" and I repeatidly ask him for such.
My qualm is that he was banned for POV pushing and a strong pro-Christian (or at least an anti-non-Christian) view on his edits and his userpages. Therefore I was looking for his views on why he still chose to display these opinions so prominently on his userpage after claiming he has changed (born again? :)). I am not trying to anger him so that I can ban him, I am only observing, and looking to have a debate to resolve this issue.
I note he has only rebuffed one of my points, and I am happy to accept that the story is not pro-Christian if he says so. Perhaps the editor who commented got the wrong end of the virtual stick, perhaps I did too.
However my other points remain unanswered, and as far as I am concerned he is still in violation of his ban, and his refusal to defend himself only serves to incriminate him further. His refusal to change his page, or to at least state his reasons so we can discuss further may result in me taking further action if necessary. As I say, he is still in violation of his ban.
CR, please respond with your thoughts so we don't need to go down this route. Regards, Kennedy (talk • changes). 12:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You see thats the problem, you say that you are just asking for his opinion and yet state straight out that "he is still in violation of his ban" (not to even mention that the ban is over, he is unbanned and on probation). If I was him I don't think I would respond you are clearly assuming bad faith and in my view showing more bias then he does. If you believe he is in violation of his probation then then by all means bring it to th greater community. To be honest I'll have to think over the next couple hours if I want to bring it to the community on my own, this is not the place for it because despite what you say I still see your statements, and your response, as trolling and bad faith and almost nothing more. Jamesofur (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
By all means. The AN board is this a-way. Don't you think that other users see this page too though? Kennedy (talk • changes). 00:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course they can, but this is not the place, I was waiting to think about it but your right I'll post there in a couple Jamesofur (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Sorry, I won't make anymore changes ಠ_ಠ!i!King OF ZE Ravenz!i!ಠ_ಠ (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar

Thank you so much for the barnstar for my work on the color articles! That is the first barnstar I ever received on either the Simple English or the regular English Wikipedia. I was wondering when it would ever happen! Best wishes and thank you again, Kidlat (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I also like rock music but I don't know anything about Christian rock. What are your favorite Christian rock groups? Do you like any non-Christian rock groups? If so, which ones? Kidlat (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion vote template

I've deleted your deletion-vote template that you created on your subpage because of Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Template:Delete. Consensus is to not use these templates anymore on Simple Wikipedia. Thanks, Either way (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was not proposed for deletion because of that reason, and the majority of users favored redirecting, not deleting. On top of that, it's in his userspace, so I think it's fine, but that's just me. It can be interpreted in different ways. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
This template was in my userspace not in the mainspace so you cannot delete per "recreation of deleted content" as far as I'm told, second, the consensus was to redirect the template not for it never to be used anymore. I'm sorry but I disagree with your deletion and request you restore it..--   CR90 
Actually, per the closing statement, the consensus was to delete and redirect to the quick delete template. Hosting deleted content in your user space still qualifies as a recreation. Please consult other sysops if you'd like this restored, but I stand by my decision. Either way (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I've consulted three, two said they disagree and one said that I should ask you to restore it nicely, I'm writing up a deletion review right now.--   CR90  01:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


Be bold, simplify it! Or I'll get to it soon. Welcome back too. :) Peterdownunder (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I might simplify it later, but I'm about to goto bed now, and thanks! :) --   CR90  11:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Simple News Issue 14

--Barras (de) (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Simple News Issue 15

Yottie =talk= 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple News Issue 16

Issue Sixteen
4th January 2010

Administrator News

Juliancolton | Talk 21:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiBreak have a good one, come back as soon as possible!

Icek863 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC) :) --Icek863 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


Shouldn't these go in the first queue? --cremepuff222 (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my error, Puff, sorry. <_< Pmlineditor  08:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, okays. :P --cremepuff222 (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 adminship

You can nom me, and we see what the community thinks, but I doubt I'll pass Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh no you didn't

  ”'The Excellent Userpage Award”'
For telling me you needed a barnstar. Good transclusions and html on your userpage. Nifky^ 07:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

yayz thanks.--   CR90  07:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A small request

Hello, Christianrocker! You're doing a wonderful job here, fixing up so many articles so well. And this leads to a question of: May I put you on the list of users I respect? Yours very sincerely, Classical Esther ~ 04:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure.--   CR90  04:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Another request :-). Could you simplify that WrestleMania XXVI article, is not so easy to understand (not for me, I understand it perfectly ;) ) but for other persons. --MisterWiki (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well me and fr33kman worked on it's simplification about a week ago, I guess I can try to simplify it more.--   CR90  00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Okie dokie. No problem. --MisterWiki (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Trust, or lack of it

I'd like to know what it is that makes you distrust me. Particularly with regard to my credentials in judging whether something needs oversight. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to think that such an assertion of distrust in my possible "oversight" ability coupled with my history in Wikimedia projects would result in a response from you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
How can I put this nicely? Um, well lets just say I want to leave what you know about my distrust in you as it is. What caused my distrust in you can only be solved by time and effort on both of our parts.--   CR90  21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
So you mean you don't "like" me? If you don't trust in my ability to administer and, possibly, oversight, this Wikipedia, I'd like to know why. I don't "believe" in the things in which you "believe" but it doesn't mean I don't think you're a good editor. If you have something specific that I can address then great, but right now, your vote (to me) just appears as vengeful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to know, I'd rather address this privately, possibly on PM on IRC.--   CR90  22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not interested in addressing this subversively. I'm all up front. If you have an issue then address it with Wikipedia's public. I have a big problem with off-wiki communication, it leads to mistrust (ironically), misunderstanding and usually serious disappointment. If you're prepared to tell me (and the rest of Wikipedia) what it is that you have a problem with, then go for it. Otherwise, as my grandmother would have said "put up, or shut up". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Then I'm striking my vote and staying neutral, cause I'm not gonna explain my reasons publicly.--   CR90  22:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I would much rather you were honest on this Wikipedia. I have nothing to hide. If you have something to say, say it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
TRM, I don't trust you cause well you're one of the editors on here that already have you mind made up about me and other banned enWP editors, so you just close your mind to some's (including myself's) good intentions for this Wikipedia and look down on them. Even if it has been proven they've turned over a new leaf. For this reason I find it hard to bring myself to trust you with another tool, even if it is just oversight. I'm sorry if it might seem vengeful, but that is not my intention behind it.--   CR90  06:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue who has been banned on any Wikipedia, nor do I care. If you contribute in-line with policies and guidelines, that's just fine. Show me where I "already have [my] mind made up". My key role on this Wikipedia is to review GAs, VGAs, administer recent changes, block vandals, revert vandalism, check for sockpuppets, rename and promote people and you don't trust me. I don't believe I have prejudiced against an editor just because they have been banned elsewhere, ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Hello, TrueCRaysball. You have new messages at Belinda's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Really? :P Belinda 11:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Simple News: Issue Seventeen

Issue Seventeen
1st March 2010


  • The QandA. Every month, a user will be interviewed by a member of the Simple News team. This idea was started by Kennedy. Interviews are generally taking by a member of the Simple News Team - to date this has included Bluegoblin7, Kennedy, Pmlineditor, Shappy and Yotcmdr.

This weeks interview is with Nifky?.

Click here for Nifky?'s interview!

Administrator News

Pmlineditor  12:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


I hope you are simplifying the articles you are importing. For example almost nothing was simplified on Joe Maddon except to remove a paragraph and link a few words. Almost the entire article is word for word. I am just letting you know that you need to simplify these articles. If its not simplified it will end up being speedy deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with Joe Maddon, I did a lot to it to simplify and differentiate form the enWP copy [1].--   CR90  05:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


Sorry to bother you again, but I have a question about IRC. If you make an account in it, how do you make it? I always just click [2]this and write my name, Belinda, write in the channel, #wikipedia-simple. Is it as simple as that? Also, when you want to talk to somebody, there is usually a list of names on the right side. For example, there is CR90. When I click it, these two words come out: whois, and query. What does that mean? Just curious. :) Thanks! Belinda 06:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Query is a private message where you can talk to the person privately. Whois shows you information like IP adress. As for registering, you have to type /ns register and follow the onscreen instructions. But you can't type that till you're in #wikipedia-simple. I hope this helps if not, just ask. :) --   CR90  06:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
How kindly you explained it! :) Thankyou very much! It helped extremely. But what do I write.... /ns, or /ns register? A bit confused... Belinda 06:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
/ns register--   CR90  06:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! ^^ I'll try it out. Belinda 07:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm a member, thanks to your help, CR90. But if I want to go in, do I just click the this [3] and write my nickname and the channel #wikipedia-simple? What's the difference of making an account and not making one? :S?? Belinda 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you go to Webchat and type your name and channel. Also, if you have a username, it is not possible for anyone else to use it (to impersonate you or whatever). Pmlineditor  07:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Then what's the use of making an account? It's just the same, isn't it? You go in, type your name and channel, click enter. The end? Belinda 07:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Some channels don't allow you to enter unless you have a registered nick.--   CR90  07:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Also, I meant account, not username. Pmlineditor  07:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks! :) Bye! Belinda 07:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@Pmlineditor: The username in freenode is part of a user's info in whois, it's the bit before the '@' sign where you can see a hex IP or nine characters that users can customise.... A nick(name) is entirely different. :P Nifky^ 07:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Arachnophobic users

Hi there. I've deleted this category as I'm not quite sure of consensus for creating user categories. Additionally, the category was empty and incorrectly named. If we can determine what criteria there are for user categories, I have no problem with it, except that it should be at Category:Wikipedians with arachnophobia. Cheers, Lauryn (utc) 17:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Joe Maddon

I almost deleted it, then I checked the page hist. Please check and finish conversion if you will. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was giving him till tomorrow to simplify it, because other than a few words being changed its not simplified at all. But as of tomorrow I will delete it if its still the same as it currently is. -DJSasso (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's just move it to his sandbox in his userspace? --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 04:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That is fine, I prefer it to remain in mainspace for all to edit... this is difficult, because we can not have complex articles in mainspace at the same time. CR90, if you need more time, take it. There is no deadline, but please do not leave it for long in it's current condition. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  Administrator note: Please do not use the import tool again, until the two articles Joe Maddon and User:Christianrocker90/WrestleMania XXVII are converted. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXVII

er... I did remove this one. It was not converted hardly. If you need me to recover it and place it in your userspace, or email you the deleted so you can work it, let me know. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User rights change

Hello. It seems a steward has applied the incorrect flag to your account. Instead of "transwiki importer" you were flagged as "importer". The only difference in the two; one permits XML upload, one does not. Since we don't use XML upload on this wiki, the flag was changed to match those flags of our other "importers". You did not do anything wrong, nor do you have to do anything for this. The request is located here at meta and your rights are now the correct rights. You are still able to import pages. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I was wondering what happened.--   CR90  23:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Concerning what? Pmlineditor  09:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reposting private or semi private conversations

Please do not repost links, or actual IRC logs, without the permission of those involved. Also, you must keep all discussion on the wiki if you would like folks to consider it in part of the actual discussion. Please do not direct contributers to other sites in order to contribute to the discussion. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AN discussion

In light of your point of view edits to Barack Obama, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#POV editing by Christianrocker90. Either way (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh no!

CR90, my best friend! Don't retire, my dear! :'( You are one of the only witty, funny people in wikipedia that are so rare and wonderful to me. You will be missed alot, and you'll regret it for sure. The people in wikipedia are all just trying to be cold and encyclopedia-ish, but that doesn't mean you should be so quick! Please, for my sake, don't leave this place, or I'll be miserable without one humorous friend around to cheer me up. I was even expanding the article on Aaron because of you! Please stay! Yours worriedly, Belinda 00:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna try to stay, but just so ya know, you would hav still been able to talk with me on IRC.--   CR90  00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, CR90

I was very concerned to see your retirement, and I'm glad you changed your mind. Since you said you needed a pep talk, I hope you won't get annoyed with me if I lecture you a bit. Dear CR90, please don't get hurt if people seem to be prejudiced against you. The servant is never better than the master, and Jesus was hated by the world: is it so great a surprise if Christians are hated too? But to my joy, it doesn't actually seem as if everybody is hating you: people like NonVocalScream, Fr33kman, and others stuck up for you. Even Eptalon was fair. I'm certain it was just a mistake and not POV pushing. Remember that all things earthly pass away, and the heavenly glories are all that are important. We must conduct ourselves with the firmest Christian rule of loving all as Jesus loved us. Look at the bright side of Wikipedia, please continue the great work you have on articles, and enjoy editing. It was a simple mistake in my opinion, and nothing more. Thanks for listening me patiently out. God bless you, CR90! Yours sincerely, Classical Esther 00:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Esther.--   CR90  00:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree wholly with Esther. CR90, I really am fond of you, and you are a great help in wrestling articles. Let's try to glorify God's name by being good. And about the IRC thing, I knew we could talk on there, but I still like you on simple wiki too. ;) It seems like a tiny light of fun and cheer shining into the dark, solemn wikipedia... And I want it to stay. Belinda 00:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Please stick around; we need your presence here. Kansan (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Didn't know I've developed quit the fan base ;) --   CR90  00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


I have removed this from your userpage. Wikipedia does not exist for this purpose. You userpage does not belong to you, and mine does not belong to me. It belongs to the project, and is permitted use by the user, in hopes of improving the project. These edits do not forward that goal. Wikipedia is not a en:WP:Soapbox. Also, BLP applies everywhere, for any living person. So, before you add negative or contentious information in any namespace, about any living, or recently dead person, you need multiple, reliable sources. Continued soapboxing may result in a block to stop the bad editing. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP doesn't just apply to Wikipedia space

Having contentious material about any living person anywhere violates said policy, just so you know. Might also have a look at WP:MYSPACE as well. Cheerio, Lauryn (utc) 04:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


I've blocked this account for 72 hours. For continued soapboxing on the userspace. Hiding it is gaming the system. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TrueCRaysball/Archive/9 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

I'll gladly remove it all you have to do is ask.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    • understand what you have been blocked for,
    • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    • will make useful contributions instead.Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information -- Lauryn (utc) 04:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  • This is not kindergarten or a daycare centre. "I'll glady remove it all you have to do is ask" is not a valid unblock reason. You need to learn to discuss your edits instead of blindly reverting people. 72 hours is plenty of time to think about it and a lighter block than I would have issued. Lauryn (utc) 04:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right, but the fact is, I will remove the message and hide the code. I have wrestling articles to update that can't wait 72 hours. So please unblock me so we can get on with our editing careers please.--   CR90  04:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
That's something you should have considered previously. You've given me no reason to believe you will cease your disruptive behaviour. Cheers, Lauryn (utc) 04:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
See, I admitted I was wrong and said I have something to do and you still won't unblock me even though you said you would.--   CR90  04:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not hard. The block is not punishment. The block is to prevent the bad editing. If you state what you did wrong, and convince me that it won't repeat, I'll remove the block. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Scream, you're right the message is wrong. I'll remove it completely if you'll unblock me, but for the benefit of the article themselves I hope you'll consider it.-   CR90  04:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
And about the gaming part... will you discuss before reverting an administrator like that (instead of restoring it, and hiding it in wikicode)? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Though I personally feel I must say, I want the code there, just not the message anymore.--   CR90 
Keep whatever code you need... it was the <-- soap message here--!> hiding of the message that you restored, that was an issue. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

User states understanding. Bad edits won't repeat

Request handled by: NonvocalScream (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

NonvocalScream (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


My dearest CR90, I will try to give you advice, but am a bit disappointed in you. You have used the horrible expression of "what the hel*"--though wikipedia is not censored, I know--and was vain, calling your advisors a "fan base". Also, you kept on snapping back at the people who blocked you. A few hours is enough to be good again and think of what you've done, but you insisted on being unblocked. This happened before, too, when Goblin blocked you. Also, you shouldn't have retired so quickly. I know I should not be saying this, but please know that I'm only advising you because I care for you. If you are a christian, try to act like one. Making people block you is like blocking God. Acting mean and calling yourself christian is like spitting into Jesus's face. Also, you didn't really have to try to keep your "Tragic Love Story", even though it was nice. It wasn't very wise. Please try to glorify our Heavenly Father's name, and don't overreact so easily!! Don't forget, however, that I am still fond and affectionate of you as ever and I am not saying this because I dislike you, but because I feel worried for you... Best blessings, Belinda 10:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple News: Issue Eighteen

Issue Eighteen
13th March 2010


  • The QandA. Every month, a user will be interviewed by a member of the Simple News team. This idea was started by Kennedy. Interviews are generally taken by a member of the Simple News Team - to date this has included Bluegoblin7, Kennedy, Pmlineditor, Shappy and Yotcmdr.

This week, there are two interviews, with Bsadowski1 and CR90.

Click here for Bsadowski1's interview!

Click here for CR90's interview!

Administrator News

User Articles
Pmlineditor talks about P(V)GA and WikiProjects in his fifth Simple News article.

The Commander's Choice

The Commanders's Choice. For every edition, Yottie or Pmlineditor will be chosing articles that need creating, expanding or being attended to. Here is this edition's list:


This was an incorrect use of rollback. The edit was made in good faith, it was not vandalism. fr33kman 01:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I hesitated but...anyway, sorry.--   CR90  01:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
After re-reading it, you're right, sorry again.--   CR90  01:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, be careful in the future, some admins would just remove your rollback for such events ;) fr33kman 01:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


I do not know what your problem is with NonvocalScream, but I would strongly encourage you to drop it. If you're upset that he deleted your story, that's fine and I am sorry, but continuing to disrupt various processes (RfB, DRV, etc) will lead to a block. I ask you to reconsider your most recent actions. Thank you, Lauryn (utc) 02:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption of the project. If you believe this block is unfair you may request to be unblocked by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. If you cannot do this or the reason is private please send an e-mail to and an administrator will look at your reason and reply. You may want to consider reading our guide to unblock requests before requesting to be unblocked. fr33kman 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised. --Diego (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ban review

Fellows, it has been a year since CR90 has been allowed to edit here. I feel it is time for a review of his community ban. For those who don't know CR90, he has a past of allowing his personal beliefs as a conservative Christian to affect his work on wiki, and has had some issues in the past with interactions with other users; times when he was blameless and other times not. For those of you who do know CR90, I'll not say anything, you know his story and I'll not start pushing diffs about because they will come out below anyway. I'm asking for Aaron to be unbanned because I feel that the person I knew a year ago is totally different from the person I know today. I've had loads of chats with him where we've disagreed on beliefs and politics but now it's always in a friendly way. CR90 is promising to abide by the five pillars and to remain neutral. He'll give a statement below in his own words. I think we can use another editor, especially someone who knows the project well and edits in an area none of the rest of us do. He knows that his actions will be watched like a hawk and I don't think he'd be bothering asking for an unban if he did not really mean it. Thanks for reading, please partake in this review, all opinions are welcome. fr33kman 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

CR90's statement

Hi, it's been a year since we last spoke formally on here, in that time I have aged a year and gotten more mature and learned from other mistakes. While I still have political opinions I have learned it's not right to shove them where they are not wanted. There are appropriate forums for that, Wikipedia is not one of them. I have come to understand that this Wiki is NPOV and I must write within those rules. If you approve my unban I will be a good worker and remain neutral. I hope to do a quick run though of wrestling and baseball articles as they are not up to date; no one really tended to these articles but myself. While I would really enjoy once again being apart of this community, it won't be in same way as before. I have other interests besides Wikipedia as well. Don't misunderstand me though, I will still contribute, just not obsessively. I truly am sorry for all my shenanigans before but to learn you must make mistakes. I have only one request that I hope comes true regardless of the outcome of this ban review, don't "judge" me until you know me. So in closing, I hope you will invite me to be apart of your community again. Thank you and God Bless!--   CR90  00:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


I see nothing wrong with unbanning the user, as I don't see anything wrong with a second chance for any blocked user showing initiative to help the wiki. Be aware, if you are unblocked, that your edits will be monitored very closely. Albacore (talk · changes) 00:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In all efforts for transparency, I have to point out that this is Aaron's third chance if allowed. His second chance is here. fr33kman 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Alright, I agree with Fr33k. Over this year I think CR90 has made some large gains in the field of maturity, and I am willing to give CR90 another chance to re-join our community. Looking into the future, if CR90 is unbanned, there are some things I would like him as well as the community to consider. I would like a six month one strike editing restriction in regards to NPOV. If an edit is clear POV, the indef block can be reinstated without discussion. I was also considering also a possible six month topic ban on all political topics. This is just to give some time for CR90 to adjust to editing again, and let the community once again build up some trust in the editor. These are just some things I think the community should think about putting into place should CR90 be unblocked. Now, moving on to actions I think CR90 can make to better adjust to working on this wiki, should he be unbanned. Firstly, pay close attention to any restrictions which may be put in place. If, when you type something, it sounds even remotely like POV, don't hit save. Instead, hit the talk page and discuss the change. This would do two things. 1, it would keep you completely NPOV. 2nd, it would create some collaboration on articles to help the community gain trust in you. These two points are not just for you, but can really be applied to anybody on the wiki, however I feel they are very important in this case. Secondly, I would suggest a name change. I know CR90 is like your personal identity online, however I think it would help you adjust to our community, starting sorta fresh. Also, per our username policy: "Some names do not offend people, but they show a strong view or are very religious. These names are discouraged but less seriously than names that offend people." So, while not 100% bad, religious names are discouraged. So, I do suggest a name change.
So, I think I've summed up my points pretty well. I've given the community some possible restrictions, and I've given some advice to CR90. I think all of this can be applied, should the community decide to give CR90 another chance. Just in re to Albacore, this will be a second unban, and a third chance..--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
What you are saying sounds much like what was said last time around, with the heavy restrictions upon unblock. Also, CR90 is an already renamed account. I would also like to see the evidence of maturity. We didn't see some last time around, and nothing has changed in a year. Is there anything on a WMF wiki that shows him working constructively with others? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See no reason to give him a third chance. He used up his second chance last time he was unblocked. Don't think the user has changed at all. He was asked to stay away from IRC until he was unbanned to show that he had changed. He was unable to do so, which shows me he did not change at all. And as for not thinking he wouldn't ask if he wasn't serious. Is that a joke? He asked before and was unbanned before only to do the exact same things again. Have absolutely zero reason to believe he changed this time. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I would also point out in his statement above in which he says "God Bless" which was part of the problem, he couldn't even hold out from doing it in his unblock request. Show me proof on a WMF wiki of him working without the issues of the past and I will reconsider. Until that time he should remain blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd hope that I'd personally have enough of your respect to know that I'd not joke about someone's unban dude. You have had a personal grudge against Aaron for ages; let's be honest, no matter how he says he's changed or how many years or even decades have gone by you will still vote no. Sorry to be so blunt, but it's the truth. (no disrespect intended at all) There are other users here who go around saying God Bless, it's not an insult, nor is it in violation of NPOV, you are allowed opinions, just not within the articles. :-) fr33kman 01:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, I don't know that. You constantly over assume good faith. He has no proof he changed. I would allow him back if he had proof. If he wants to come back on simple maybe we should turn the tables on the standard offer and tell him to go to en and show us proof on en that he has changed. As for the other users that go around saying God Bless, I don't think they should either. It is offensive to those who don't believe. Unfortunately CR90 has had other issues than the others which caused him to be banned, but for him this is just the tip of the iceberg. He does not belong on a wiki, he does not know how to be unbiased, and has shown no proof that he has changed. He got a second chance last time he was unblocked to show us that. We are under no good faith obligation to allow him to show us that proof on simple this time. He already had that chance. -DJSasso (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think you over assume bad faith too much, I'd rather assume good faith and get it wrong and assume bad faith and get it wrong. The first I can fix, the second is a loss of trust. Telling other users that they can not say God Bless is just as offensive to them as it might be to you to have it said to you. You always have the option of telling users not to use such terms with you and I believe they no longer do. We are under no obligation to review this ban, you are correct, but I believe it to be the decent thing to do at least. fr33kman 01:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
See and I think assuming good faith and getting it wrong is irreparable whereas assuming bad faith and having them prove us wrong can easily be fixed by an unban, whereas the reputation hit we take each time we let someone like him back is almost impossible to repair as this wiki has seen time and again. Telling someone not to say god bless is not in the least offensive, its saying be neutral and don't push it in peoples faces and keep the wiki neutral as it should be. Saying god bless is pushing a point of view, effectively sand boxing which is one of the things that Wikipedia is not. Just like I wouldn't push atheism/agnostic beliefs on someone who believes, they shouldn't be saying things that can be interpreted as pushing their point of view. The talk pages of Wikipedia are not for pushing your beliefs. -DJSasso (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Block a good faith user is much worse than unbanning a bad faith user. The bad faith user can just be reblocked, the good faith user has a taint on his name. I think both reputations matter, and I think ours is pretty good at the moment. We have 8 editors who are stewards and all of them were vocal about being on simplewiki. That's not too shabby! fr33kman 01:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no taint if the user is unbocked as being an incorrect block. And in this specific case, the taint on his name is long since a done deal and nothing done here will change that. -DJSasso (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm asking for very heavy restrictions and a topic ban because I have no evidence on a MWF wiki. CR90 is currently blocked on en and simple, and from what I gather he only speaks English, and is interested in very specific topics. Being blocked on both English Wikipedias, I'm not sure where else he can edit in his specific topics. We can't force users to edit elsewhere, and I feel asking our banned editors to go to other wikis to gain some trust is an action we often frown upon. When a user from en comes here and says "I'm here because I'm banned at en, and the admins say I need to edit here to show I can be constructive before they will unban me" we watch them like a hawk, and block them on first offense. I think us telling users to do this, when we dislike it when en does it to us, is rather hypocritical. Also, saying god bless is completely fine. We have admins who are obviously very religious, and as long as they don't incorporate this POV in articles, we're fine. I understand that CR90 however, does have a history incorporating this POV into articles, which is why I have suggested these harsh restrictions. If you believe a user cannot add god bless in a post on their TP, I would like a policy that clearly states that. If we don't have one, lets discuss getting one, and I will strongly oppose it.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Being obviously religious and pushing that belief are two different things. Frankly having Christian in his name isn't a big deal to me. But saying things to people that are clearly religious in overtones is soapboxing which is part of WP:NOT. Yes I don't think we should send him to en to prove himself, but frankly we need proof. If he had never been unbanned before and reblocked then I would be more likely to unblock and say fine prove it to us. But we have been through this before. He is blocked on two wikis. It isn't our fault he got himself in this situation. I only suggest going to en because its been a long time since he has asked there as far as I am aware. -DJSasso (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Not really that interested in editing enWP anymore because of the stress involved, not to mention the redundancy involved the wrestling WikiProject over there.--   CR90  01:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the thinking there. Saying god bless, to me, shows an obvious religious POV, but it doesn't push that POV. There is currently nothing that stops a user from saying god bless in a comment. I don't see how this is pushing his religion on others, in no way am I being forced or being pushed into being Christian as a result of this comment. The only issue with posting god bless is a POV, and as long as this remains in comments and out of the userspace, there is no violation of any policy. WP:NOT states "That means that if you believe in something, you should not try to say that idea in the article." It speaks of an article, not in a comment on a usertalk. I understand that you need proof, I just don't agree with saying "Go there!". And, what is the difference if he requests here or there? The same argument of proof will be brought up, and as he is blocked there is obviously none. This is why I want strong strong restrictions. At least 6 months of one strike on any POV.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Saying God Bless is forcing someone to be blessed against their will. Its pushing their religion through blessing someone. I had no choice to be blessed or not. I was forced into being blessed. As for WP:NOT. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. No one with any belief religious or otherwise should be spreading it around the talk pages. Talk that is not directly related to editing the wikipedia is forbidden through WP:NOTAFORUM. Either way my point was more along the lines, if he doesn't understand he should probably not be acting overly religious when that is what got him in trouble, then I don't see where he can say he has changed and won't be POV. It was more an example that he is lacking in clue. That its a point of proof (arguably) that he hasn't changed. In other words a small thing that hints towards a larger issue. And his asking the exact day a year was up doesn't speak to his taking things seriously and that he just treated it as time he had to wait as opposed to teaching him anything. -DJSasso (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't being forced to accept anything. No person can reasonably expect God (if you believe in one) would be forced to bless someone just because a human said it. It's just polite for some people. Good evening, good bye are also Christian religious statements, shall we remove those? Personally skin creeps every time someone says Happy Christmas to me but I don't think ill of the person for doing so, I say thank you and move on. You are just touchy about this subject, and that's fine, but you also simply don't like CR90 and I'm sure if he went over to en and went for the standard offer you'd oppose him there also. I respect you a lot man, and I know you respect me, but I guess we'll never be able to agree on this subject. fr33kman 02:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I seriously disagree with you here DJ. If two active admins disagree with the wording and how a rule should be interpreted, I don't expect somebody who has been away a year to get it right. If you wish, we can hold a discussion on ST about this issue, as this is a phrase other users and admins have used, so is not an issue that is isolated to CR90. ST would be a better forum to discus it. And I also disagree with him coming here today being a bad thing/ Today is the day that he is allowed to be unbanned, and is there anything wrong in coming back at the date that the community decided was a good date for a review? I would thank him for coming here today. Take a look at the wrestling articles. When is the last time the majority of them have been updated? By coming here as soon as possible, it proves he is VERY seriously about getting back to work and fixing these pages.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually I would support an unblock on en because all he was blocked for on en was sockpuppeting as far as I am aware, and since he hasn't done that lately as far as I am aware then I would have no problem unblocking him as the lack of sockpuppeting is proof in itself that he can be unblocked from a block for that reason. However, on simple he is blocked for much more than sockpuppeting. And things like acting overtly religious while showing no proof he has changed, and making the same promises he made previously and broke previously are all indications that he hasn't changed and is still the same. As for unblocking him with stringent conditions, of course he would have stringent conditions as a banned user on en he is always under the one strike rule. So he will get banned for one mess up anyways. And as I said the act of saying god bless is just a symptom. Not a big deal in itself but a sign. Just like the coming here the minute he can is of course allowed, but it shows a lack of clue. The idea was that he might get reviewed after a year. Not that he would get reviewed. -DJSasso (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
@Djsasso. I can honestly say that Aaron's not brought up the topic of religion with me in almost the whole year. I can't actually recall a single time. Politics, yes, but that's in my channel on IRC and I enjoy the debate with him there, and there is the correct place for it and he know's it. fr33kman 01:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't that productive. Probably more important to focus on more important things. Albacore (talk · changes) 02:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Very true, thanks for pointing that out. These things always do tend to get heated, sadly. fr33kman 02:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Ironically that sums up the biggest reason I think he should remain banned....the waste of the wikis resources he has caused over the years from discussions like this. -DJSasso (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this unban. Reading DJSasso's comments, I feel myself beginning to agree with him, but then reading Fr33kman's comments, and assuming good faith, I really want to have CR90 back again. (And DJSasso... I used to say "God bless" quite frequently too. I didn't know it would offend you, and if it did, I'm sorry. :P) In any case, I'm going to try thinking very carefully over this matter. If CR90 was having his first unblock request, I would most certainly support it, but this is his second, and he has already disappointed us all and lost himself two chances. But then again, he's very sorry, and willing to be good - and I'm quite sure that as long as he has some self control in him, he will be good. Anyway, I'm inclining to a support, but at the moment it's rather weak. (Apologies to dear CR90—do forgive me for being neutral too much and loyal too little.) ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 07:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello all, I fully support unbanning CR90, without any editing restrictions. I have known CR90 before the ban, and I haven't seen him edit since, so there is no way I can evaluate if he has changed or not. I must however say that blocking a user is something that is easily done, so there is no real need to discuss this here. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, and we should not block editors based on the fact that they disagree with some other editor. Given that there is still some resentment, I would also propose that all block/ban requests for CR90 are handled by one single uninvolved crat, to be determined by the community of admins/crats; CR90 should propose suitable candidates. --Eptalon (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me perhaps add: About a year ago, the community active at that time decided to ban him, based on what he had done on this wiki. Complaining aobut not having evidence of him changing, and supporting his unblocking on some other WMF wiki to see is the wrong approach. If some other WMF wiki blocked him, it is on the community of that wiki to decide whether to unblock him. In other words: Whatever we decide to do should only involve SEWP. We are the community of SEWP, we cannot force the community of any other WMF wiki to do anything. --Eptalon (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You all know that I'm too lazy to read the whole discussion above (way too long), so I ask directly (not sure, may have been questioned/answered above already): Is this unban also something most people do who got blocked on EnWiki, then got blocked here and want to get unblocked here so they can show on EnWiki that they are good or something the like? Please let Cr90 answer this. Thanks, -Barras (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If I understood your question correctly, my answer would be no, that's not why I want unbanned here, enWP is not my "home", simple is my "home".--   Christnrockr90  12:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I am always happy to assume good faith. The question seems to be either CR90 has changed, or he has not. He has had a 12 month block. I suggest that we lift the ban and find out. If he hasn't changed we simply (and quickly) ban him again. If he has changed there is no problem. Seems straight foward to me. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • (note:I have no previous experience with this user or their ban) I support the unban, with some precautionary measures (POV editing restrictions, etc.). Like Peter said, if he hasn't changed, ban him again. A person can change a lot in a year. PrincessofLlyr talk 12:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I support the unban. I too assume good faith. People do change and learn from their mistakes. If he has changed, he will be a valuable editor. If not, he will surely be quickly banned again.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I've had the chance to talk to CR90 a fair bit over the last 12 months, and I believe he has matured and is ready to come back to Simple. Assuming Good Faith, and seeing how he gets on is definitely to me the right solution. Yottie =talk= 18:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I come from en (its been a while). I followed the link that fr33kman posted on the simple talk page. I've read the ban discussions and perused CR's logged activity. This is a volunteer driven project, and you've got someone begging to be reinstated as a volunteer. Why has he not continued his scorned upon actions during this year? Surely he has access to other IPs or whatever is needed to circumvent the banning procedures of this site. Christianrocker90 or CR90 is an important identity for him. If he blanked pages or subtlety inserted cuss words into articles, I could see the logic behind this uproar created by a suggestion of his reinstatement. The world is full of morons and people trying to manipulate others, but those people don't sit around for a year and then get their friend fr33kman to post an appeal on their behalf. Whatever becomes of this, I think it is very clear that fr33kman is much to close to the issue to be involved in any final decisions, in the interest of fairness. The3stars (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed very correct when you say I am in a COI position. I recognize this and knew it prior to requesting this unban and. I've said all I need to say about this topic above. I would, however, say here that it was I who blocked CR90, and my block led to this community ban. So please do not think I am that biased! I have not said this yet, but now will, I won't have any involvement in the closing of this request, nor in the suggestion of who should close it. I think CR90 should not have any influence over its closing either: this is up to the community to decide. fr33kman 02:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Offtopic, but what username are you at English Wikipedia. You don't seem to have an SUL and you just created your account today here. --Bsadowski1 06:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC) (Same Username in en, I thought things were unified between the 'pedias, but they're not. So this account I created to comment here. The3stars (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC))
After reading CR90's comment about simple being his "home", my support for his unblock was confirmed. It was short, but not short enough to leave me in between my thoughts. Blocking is easy, and if he creates drama and acts controversial again, the block can be restored with only a few clicks by any admin's mouse. But unblocking is the harder job, and so is assuming good faith, and we should do this. Although I don't like for Simple's reputation to be put down along the lines of "too easy and forgiving", like some on en think, we do need CR90 back, for he was quite helpful in articles. And CR90, I hope you'll be more careful this time - please do not misuse the trust we gave you or disappoint us again. :) ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 06:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I have faith in Fr33kman's judgment that he should be unbanned. Any issues can always be dealt with in a couple clicks. Exert 06:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support unblocking as long as he understands that this is likely his last chance and fully understands rules such as WP:SOAP and WP:MYSPACE. If he violates this, we reblock, simple as that. As an aside, I don't understand why the "God bless" is an issue. People say "bless you" after sneezing all the time and it means the same thing. Kansan (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    Bless you doesn't use the word God. Was actually going to use that as an example of what he could have easily said instead of bringing god into it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't really follow that either. By saying "bless you", you are still forcing somebody to be blessed, which was your argument against saying "God Bless". As I said, I would be more than willing to discuss this further on ST. This isn't an issue solely related to CR90, so ST would be a better forum.--Gordonrox2448 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Not really, you can be blessed in a non-religious fashion. Saying God bless is being blessed by a specific religion, Christianity. -DJSasso (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support At the very least, I do think CR90 does take Simple English Wikipedia seriously and wants to help out. I sincerely hope this unblock will have happier results for the Simple English Wikipedia than the last one. If he violates the rules (and everyone will keep a strict watch on him, I'm sure), it'll be easy for one of our many active administrators to make a swift, firm, decisive block. I wouldn't say that changing his username is necessary, but it would be refreshing. And as for saying "God bless", I don't see why that should be a problem. If a Muslim editor said to me, "Allah's peace be with you", I wouldn't be offended or angry. I would simply understand it as it's in all likelihood meant—a greeting made with good intentions. —Clementina talk 04:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Eptalon and Kansan have my pulse on this matter. I will support the unblock. Jon@talk:~$ 06:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support an unban. I agree with what Kansan says and I think CR will be able to contribute to the encylcopedia. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I note he apologises only for the political POV, and ends with 'God Bless'. This is indicative of an underlying lack of sincerity. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC) [and why have two people placed repeat supports in the statement section?]
    (Replying to your question) That probably happened when Sonia moved the discussion back to the talk page from the Administrators' noticeboard. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


You are now unbanned per community consensus. See [4]. Goodvac (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "TrueCRaysball/Archive/9".