User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 31

[edit] Don't go

You only let the trolls and bullies win by leaving. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't.--Dakota ~ 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't go... if only because i will not have anyone to nominate me for RfA otherwise :( Rockpocket 05:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to reassure you that I, and I believe a majority of the ArbCom if not in fact all of us, do NOT welcome MSK or BluAardvark back to Wikipedia; in fact, quite the reverse. I believe those who do are a tiny percentage of Wikipedia's admins, let alone the organisation itself inasmuch as such exists. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no! Slim, stay with us! We've lost one of the very nicest admins in the last few days — we can't afford to lose another of them. AnnH ♫ 09:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim, it would be so sad for you to leave. Even though we haven't seen eye to eye all the time--to understate matters--I have learned very much from you. You are a learned editor for whom I have the utmost respect. Please do not leave us we need you. --Drboisclair 09:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't let the trolls win, you're making it too easy for them. Be difficult. — May. 29, '06 [10:51] <freak|talk>

Don't go, if you do it would be one of the worst things to happen to wikipedia Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Even so

I do trust linuxbeak implicitly. I hope we can discuss on skype or so sometime soon. Kim Bruning 10:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Take a break

Take a break, but don't go away. :-) Kim Bruning 08:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling less nonconfrontational and smiley prone about this. Don't let it be a victory for questionable Wikipedia factions set out to harass, with their highly suspect methods of action and "communication." Some people are going to answer for this. Time for accountability and sorting out the complicit from the complacent. El_C 09:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This is rich coming from El_C aka Pavel Novak, the bourgeois who roleplays a progressive. -Dna4salE 10:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, I'm shaken. It's all about being rich or serving the rich for your type. Who is "Pavel Novak" and whose sockpuppet are you? The dark forces of the reaction hover over you like a shadow. El_C 10:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Kacha HaChayim. Speaking of dark forces Elsie.. You portray yourself as a socialist revolutionary, yet you're never wavering in your support of SlimVirgin - the single most neoliberal administrator on this project. Why is that? And even after she treats you with the utmost condescension! SV has gotten rid of hundreds of leftwing editors and you cheer her on, which means you're either suffering from some serious cognitive dissonance, or you're a fraud. -Dna4salE 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Who are those "hundreds of left-wing editors" (names?)? These are claims you've failed to demonstrate. That I disagree with her politically and that I chastized her over her support of Carr is no reason for me to support her departure here and the manner it took place — that would be politically motivated fraud. You've yet to answer whose sockpuppet you are, nor explain the whole Pavel Novak thing. I await your answers with an especial trepidation. El_C 22:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a break, and come back a new person. ;-) -Dna4salE 10:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Ditto. — mark ✎ 10:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC) This is a huge loss for Wikipedia. Few, if any, editors have been more effective advocates of making Wikipedia into a source of accurate, reliable information than Sarah. This brings Wikipedia a step closer to just becoming a social club for internet trolls with no interest in writing an encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 22:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This rhetoric is unhealthy! Anyway, I have a request - could you please come back and help me proof-read this ever-controversial article? Sometimes it is good just to edit/read articles :). RN 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think SlimVirgin is going away. She seems like a good editor and from my interactions I have no complaints. However, I've had very limited interaction with her so others complaints may be true. I don't know but they are not really relevant in this case. I truely believe that SV is only bluffing, that it's a bit of an emotional outburst, which is a rather rash. I think as soon as she cools down she will be back. This threat of leaving is a well known phenonmenon and it has served a purpose to make her protest known in the strongest terms, and help to get what she wants in the conflict she is having with other admins. I think this is a classic example of this: http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?GoodBye I note that FloNight has already returned as predicted. So, SV will be back after a break. Just wait and see.Giovanni33 06:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's my prediction as well. Al 06:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's hope so. -Will Beback 06:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You've been truffled by Charlie

Charlie has given you some of his famous Solid chocolate truffles! Chocolate truffles taste good, help moods, promote WikiLove and hopefully make your day better. Hope you find the truffles to be tasty, and make sure you enjoy them with a nice tall glass of milk (they're rich)! Have some chocolate & stick around!!! We need good people to stay! --Charlie^{( @CIRL | talk | email )} 14:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In case

In case, you have decided to go, please wait for few moments: please touch your heart and think: would it look nice to part in this way? I know our system has several lacunae, but we can surely continue here to realize the best-ever dream of human civilization: to build the sum total of human knowledge. I too disagree with several aspects of our functioning, yet I am continuing as I know that we are the most resilient virtual community, and we shall deliver what we have promised to deliver to the human civilization. Come on, and continue. --Bhadani 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I was feeling Hungary, and took a piece of Solid chocolate truffles! I am sure that you shall not mind. --Bhadani 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the blank user page?

Hi SlimVirgin. What gives? Thanks! --Tom 17:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

see WP:ANI#Blu_Aardvark_and_Mistress_Selina_Kyle:_unblocking. RN 18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't leave

Don't let the trolls win. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was the trolls that got SlimVirgin and FloNight to give up in disgust. IMO it was the fact that their peers, including Jimbo, decided to unblock a pair of disruptive users who apparently harassed them from off-wiki and apparently condoned even deeper and more vicious harassment of them from the same site. I believe the issue that really upsets them is that they feel that by policy, victims of harassment must be consulted prior to re-instatement of the offenders, under any circumstances (e.g. 'mentorship' here). Crum375 20:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If You Can Hack It Out

Your good offices and your humanity, along with those others who then came to assist, persuaded me to hang in. Please consider the importance of such qualities in so potentially volatile a venue as this. That said, WP, while an important asset, is not of necessity the center of all things. Place yourself first. Thanks, again, for your help in the past, and, if you so determine, in future. – Best. Fucyfre 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a voice to the chorus

I formally request that you stay instead of leaving. DS 01:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawal

I've been reading the entries at [[1]] and, for what it's worth, as a newbie, I agree with SV's position, whatever components of personal emotion and/or tactic it may comprise. I will watch to see what happens, what she decides, and to draw appropriate conclusions as to how effective WP can, in fact, be in the processes by which it attempts to function in its stated goals. Fucyfre 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

I will be a copycat and join the chorus of people asking you to stay, despite the actions of the loathesome trolls at WR and the wildly clueless actions of a certain bureaucrat. I realize that talk is cheap, and I'm not the one dealing with whatever you're being put through, but nonetheless I want to say that I support you, and whatever help I can offer I'm offering. Send e-mail if necessary. --Calton | Talk 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it WP:CIVIL. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 21:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to him, he did have some nice words for SV; I've never seen him say anything nice to anyone before. Clearly that's progress. Everyking 09:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Think Also

That there may be need on the part of those more senior at WP to restructure some procedures. I may be new to WP, but I am not new to this sort of problem. It requires addressing. Fucyfre 05:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You are perfectly right. I agree with you. --Bhadani 11:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't let the bastids grind you down

Do you think a cup of tea and a lemon-curd sarnie might be enough to tempt you back? Or am I going to have to open up the custard cream biscuits? Grace Note 06:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! Those custard creams sound dangerous! Kim Bruning 10:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)

Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure if you'll read this

But if you'd drop in MSN sometime, we could probably work this out. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support: Three barnstars

Since, in over three years of editing on Wikipedia, I have never awarded anyone any Wikipedia:Barnstars, I hereby solemnly award User:SlimVirgin three of them now. This tripleheader award is in recognition of all the critical roles she has always played on Wikipedia. All who agree are urged to sign below. In sincerest admiration, and hoping for a speedy return, IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to SlimVirgin for her defense of Justice on Wikipedia. IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Awarded to SlimVirgin for her Wisdom in this regard. IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Awarded to SlimVirgin for her Valor IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

• IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• I would like you to stay too. It's no fun in the long run taking the burden of evidence without you here ;-) - So please come back. Foreigner 07:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Let me throw in a little Chai . Take a wikibreak if you need it and come back when ready. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• It's hard finding good people to help keep Wikipedia clean and accessable, and it would be a pity to lose you. Evolver of Borg 10:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• You deserve praise and encouragement for all your good efforts, maturity, and fairness. Whether or not you decide to come back. This enterprise will fail unless people like you stay with it. --Leifern 10:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• SUPPORT for the most NPOV and anti-troll editor on Wikipedia. I've ordered a vat of Wikihugs, given that I can't email you flowers. JFW | T@lk 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support I miss you already!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. --Bhadani 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support please come back and help keep the scum and villany of Wikipedia Review out of the wiki. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the baby, Faith... or Sarah. Frustration is understandable, and your feelings are valid. We hope that after a bit of rest and reflection, you'll see that we need you too. Ð’n^talk 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support, of course. Seriously, though, it'd be quite a loss if you decide to leave permanently. I hope you'll reconsider. Tijuana Brass^E@ 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Me too. Come back William M. Connolley 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Ummmmm! Cool beans! -- Szvest 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
• Natch. --Ashenai 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Come baaaaaaaaaaaaack! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• O yes! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Illegitimi non carborundum... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support, come back! Kuratowski's Ghost 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• You're a real asset to Wikipedia, and it would be sorely diminished without you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Per everything above. 172 | Talk 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely. And what Mel said. FeloniousMonk 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• hip hip hooray for the barnstars! and I hope you come back soon. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Of course. But, Slim is beyond barnstars, in my opinion, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• We're all missing you. Pecher ^Talk 22:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• I hate putting pressure on people, but you know — Wikipedia wouldn't be the same without you! AnnH ♫ 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I want to let you know that I appreciate all the hard work you've done here. I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for you. Take a wikibreak and come back refreshed. —Viriditas | Talk 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I know we haven't crossed paths alot on here, but I am always here as support. Always always always. We've lost one terrific admin in the last week. Don't want to make it 2. *hugs* --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. You make Wikipedia a better place. Vashti 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Please don't leave. We haven't always agreed but I respect you and would hate to see you driven away. Please stay. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support and please stay. Leaving in anger is never a good solution, and the loss of a lot of great admins this way is terrible. You've done much great work and no respected editor should feel driven out of Wikipedia, period. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Ashibaka tock 22:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support The kind of support you have gotten says it all. Real editors support you. jbolden1517^Talk 00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I support the awarding of these barnstars to our own Slim Virgin of Wikipedia, although I am somewhat tardy.--Drboisclair 23:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Late Support Wikipedia needs YOU! -- Eivind^t@c 01:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Age hoax?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah-ni-ku-ta-ni I have contacted professor Fogelson at the University of Chicago about this one. Mooney makes no mention of this. If this is a hoax this is quite offensive. Professor Fogelson only makes mention of the name, not tablets that predate the old testament.

• Who were the Ani-Kutani? An Excursion into Cherokee Thought. by Raymond Fogelson in Ethnohistory 31 (1984), pp. 255-263. I want his word on the entry before I contact anyone else.

LoveMonkey 11:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goodbye?

Removed messaged from banned user Zordrac (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saladin1970

I have unblocked Saladin1970 to participate in his arbitration case. He is expected to limit editing to arbitration pages and his own user pages. Fred Bauder 13:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

-- Malber (talk • contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

[edit] One of life's ironies

Hi Slim,

It sounds crazy, but I was visiting your talk page to discuss a blocking policy I'm thinking of proposing (basically, a partial block that'd stop vandalising IPs from editing articles but allowing them to edit talk pages).

One of the things I admire about you is your emphasis on civility. A lot of "senior" wikipedians don't value civility as much.

When I had enough of incivility while discussing Israel-related articles, I didn't quit, I changed to a topic that wouldn't attract incivility.

I won't say don't go, just look after yourself, and I hope you come back some day soon.

Cheers,

Andjam 13:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure it will matter to you much anymore...

Not sure who this is (or whose sock he is), but as you were mentioned by name, thought I'd keep you up to date if you weren't already aware (If you're even still around). [2] See ya (maybe). --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oleg of Novgorod

Some of your special brand of common sense would be useful here... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you a ReveredLeader

Hmmm, meatball:ReveredLeader seems a lot like the (anti)pattern you are encountering. Kim Bruning 01:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Five days

Five days without her look like five long years! --Bhadani 10:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In our history of five years, we have seen very few ones like her... Please come back. --Bhadani 10:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your user talk page is of limited value

Apparently people are occaisionally removing messages to you, mostly messages that have a negative element to them. Unfortunately that means that trolling and criticism are being treated in the same way. It's going to be difficult for you to get a balanced image of the situation this way. Be sure to check your page history, at least. Kim Bruning 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if she has left us, what she shall derive by wasting her time in seeing history and geography of her page? There is life beyond wikipedia - it is not the ultimate reality of human civilization. I find that certain comments are rather in a bad faith, at least in bad taste. --Bhadani 15:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, I am reminded of the words of Sir Winston Churchill: "When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber." There is nothing personal in this - we are higly adept at imputing motives, please do not impute any to me! --Bhadani 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Parrots? Can somebody pleaes give me another cracker? Btw, I see SlimVirgin is back (or at least never did leave). She made an edit today! Its just a matter of time before her edits extend beyond her user page. This is just a first baby-step. Btw, I agree we should be tolerant of SV's detractors and allow their voice as well. We are all adults here.Giovanni33 20:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I endorse your views too. I never intended to silence the voice of dissent. --Bhadani 08:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back (I hope)

Maybe this welcome back is premature, but hope springs eternal... IronDuke 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been refreshing my watchlist and looking eagerly at this page and the user page, but was afraid to jump to (happy) conclusions too soon. Please tell us we're right, Slim. AnnH ♫ 01:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse she was not really leaving. She will come back slowly but surely. She won't admit it yet, but just wait and see until after the arbcom has concluded its decision with the editors she is protesting. After that, no matter what the result, SV will back to normal. I'd be willing to bet on it, or else I'm a Christian! Giovanni33 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The life is coming back! Good news. --Bhadani 08:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I never actually expected SlimVirgin to stay away. She came back to bail out Moshe, which means she'll come back to help other buddies, until at some point she'll have to admit that she's not gone anymore. Al 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm not going to have to be a Christian now, afterall. :)[3]Giovanni33 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Thanks

I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table fix

If you need a table fix, let me know.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] welcome back

I hope you are indeed back. Zeq 09:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

She never left.Giovanni33 14:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to see her in "action" again. I am sure that she shall not disappoint us. We all miss you SV. Please be more active at the earliest, please! --Bhadani 15:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yay. — Jun. 5, '06 [19:24] <freak|talk>

It is really good to see you back.--Dakota ~ 19:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back from me as well, and don't let those assholes in the wikipedia review let you down. Thanks Jaranda ^{;wat's sup} 19:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I too am glad to see you editing again. Raul654 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Welcome back, and hope that you are not only rested, but as committed as always to this project. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say, welcome back. --Calton | Talk 04:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hallo SV, I am glad that such a great one is back. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear god, I'm so glad you're back. Come back from my WikiBreak to find out you're leaving? WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE? Thank goodness it's all over now. :) :) Mo0[talk] 19:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skype and the art of wiki maintenance

I wonder if you're around on skype atm? Kim Bruning 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've got things mostly reconstructed now. It would be really nice if you could communicate with me at your earliest convenience. Kim Bruning 20:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are too kind.

I actually welcome the ban. (helps in getting unedicted). The only sad part about Tony's actions (done out of GF I am sure) is that no one would now bother looking at Homey's action. I have no doubt that if Wikipedia as a whole would oprete fairly and in good faith a person like Homey could not have manipulated Wikipedia so much for the multiple political campaigs he is waging. Clearly more than any other person he turned wikipedia into a battle ground in which he is spreading his soapbox from. Rediculus that this is allowed to continue. Zeq 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

btw, although I have tons of respect to your view I think you erred on one issue. In the past several months I never "Zeq edits from a strong POV". I always just NPOV anti-israel edits by others. Never onced have I pushed my agenda or Israel agenda (not the same agenda btw:-). I am just horrified how the view that the Jewish people have no right to a home land is propagated in the west via tools like Wikipedia. Zeq 18:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Surly you know that my viwes (which are not clear from my edits) are very different from the Israeli goverment viwes. The only place I "push " my POV is inside Israel trying to act on what i belive in(and you know what it is). Zeq 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

no not foolish. You are cool. Zeq 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hafrada wall

the link in Israeli West Bank barrier may indeed be "by just another biased article from a group of anti-Barrier campaigners". The point, though, is to show that the term "Hafrada wall" is used. The POV of the link is irrelevent in that respect, all that matters is that it demonstrates usage. When OED cites examples of a term being in use they don't consider the POV of the source, just whether or not the source demonstrates usage. Homey 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice requested

I have 2 problems which seem to be related. User:Antaeus Feldspar volenteers his opinions in a discussion unrelated to his opinions on my user page. His opinions include that I have lied to other editors. So I moved his statements to my user page and begin discussing the validity of his opinions. Discussion His last statement threatens certain actions when "the next RfAr comes" against me. I've asked him more than once to stop his personal attacks. His abrasive manner is not confined to me alone, but to every (at least most) pro-scientology editors in the articles. He uses abrasive edit summaries that aren't very specific such asrevert (username) POV when dealing with pro-scientology editors. Yet he is remarkably civil to those persons who he agrees with. Sometimes he just quits communicating with pro-scientology editors except for reversions and accompanying edit summaries of an abrasive nature. He is the most extreme and difficult to deal with anti-editor. But several of the editors treat pro-scientology editors similarly. Wikipediatrix rarely personally attack as he does, but she refuses to communicate and reverts with somewhat similar edit summaries. Is there a process which deals with this kind of thing? I don't want to try to stop Feldspar or Wikipediatrix, I want to work with them. Terryeo 03:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back!

Please take a look at my tweaks in NAS intro. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Bhadani 17:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi SV, I'm glad to see that your WikiBreak was short. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back from the puppy, too!!! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yay! :) Rebecca 02:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whaa! I just saw you on RC, you're back! Sweet!Voice-of-All 22:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falun Gong talk page

I just noticed you unprotected the page. If you can access a true history (not the revised one), you'll see that this page has been the target of malicious vandalism that takes the form of personal attacks against editors that are not pro-Falun Gong. The vandal also hit several user pages and user talk pages, including mine. I'm not going to ask you to protect it again, but I would like you to dig a bit deeper and reconsider. CovenantD 22:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi would be nice. Thanks. CovenantD 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Brand Page

I noticed that just 10 hours after I created the page on the Yiddish wikipedia you created it overhere, I am just curious to know if you read Yiddish? I see that you are an excellent wikipdian, I would therefore give you more work (of course if you don't mind), I have got more articles I had to create from scracth because they didn't exist in either English or Hebrew, and right now my time is devoted more for the Yiddish wikipedia than the English. --Shmaltz 03:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would like your input on...

A new template, called Template:White American that was created today and was propagated across several topics on American ethnic groups. It does not sit well with me, but I'd like more people to weigh in. --Leifern 23:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism deleted paragraph (Boyarin)

Hello, Slim, welcome back. Regarding the above paragraph, I was the one who found the source, but after reading the paragraph, and Shyklee's comments, s/he seems to have a point. The article more appropriately references the identity of being "Jewish" than it does Yiddishkeit or Judaism. What is your opinion, and why? Responses are most probably best placed on Talk:Judaism. I'll copy this there. Thanks -- Avi 01:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

jewishness ? Zeq 08:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nick-Rowan

I've banned User:Nick-Rowan as a troll - he seems to edit only David Irving and only to remove references to his being a Holocaust denier. Please review. Homey 06:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objective validity of astrology

You made one tiny, little comment on the talk page of this two weeks ago (springing from a fellow clogging up the NPOV talk). I'm shamelessly looking for people to endorse deletion here. You might find it interesting in a sort of Wiki-academic sense—I've never seen a page that violates all of our content policies so completely... Marskell 15:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] very intresting. tnx

[4] Zeq 08:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intermediate sources

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Intermediate_sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open proxies?

SV, how does one tell whether an IP is an open proxy? JDoorjam Talk 22:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request

Hello SlimVirgin,

I have a request. Could you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed

The question is whether "Jewish Encyclopedia" could be cited in wikipedia (Pecher argues that it is outdated). Your input is appreciated.

Thanks,

--Aminz 08:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel Shamir

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Israel_shamir_-_anti-semitism_and_personal_attacksHomey 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ghirlandajo

has seen fit to start making threatsover a user dispute at Oleg. I have done my best to be reasonable but his trollism and pattern of vandalism (see also Oleg of Novgorod is driving me to distraction (to the minimal extent it's possible to be upset by virtual interactions with people I've never met). Your counsel and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection of Jesus

Hey: Please see Talk:Jesus. Thanks! standonbible 19:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of section title: "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism"

Hi, when you get back, please take a look [5]. --Doright 19:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal rights Bibliography

Acknowledging your treatment in restoring previous material in the above -- certainly beyond my present (rookie's) level of such activity (but I'm learning :-) I checked that the one title I'd added was in place, and otherwise am content to have left some (hopefully helpful) suggestions on the article's Discussion page for the consideration of other editors. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong AfD closing

Could I ask you to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadullah Khan? I voted on this late, and cleaned up the article around the time I voted (probably just after). I am pretty much certain that the delete voters were simply put off by the poor writing of the original article—and probably an unfamiliarity with that characteristic excessively deferential Islamic style—and failed to examine the actual notability of the biography subject. It was closed as "delete" with only two "delete" votes by registered editors; that just seems wrong to me.

Actually, I wish now that I had saved the article text so I could recreate my slightly cleaned up version. I wonder also if you, as an admin, are able to grab that deleted text still (and maybe copy it to my talk page or somewhere). I did raise an issue at deletion review, perhaps you would opine there as well.

Since I don't have the text in front of me anymore, I am going largely from memory. But basically, Sadullah Khan was author of the "Ask the Imam" column at Beliefnet.com (which had a readership well past 5000, I'm sure); and he also apparently was co-founder of the Freedom University in South Africa (which meets the "professor test" to my mind). I guess nowadays he's director of some Islamic Center in California (I forget which one now, maybe Los Angeles or San Diego). That last thing by itself might not quite reach notability, though I think it would make a plausible argument; but combined with the well-read authorship and university founding, I think it's a slam-dunk keep if someone looks closely. LotLE×talk 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi back

I forget if I replied to your kind hello on my talk page; I haven't signed in for awhile. Anyway, thank you, you seem interesting as well. The thesis turned out rather mediocre, mostly because I was working too much on a non-credit project (which I think my professors generously took into consideration in the grading). I'm deleting my Wikimedia pages, but I'll probably be back with a pseudonym. Zach AIexander 01:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrus Farivar Reloaded

Hi, I'm a relatively new user reopening this issue: The following comments are a reply to Morton devonshire, who questioned my notability tag (and I suspect, removed the tag from the Farivar page without either addressing the issue, or knowing the background. Sorry to clog your page quoting my comments in full but I see that Vfd, notability tags and other stuff mysteriously disappear from the Farivar page. Perhaps delete all this later? I think it's important for WKP that this issue be decided and a legitimate majority view be carried:

Hi, thanks for your prompt feedback. I don't feel you addressed my reasons for tagging the page, and these reasons are not affected by what happened last year (I have read up a lot of the past discussion, but I'm not at all convinced). On consideration, I feel the Cyrus Farivar page will eventually go as it is clearly:

decidedly not notable - the subject is not notable in himself, andn greenlighting was not a notable hoax

the count of the last deletion vote (Aug '05) came down firmly on the side of 'delete' - how does this come to mean 'keep'?

mainly based on a trivial subject - a non-event, in fact

a page intended as a self-promotional tool, rather than to be informational

refers almost entirely to itself - no importance in the wider world

a bad precedent

The issue of CF 'criticising' WKP is simply begging the question, I wasn't aware that he did so. I note that my notability tag has been removed without any notability being added. I am determined to have a debate about this page on principle, and if notability is not discussed, will take it further. I'm also confident that if I take the discussion wider, I will find reasonable support for my stance.

Further, I am aware from my background reading that past raisings of this issue have disappeared. See Mrtourne's comments during the Aug '05 deletion discussion.

I should add that I am also going to push for the related 'Greenlighting hoax' page to be merged to 'hoaxes'. Again, it is extremely trivial, and almost entirely self-referential.

I would draw your attention also to the following comment by user Snowspinner (during Aug '05 deletion discussion).

Quote: Keep. I don't care if it was vanity created, it is a notable subject. In fact, I will go a step further. This article is being kept. I do not care what the outcome of the usual VfD suspects straw poll is. The article is being kept, and I will undelete it until the arbcom or Jimbo tells me to stop. Snowspinner 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC) End quote

I note also that the announcement of the result of the Aug '05 deletion vote being a 'keep' was made by the same user Snowspinner. As a new user, I respectfully suggest that he made a bad counting error. As I am a new editor, maybe I am missing some procedural convention?

My suggestion is that the page be deleted, and perhaps userfy-ed.

Centrepull 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good day

Just passing by to spread some cheer!-Dakota ~

[edit] IronDuke & BlindVenetian situation

I know you have some knowledge of User:IronDuke and would I like your opinion on IronDuke's interaction with User:BlindVenetian (who says they used to be an anon).

Almost all of BlindVenetian's edits are to pages IronDuke has edited. IronDuke reverts BlindVenetian as a "puppets/puppeteers".

BlindVenetian feels that IronDuke is introducing an anti-Arab point of view to articles, Mike Hawash for example. For the time being, I have asked BlindVenetian to not edit articles that IronDuke has.

I'm not sure how to proceed.--Commander Keane 12:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Threats

Sorry for bothering you with a complaint, but User:Ibrahimfaisal keeps filling my talk page with threats to "report" me for what he perceives as personal attacks. He began threatening me on June 17. I responded to him saying that those had not been personal attacks and that I would remove any further threats from my talk page if he continued making them. However, Ibahimfaisal continued posting threats on my talk page, and after I removed them, he restored them on yesterday and today. I've already had enough of it, and I'm not sure what I can do about this abuse of my talk page. Pecher ^Talk 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of this article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. 172 | Talk 03:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Peter Scheldt

I, Simon Scheldt, son of the late Dr. Peter Scheldt just like to mention the contribution of my father to the world. This portal (Wikipedia) is the only way I can do such a thing. The papers are difficult to get published as I am not a doctor myself and don't have the expertise for doing the same. But nevertheless, I am trying my level best. But till then Wikipedia is the only way my late father can get his contribution to the world.

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Monkey:

You recently protected[6] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. Be sure to use protection summaries when you protect pages. VoABot will list such protected pages only if there is a summary (part of the deleted pages filter). Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 09:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IronDuke

I have responded to your comment by email. The one public part I will assert here is that I don't feel that being told to actively avoid another user is not fair, if my edits to the article in question meet Wikipedia standards. What I didn't say and should have is that IronDuke's troubles are unfortunate, but that should not be sufficient for a carte blanche to edit without balancing forces. -- Anomicene 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Feminism

Great template!

Wanted to suggest adding more Conservative/Reform/Resonstructionist leaders to the list. Perhaps Orthodox feminists are now over-represented. Suggest adding Judith Hauptman and Susannah Heschel to the template. I'll try and create stub articles on Rachel Adler and Judith Plaskow in the next day or two. I don't know enough about their lives to write much about them, but I'm surprised they haven't gotten articles. Perhaps someone more expert can fill in and add additional articles on other leaders and thinkers in the more liberal branches. All the best, --Shirahadasha 16:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!! And thanks for help with the Rachel Adler picture!!! --Shirahadasha 06:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm back too

Hi Slim, just to say that hopefully I should be around for a while again now so should be able to help out on the AR pages again. I took a bit of a wiki-break as I had a few other things to deal with such as Lancaster University#George Fox Six. I'll have a go at doing some reference changes too, as there are a huge amount of references around the AR pages (I think they must be the most sourced pages on WP). -Localzuk ^(talk) 23:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sad to say, we have given up on fighting it anymore. It just doesn't seem like we would win and the cost of loss would be high (financially and also legally as it would set a more damaging precedent). Instead we are focusing on other things - such as looking into a Judicial review over a string of arrests that have occurred for displaying placards that are 'insulting' (they show vivisected animals and have slogans such as 'this monkey was experimented on by oxford university'. Hopefully that will go well :) -Localzuk ^(talk) 23:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am happy!

Hello SV, I am reallky happy to find you with renewed energy. Let us continue to build the Project. Regards. --Bhadani 16:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In apartheid outside of South Africa why'd you remove links to other articles? Why did you merge Israeli apartheid article when no agreement to do so? Please follow rules. !~~

I don't understand? Please answer. Why remove link to Israeli apartheid?22:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Large section was replaced by link to article with same material. You removed link. Why?Sonofzion 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not remove tags

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. You removed several merger tags from Apartheid outside of South Africa. If you disagree with the proposals please discuss them on the talk page. Removing tags without a discussion is unfair to other wikipedians. Doing it repeatedly may be considered to be vandalism. Please do not do so again. Thank you. 02:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are welcome

Glad you liked the yellow rose.--Dakota ~ 02:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for the new image on the POV template, CC. It looks really nice, and much less aggressive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. --Cat out 02:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes there are other neutrality (NPOV related) templates. Do you think it would be aproporate to use the image on them as well?

If so would you mind doing the honors?

--Cat out 02:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

I don't really understand the dispute. The material you are arguing about is a duplication of material in another article so it shouldn't be added without a good reason. In future, please use the talk page before adding redundant material.207.67.145.244 02:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. I'll do it now. 03:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Slim

Hi Slim,

something bothered me greatly in this edit: [7]. The creation of the Critism section.

People usually don't read such sections. especialy when they are tucked at the end.

I think that NPOV demand from us to make sure each section (as well as the lead which is a mini-article by itself) is by itself NPOV. I am going to chenge the intro and I think that in similar atricles it should also be changed meaning:

Biased and unfounded accusations (like Hafrda in Israeli apartheid ) should be NPOV in the same sentence as the biased/unfounded claim. (see talk page of Israeli apartheid )

best, Zeq 03:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PS here is a similar problem: [8] this one I can not fix. Zeq 05:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the term "Jewish state"

many many use it by I think it is not correct. Israel is really not a jewish state. some areas are jewish but they are very different from the rest of the country which is mostly secular.

as much better definition is "homeland of the jewish people " which is very accurate and also does not exclude others who are non-jewish who also live here. Zeq 03:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

btw, please see this: [9] Zeq 03:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Slim

Hi Slim,

something bothered me greatly in this edit: [10]. The creation of the Critism section.

People usually don't read such sections. especialy when they are tucked at the end.

I think that NPOV demand from us to make sure each section (as well as the lead which is a mini-article by itself) is by itself NPOV. I am going to chenge the intro and I think that in similar atricles it should also be changed meaning:

Biased and unfounded accusations (like Hafrda in Israeli apartheid ) should be NPOV in the same sentence as the biased/unfounded claim. (see talk page of Israeli apartheid )

best, Zeq 03:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PS here is a similar problem: [11] this one I can not fix. Zeq 05:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the term "Jewish state"

many many use it by I think it is not correct. Israel is really not a jewish state. some areas are jewish but they are very different from the rest of the country which is mostly secular.

as much better definition is "homeland of the jewish people " which is very accurate and also does not exclude others who are non-jewish who also live here. Zeq 03:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

btw, please see this: [12] Zeq 03:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huntingdon Life Sciences

Hi Slim,

I'm posting my comments here too in case you don't read them on the talk page:

SV, please explain this, you've just removed a lot of work including any mention whatever of the fact that attacks against Huntingdon have included violence. It's giving an extremely distorted picture and you didn't even discuss it. When I made my changes I posted comments on the talk page and gave people time to object and we could have worked something out. I would like to work out some sort of compromise and I agree that all the stuff you've added has merit which is why I'm not reverting. The page is now somewhat disorganised though - I don't see why Brian Cass's receiving of an OBE is now listed as a controversy: I'm sure you didn't mean it to be but it kind of looks like a back-handed attack on the fact that it was granted. I look forward to hearing from you. Best. --Lo2u 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

--Lo2u 10:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment - it's really nice to be told that. Again I'm sorry if I was a bit sharp with you. Best.--Lo2u 23:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Sandwich Can Be Very Satisfying...

Hamster Sandwich has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

[edit] Israeli apartheid and academic sources

There are actually a number of "serious people" and academic sources that have drawn or explored an analogy between Israel's policies and apartheid. See, for instance:

Glaser, D. J. (2003). "Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison." Ethnic and Racial Studies 26(3): 403-421

Shahak, I. (1988). "Israeli Apartheid and the Intifada." Race & Class 30(1): 1-12.

Zreik, R. (2004). "Palestine, apartheid, and the rights discourse." Journal of Palestine Studies 34(1): 68-80.

The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid edited by Roane Carey, published by Verso (October 2001) ISBN: 1859843778

See also Talk:Israeli apartheid/RS for many more.

You may not agree with these sources but they are all academic. Also, I expect you consider Desmond Tutu to be a "serious person". Homey 07:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: AfD

Hi Slim. AfD is not really about pure voting numbers, rather it is about judging whether there is a rough consensus. When I first looked at it, I only saw deletes too - but there are quite a few keeps dotted around (actually I think the delete:keep ratio is not far from 2:1) and the majority of comments from both sides seem to be making good valid arguments. Because of this I didn't feel that true consensus had been reached.

Having said that, I don't expect this one to go away quietly - given the subject matter and the large numbers of contributions to the discussion. I was going to close it last night, but then decided not to touch it with a barge-pole. Not sure what changed this morning, but I think the decision was right. Cheers TigerShark 09:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:82.0.148.209

Hey SlimVirgin. Could you look at the contributions of 82.0.148.209 please? All warning levels have already been tried on his/her talk page, without any effect. deeptrivia (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your request

1) No.

2) Could you please explain your reversion of the opening line? It incorrectly suggests that there is only a single phrase being used.Homey 21:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting is not advisable. You a) restored a repitition and b) removed sourced info. Please be more careful.Homey 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq had been blocked for a day and will likely be blocked indefinitely. He is a unique problem and he's gone. Homey 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

He's also banned from the article, as you know. Homey 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was subjected to an AFD and survived. I understand there are individuals who would like to see it disappear, you may be one of them, but given that the concept has numerous hits on google, has been referenced in a number of academic papers and scholarly books as well as mainstream publications such as the Economist and given that it is part of the discourse within Israeli politics itself I don't see how removing the article is justifiable just to fit a POV preference that it not exist. Sorry but you are not NPOV on this issue and are not in a position to suggest that people who disagree with your POV leave the article.

Have you made the same suggestion to Jay, Humus or Moshe? If you have then you can suggest that I leave. Otherwise you are displaying a bias. Homey 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Zeq seems to have survived. In any case he is banned from the article so isn't an issue. The best course is to ignore him on the talk page.Homey 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SV, you are not a neutral arbiter here. Please don't pretend that you are.Homey 22:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay has edited very aggressively - to the point of reviving an article after there was a consensus to disperse and redirect it and of trying to merge articles against consensus. He has upset a number of individuals who have complained about his behaviour. I await, with interest, your request to him to leave the articles.Homey 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Then don't repeat it and please don't mindlessly revert. Homey 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Explain how this is not redundant:

The analogy has been made by individuals and organizations from the far left to the far right of the political spectrum, including United Nations officials, ^[1] South Africans, ^[2] Israeli political scientists, ^[3] members of the Knesset, ^[4] Palestinian-rights activists, ^[5] and neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic individuals ^[6] and groups. ^[7]

Why not say "neo-Nazis and anti-Semites"? It seems like you're trying to belabour the point by saying "neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups and individuals". I'm not going to get into a revert war but I find your reversion bizarre and would like an explanation. Homey 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You are implying Guilt by association. Homey 22:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I'm sorry for posting this on your talk page but you are now in danger of violating 3RR at Israeli apartheid. Please desist. Homey 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove personal attack from Talk:Israeli apartheid

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Homey 00:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last call

I'm about to go to bed so which is it, will you voluntarily recuse yourself for 24 hours or not?Homey 09:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, time to stop your incessant threats. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly a threat, it's an offer. One SV has made to others in the past. Homey 09:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection of PETA

Would you be willing to rethink your semi-protection of PETA? User:Allisonhenry and User:24.247.234.195 were almost certainly the same person and, unless I'm missing something, it's highly unlikely that there was any malicious intent - just ignorance of fair use policies and of how to set up her display to show full color properly. If there's no vandalism involved and it's only one user, protection seems like an overkill solution. BigDT 12:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Eustonmanifestologo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eustonmanifestologo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reciprocity principle

If you don't want me to post on your talk page then please don't post on mine (or talk archives)- in any case I have no idea what you are talking about, just that there's an anon posting things on my talk page and getting reverted by you and others. Homey 18:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Jews and Their Lies

I thought your wee edit on the page was a good fix. I'd encourage you to continue to weigh in. This page has had a lot of strife and can use some new perspectives. --Mantanmoreland 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Monkey

Yeah, sorry, I forget about that. Now, though, there is a bot (User:VoABot) that reads the protection log every 30 minutes and updates that list automatically. (Except judging from its contribs list it's more like once every few hours.) -Splash - tk 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

SV,
What do you think of the idea of changing the Manual of Style to reflect the expectation (not policy) that every article should have a non-empty "References" section: containing either references or an {{unreferenced}} warning. My view is that this minor and non-aggressive change would result in a lot more articles being referenced, and a lot more unreferenced articles being tagged as such. I predict that this change would cause so many articles to get dumped into Category:Articles lacking sources that we would quickly see the creation of an "unreferenced article sorting" project, analogous to the "stub sorting" project. And that might just get some people enthusiastic about hunting down references for our many many unreferenced articles.
Snottygobble 06:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does one make such proposals? Snottygobble 07:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NewUser needs input

Newbie User_talk:Rdengrove#2 contacted me[13] about a large rewrite he did on Mephistopheles, and I plead 'ignorance', save for superficial passing familiarity. If you've got some knowledge in the area (or perhaps, instead on or about 'Faust'), or just want to be 'welcoming', see if you can lend a hand. Thanks! // FrankB 16:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther POV

Slim, FYI

• (1) sourced material is again deleted[[14]],
• (2) the anti-Semitic Person category is again removed and to top it off,
• (3) the POV flag itself is unilaterally deleted. .

--Doright

[edit] BLP tag

I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the edit to the BLP tag. I liked your last version better, gave a bit more information in the tag itself. Thanks! Dreadlocke 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been been updated to a better version - guess more eyes are on it! [15]. Dreadlocke 22:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:BernardWilliams.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:BernardWilliams.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ilse@ 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cloak

Heya,

I've been told that you might want a cloak for IRC - do you want me to go ahead and grant you one, and if so, what is your IRC account? :-)

James F. (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)